The best way to improve umpiring - abolish consistency

[perfectionist]

The very people who complain about "over-umpiring" are the same people who two weeks before called for a rule change because they saw something they didn't like and, by and large, these people are our friends in the media. Unfortunately, the media requires content, content which demands your attention, content which promotes conflict, conflict which will require more content - so you can see how it goes. Headlines such as "Game in good shape - nothing to report" are unlikely to get the editor's go ahead. "Crisis in AFL rules debacle" is far more likely.

When I first started going to the football at age 9 I took with me something, it seemed, that no-one at the ground had ever seen before - a copy of the rules. It never ceased to amaze me that so many members of the crowd, including members of my own family (oh, the shame) had no idea of the rules at all. "Holding the ball" would be called en masse even if an opposition player was in a head lock.

The 60s saw significant rules changes - the flick pass we given the OK and then abolished. If the ball was kicked out on the full, it was a free. Most times, new rules are brought in at the start of a season, but not always. I can remember being at the MCG during the 1968 season on the day that players on the mark were required to throw the ball back to the player awarded a free or mark on the full if they had it. The Saints players got the memo, the Melbourne players did not. We won the game because of it. Three decades later, I was at Windy Hill watching an Essendon V West Coast game in the 80s. West Coast were flying high with their run and play on game. Sheedy decided to exploit the then 15 metre penalty rule. Any WC on the back line was run into the fence, had the ball thrown twenty metres over his head or any other such ploy to stop the game and drag a 15 metre penalty. Fifteen metres on the back line was a small price to pay to stop their run. The crowd and WC players were perplexed, but not for long. Essendon won easily. The penalty was increased to 50 metres.

There has been an exponential increase in rules or new interpretations, in the last decade. Once again, many supporters - and players - don't know some of them. In 2018, the "Last Disposal Out of Bounds" rule was introduced, i.e. players are penalised with a free kick if they kick or handball the ball over the boundary line without it being touched by an opposition player. This was modified in 2019 to only operate within the 50 metre arcs. Players still look perplexed when a free is paid against them claiming that it wasn't deliberate. It no longer has to be.

Back in 1969, I trained to be an umpire, attending sessions during school holidays run by the (then) VFL by former umpire Jack Irving. A young up and coming umpire, Bill Deller, was also in attendance. I decided to model my umpiring on what I had seen from Bill Deller, who I thought the best even at that time. He didn't pay "tiggy touchwood" frees. His guiding principle was "Did the action put the player out of the contest?" That is, if the action was incidental or minor, then play on. If the action took the opponent out of the contest, then a free is paid. Of course, there are some frees that have to be paid regardless, like throws. And doesn't that rule work well today? As an aside, the only way you can get "consistency" in that rule would be to remove it altogether and allow throws. It would certainly speed up the game.

Today, frees are paid if the the umpire sees a thread of an opponent's jumper pulled, even though it made no difference to the contest - the drive to consistency. Of course, if the umpire doesn't see it, it is not paid. And the umpire may not see it because it is so minor as to not change the path of the player. Ruckmen cannot make contact with their opponent until the ball is in the air after a throw in. But then, it seems to be a free for all, with pushing, grabbing and shepherding simply let go. Frees to ruckmen at centre bounces are equally perplexing.

Trying to get "consistency" for a particular rule is bound to lead to inconsistencies within the rules. Very minor breaches are penalised for one rule, while almost anything goes (throwing the ball) for others. Alas, stripping back the rules to a guiding principle "Was the player put out of the contest?" seems unlikely. By making the umpire's job "easier" we have simply made it harder. It's a lot easier to be an abuser from the fence than the person with the whistle although, in all honesty, that has been the case for a long time.

[The_Dud]

As Wayne Campbell said in his article, the biggest problem is most supporters don't know the rules, which is clearly evident if you spend any time on here or at a game of footy.

[saynta]

As Wayne Campbell said in his article, the biggest problem is most supporters don't know the rules, which is clearly evident if you spend any time on here or at a game of footy.

What an arrogant ridiculous comment.

[The_Dud]

Case in point.

[saynta]

Case in point.

Yea, I was referring to you Dudley. We already knew about Campbell.

[The_Dud]

Imagine thinking you knew more about football and umpiring than someone who was a 297 game AFL veteran, club captain, and former National Umpiring Director.

[cwrcyn]

Just pay every free kick. The players will have to adjust. If you take on a tackler and you're wrapped up it's holding the ball. Simple. Get rid of prior opportunity. No more 360 degree turns while you're being held. A push in the back is a push in the back. Just pay it.

