Umpires

[GSG]

The whole umpire topic intrigues me a lot.

Umpires would have grown up barracking for a team as passionately as we do, and, as most of us, they would have had teams they quite like, couldn’t care less about it, or really dislike.

Can an umpire be totally unbiased when umpiring their own team? Is it wrong to assume that subconsciously (or consciously) an umpire can find more free kicks against a team he dislikes, or overlooks frees for them?

I am sure they do their best to put all bias aside, but does it always work, considering Australian Rules Football would have to be one of the most difficult games to umpire. Many rules are subject to interpretation, e.g. the 15m rule to name one.

Any thoughts on this?

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Unless they're perfect then these things are certainly possible/probable. Like how Schneider hasn't gotten a free kick since he clapped them last year and how Milne nearly needs to be decapitated to get a free kick. They are certainly not perfect, like probably all of us, except perhaps p66.

[mullet]

I think that the umpires should be made more accountable for their decisions. To do this I think they should really break down the free kicks. ie how many were play on advantage, how many stopped the play, how many were in the forward 50, midfield, etc. How many frees per team per quarter. How many frees in a row.

I think if there were more stats on the frees then the umpires may be under a bit more scrutiny. As it is they just walk away at the end of the day with a number like 20-19 frees, doesnt break it down enough.

Just my opinion

[BigMart]

Umpiring was fine....one noticeable free to Hayes missed....and one soft one High Tackle on Rodan...

[plugger66]

I think that the umpires should be made more accountable for their decisions. To do this I think they should really break down the free kicks. ie how many were play on advantage, how many stopped the play, how many were in the forward 50, midfield, etc. How many frees per team per quarter. How many frees in a row.

I think if there were more stats on the frees then the umpires may be under a bit more scrutiny. As it is they just walk away at the end of the day with a number like 20-19 frees, doesnt break it down enough.

Just my opinion

So you are saying they would umpire better if we saw their mistakes in the paper. Why isnt Kosi playing better then?

[saintbrat]

Umpiring was fine....one noticeable free to Hayes missed....and one soft one High Tackle on Rodan...

the ball being shovelled through for point?

[plugger66]

Umpiring was fine....one noticeable free to Hayes missed....and one soft one High Tackle on Rodan...

the ball being shovelled through for point?

Correct decision.

[Eastern]

I know the umpires bosses keep stats on Missed & Unwarranted Free Kicks. It would be an interesting debate as to whether these should be made public or not. I believe they should be. Every other aspect of the game is scrutinised

On umpires umpiring teams they supported as kids, I would think think that sub-conciencly they would be a little bit harder on "their" team.

Umpires are part of the game. I don't praise them when we win. I don't bag them (much) when we lose !!

[Eastern]

Umpiring was fine....one noticeable free to Hayes missed....and one soft one High Tackle on Rodan...

the ball being shovelled through for point?

Correct decision.

It would be interesting to get the "Official" answer on this one. The way it has divided opinion suggests that the rule is pretty weak !!

[mullet]

I think that the umpires should be made more accountable for their decisions. To do this I think they should really break down the free kicks. ie how many were play on advantage, how many stopped the play, how many were in the forward 50, midfield, etc. How many frees per team per quarter. How many frees in a row.

I think if there were more stats on the frees then the umpires may be under a bit more scrutiny. As it is they just walk away at the end of the day with a number like 20-19 frees, doesnt break it down enough.

Just my opinion

So you are saying they would umpire better if we saw their mistakes in the paper. Why isnt Kosi playing better then?

I dont think anywhere I mentioned their mistakes being highlighted in the paper. Point is if there is more scrutiny on the umpiring then if there is a 50/50 decision then they may say play on rather than guessing. I would rather a play on decision any day than a guess. May also stop supporters whinging if they can see exactly where the frees were paid, they may not feel so hard done by once they read the facts.

The players have statistics for everything, including their mistakes. Its all about accountability. Would think that if a person chose to be an umpire they would like to do the best job they can just like everyone else which means analysing your performance.

Original post asked for thoughts, this is mine, I dont give a rats what anyone thinks, as if my opinion is going to change anything .

[GSG]

[
On umpires umpiring teams they supported as kids, I would think think that sub-conciencly they would be a little bit harder on "their" team.


Good point Eastern. I remember (quite a while ago) at shool, somtimes it happened that the teacher had his/her own child in the class. They always seem to be harder on their own children.

[saint66au]

Luke Darcy (who is on the rules committee) has been saying since its inception that the players have far more leeway on this rule than they have been displaying. It was designed to combat the "walk over the line" deliberate points. Any sort of pressure and the umpire will give you the benefit of the doubt if you rush it through.

As for umpires being biased towards teams they barracked for..even subconsciously..what nonsense IMO. What are we supposed to do? Hire umpires who hated footy growing up? Do young players tank when they play the teams they supported as kids?

[plugger66]

Luke Darcy (who is on the rules committee) has been saying since its inception that the players have far more leeway on this rule than they have been displaying. It was designed to combat the "walk over the line" deliberate points. Any sort of pressure and the umpire will give you the benefit of the doubt if you rush it through.

As for umpires being biased towards teams they barracked for..even subconsciously..what nonsense IMO. What are we supposed to do? Hire umpires who hated footy growing up? Do young players tank when they play the teams they supported as kids?