A rule change I'd like to see is any kick that goes out of bounds without being touched is a free kick. It will reduce stoppages. Also, if there is a stoppage close to the boundary, get the boundary umpire to throw it in

[CURLY]

Just pay every free kick. The players will have to adjust. If you take on a tackler and you're wrapped up it's holding the ball. Simple. Get rid of prior opportunity. No more 360 degree turns while you're being held. A push in the back is a push in the back. Just pay it.

A rule change I'd like to see is any kick that goes out of bounds without being touched is a free kick. It will reduce stoppages. Also, if there is a stoppage close to the boundary, get the boundary umpire to throw it in

That rule exists umpires just pick and chose who they'll pay a free against. Bont, Pendles Pettracca get an eternity.

[skeptic]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

[The_Dud]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

Aren't you describing what the rule already is?

[skeptic]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

Aren't you describing what the rule already is?

I don’t think so. At the moment, it appears not to matter if you properly get rid of the ball after being tackled and have prior.
For example, if you pick it up, shrug off a tackle, then get tackled, go down and handball it into space, that’s holding the ball

[The_Dud]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

Aren't you describing what the rule already is?

I don’t think so. At the moment, it appears not to matter if you properly get rid of the ball after being tackled and have prior.
For example, if you pick it up, shrug off a tackle, then get tackled, go down and handball it into space, that’s holding the ball

I think there's got to be a set time limit for them to get rid of it legally after they're tackled.

[skeptic]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

Aren't you describing what the rule already is?

I don’t think so. At the moment, it appears not to matter if you properly get rid of the ball after being tackled and have prior.
For example, if you pick it up, shrug off a tackle, then get tackled, go down and handball it into space, that’s holding the ball

I think there's got to be a set time limit for them to get rid of it legally after they're tackled.

I respectfully disagree.

If the tackle doesn’t impact the player’s ability to get rid of the ball and doesn’t result in a stoppage… what exactly is the ball carrier getting penalised for?

It doesn’t make sense. It’s why that rule is so frustrating.

I remember this example from years. Saints player had the ball, the got tackled, the Essendon player had their jumper and was swinging the them around.
The player held the ball… held it… held it pass the screams of BALL and then released a jet like handball to another Saint running by.

The player got pinged and I couldn’t understand what for. There was an ineffective tackle that failed to bring on a stoppage and did not in anyway shape or form impact the players ability to dispose of it.

The time limit highlights that a tackle has been laid. The point of the rule is that a player needs to get rid of the ball when tackled so that they can’t just hold onto and slow the game down with stoppage after stoppage.

It doesn’t make sense if there’s no stoppage. What are you rewarding/penalising?

[The_Dud]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

Aren't you describing what the rule already is?

I don’t think so. At the moment, it appears not to matter if you properly get rid of the ball after being tackled and have prior.
For example, if you pick it up, shrug off a tackle, then get tackled, go down and handball it into space, that’s holding the ball

I think there's got to be a set time limit for them to get rid of it legally after they're tackled.

I respectfully disagree.

If the tackle doesn’t impact the player’s ability to get rid of the ball and doesn’t result in a stoppage… what exactly is the ball carrier getting penalised for?

It doesn’t make sense. It’s why that rule is so frustrating.

I remember this example from years. Saints player had the ball, the got tackled, the Essendon player had their jumper and was swinging the them around.
The player held the ball… held it… held it pass the screams of BALL and then released a jet like handball to another Saint running by.

The player got pinged and I couldn’t understand what for. There was an ineffective tackle that failed to bring on a stoppage and did not in anyway shape or form impact the players ability to dispose of it.

The time limit highlights that a tackle has been laid. The point of the rule is that a player needs to get rid of the ball when tackled so that they can’t just hold onto and slow the game down with stoppage after stoppage.

It doesn’t make sense if there’s no stoppage. What are you rewarding/penalising?

But here comes more grey-area, when is it a 'stoppage'?

A player breaks a tackle, but the next bloke gets him and drags him to the ground and pins the ball, the player with the ball is trying to get rid of it and the tackler is trying to prevent him from doing so. After 5 seconds of trying maybe he gets rid of it legally, or maybe after 10 seconds. But that would be ridiculous to let it go so long, so there has to be a set time limit.

I think the umps just have to do there best and we just have to accept mistakes will be made (though a lot less are made than fans think). Swings and roundabouts, some days it goes your way and some days it doesn't. No sport in the world is umpired to perfection. Look at something like the NFL, countless refs on the field and extensive video review systems, and still mistakes are made. Its just a part of sport.

[skeptic]

To me… it makes sense to just change the holding the ball rule.

If a player gets run down after having prior opportunity, but they’re still able to correctly dispose of the ball, it doesn’t make sense to pay holding the ball. Holding the ball should be quite literally, when they can get rid of it but they don’t leading to a ball up… or they dispose of it incorrectly.

Player A gets the ball… has no prior opportunity at all, gets tackled and drops it should equal play on unless they throw it.

If they have prior opportunity but don’t get rid of it or do so incorrectly, ping them but it only works if the tackle stops them from being able to do so.
Makes no sense for example, to run a player down from behind, tackle them around the waist, bring them down but they still get a clean handball away.
If the tackle doesn’t stop play (or lead to incorrect disposal), what has it achieved?

That IMO would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about what is an isn’t prior opportunity. At the moment, they just kind of decide when it has been long enough without an actual, clear matrix that says what is/isn’t

Aren't you describing what the rule already is?

I don’t think so. At the moment, it appears not to matter if you properly get rid of the ball after being tackled and have prior.
For example, if you pick it up, shrug off a tackle, then get tackled, go down and handball it into space, that’s holding the ball

I think there's got to be a set time limit for them to get rid of it legally after they're tackled.

I respectfully disagree.

If the tackle doesn’t impact the player’s ability to get rid of the ball and doesn’t result in a stoppage… what exactly is the ball carrier getting penalised for?

It doesn’t make sense. It’s why that rule is so frustrating.

I remember this example from years. Saints player had the ball, the got tackled, the Essendon player had their jumper and was swinging the them around.
The player held the ball… held it… held it pass the screams of BALL and then released a jet like handball to another Saint running by.

The player got pinged and I couldn’t understand what for. There was an ineffective tackle that failed to bring on a stoppage and did not in anyway shape or form impact the players ability to dispose of it.

The time limit highlights that a tackle has been laid. The point of the rule is that a player needs to get rid of the ball when tackled so that they can’t just hold onto and slow the game down with stoppage after stoppage.

It doesn’t make sense if there’s no stoppage. What are you rewarding/penalising?

But here comes more grey-area, when is it a 'stoppage'?

A player breaks a tackle, but the next bloke gets him and drags him to the ground and pins the ball, the player with the ball is trying to get rid of it and the tackler is trying to prevent him from doing so. After 5 seconds of trying maybe he gets rid of it legally, or maybe after 10 seconds. But that would be ridiculous to let it go so long, so there has to be a set time limit.

I think the umps just have to do there best and we just have to accept mistakes will be made (though a lot less are made than fans think). Swings and roundabouts, some days it goes your way and some days it doesn't. No sport in the world is umpired to perfection. Look at something like the NFL, countless refs on the field and extensive video review systems, and still mistakes are made. Its just a part of sport.

I would argue that there’s less room for discretion in the scenario I described but I get your point. Personally have no issues with the umps making mistakes at all… umpires call is umpires call IMO
Am not one of the ppl that’s still crying foul that Hawkins goal in 09 GF cost us the game wah wah wah… there’s generally good and bad calls both ways most matches

My overall point is that I think ambiguity in the rules is what leads to a lot of inconsistency. To me it just needs to be clear cut and the umps pay the really obvious ones. Like the old deliberate out of bounds rule… as long as you didn’t generally aim directly for the boundary it was fine 90% of the time with the odd howler

[sunsaint]

The player held the ball… held it… held it pass the screams of BALL and then released a jet like handball to another Saint running by.

I thiink you explained exactly why he got penalised
he held held it held it - but your claim the tackle was ineffectual is incorrect s the player was impeded

the time "limit" for holding the ball is where the inconsistency comes into it
remember when you got slung in 360 tackle - you used to be gone regardless of time- that has now extended to giving the player a chance to dispose
and differs greatly from a player with clear and "lengthy" possession getting run down in a tackle

[skeptic]

The player held the ball… held it… held it pass the screams of BALL and then released a jet like handball to another Saint running by.

I thiink you explained exactly why he got penalised
he held held it held it - but your claim the tackle was ineffectual is incorrect s the player was impeded

the time "limit" for holding the ball is where the inconsistency comes into it
remember when you got slung in 360 tackle - you used to be gone regardless of time- that has now extended to giving the player a chance to dispose
and differs greatly from a player with clear and "lengthy" possession getting run down in a tackle

Sure. Just to be clear, I understand why he was pinged in the context of how the rules are currently interpreted.

What I’m saying is that whilst he was impeded, at no point was he ever unable to get rid of the ball and At no point would this have been a ball up.
The player rode the tackle and held onto the ball until an option came that he wanted to pass to. The tackle itself was completely ineffective… grabbed him by the jumper and unsuccessfully tried to pull him down.

IMO and only my opinion, it doesn’t make sense to penalise there