Kosi did follow Port Adelaide as a kid.

[GSG]

As for umpires being biased towards teams they barracked for..even subconsciously..what nonsense IMO. What are we supposed to do? Hire umpires who hated footy growing up? Do young players tank when they play the teams they supported as kids?

In soccer, e.g. European Championship, game between, say, Germany and England, the referee has to be neutral, i.e. cannot be either German nor English to avoid any bias. And I’m sure any referee would insist they try not to be biased.

So does this mean that these referees are more susceptible to bias than our AFL umpires?

Now obviously, here in AFL, it’s totally impossible to have “neutral umpiresâ€

[Kate]

Standard of umpiring is one area of the game that has shoewed little improvement.

I think the standard was better in the eighties when they seemed more accountable. If an umpire seemed to put in a bad one you could watch to see if they got a gig the following week.

As a supporter you could take solace from the knowledge that a dud umpire would be freezing his backside off in the bush the following week.

[BallBanger]

I think that the umpires should be made more accountable for their decisions. To do this I think they should really break down the free kicks. ie how many were play on advantage, how many stopped the play, how many were in the forward 50, midfield, etc. How many frees per team per quarter. How many frees in a row.

I think if there were more stats on the frees then the umpires may be under a bit more scrutiny. As it is they just walk away at the end of the day with a number like 20-19 frees, doesnt break it down enough.

Just my opinion

So you are saying they would umpire better if we saw their mistakes in the paper. Why isnt Kosi playing better then?

I dont think anywhere I mentioned their mistakes being highlighted in the paper. Point is if there is more scrutiny on the umpiring then if there is a 50/50 decision then they may say play on rather than guessing. I would rather a play on decision any day than a guess. May also stop supporters whinging if they can see exactly where the frees were paid, they may not feel so hard done by once they read the facts.

The players have statistics for everything, including their mistakes. Its all about accountability. Would think that if a person chose to be an umpire they would like to do the best job they can just like everyone else which means analysing your performance.

Original post asked for thoughts, this is mine, I dont give a rats what anyone thinks, as if my opinion is going to change anything .

Several years ago we were thrashed by crows at telstra dome and umpire number 6 gave them (crows) everything and did not pay soft ones against them.
I was with an adelaide friend who laughed his head off.
I searched the internet to try and find out where he was from (afl site now has this info) and could not find it..

Late in the year this ump was umpiring crows in perth and the perth commentator was really making an issue on the adelaide ump favours..
Of course it happens...ever watch how the umps in basketball/cricket favour the home state..why do you think they brought mutual umps in test cricket.

Umps are allowed to get away with it because every contest you can select a free then constitute it then reverse argue the following decision so theoretically they have not made a mistake just been very inconsistant which is not looked at.

Don't listen to p66 he is full of it

[mullet]

Standard of umpiring is one area of the game that has shoewed little improvement.

I think the standard was better in the eighties when they seemed more accountable. If an umpire seemed to put in a bad one you could watch to see if they got a gig the following week.

As a supporter you could take solace from the knowledge that a dud umpire would be freezing his backside off in the bush the following week.

Yep they are certainly untouchable now. Lets face it we all make mistakes and have rotten days at the office where we are accountable for our performance. Why arent they accountable. I am sure our whole team will be sat down and their mistakes highlighted as well as all the things they did well. God knows Ross Lyon has a statistic for everything. Just think that Umpires should be made to do the same. Must be the only job in the world where a bad performance cannot be highlighted.

[plugger66]

Standard of umpiring is one area of the game that has shoewed little improvement.

I think the standard was better in the eighties when they seemed more accountable. If an umpire seemed to put in a bad one you could watch to see if they got a gig the following week.

As a supporter you could take solace from the knowledge that a dud umpire would be freezing his backside off in the bush the following week.

Yep they are certainly untouchable now. Lets face it we all make mistakes and have rotten days at the office where we are accountable for our performance. Why arent they accountable. I am sure our whole team will be sat down and their mistakes highlighted as well as all the things they did well. God knows Ross Lyon has a statistic for everything. Just think that Umpires should be made to do the same. Must be the only job in the world where a bad performance cannot be highlighted.

Id be 100% sure that happens.

[SaintWal]

Went to school with Steve McBurney, mad saints fan back in the day. I don't see any bias either way in his decision making.

[mordi]

In a game where Port only scored 7 goals, the decision to Rodan was extremely damaging. Gave them a goal out of nothing ( ie it was clearly not a free), and changed the flow of the game. PLus the one against Gwilt....tackled, ball released....he's being held, ball clearly visable on ground next to him...decison , holding the ball, WTF.

Problem is umpires (or more precise the umpires coach) seem immune to challenge/questions etc. The view seems to be everything is always OK, no problems. When was the last time you heard them come out and acknowledge errors? It is the AFL approach generally, everything is always just rosy........

[Bernard Shakey]

The only problem with umpiring is when they guess.

The Rodent free was a guess and it was a wrong guess.
Could have cost us the game, but it was in the first half.

Any umpire who guesses should be sent bush next week, as they were when real footy was played.

[Spinner]

The only problem with umpiring is when they guess.

The Rodent free was a guess and it was a wrong guess.
Could have cost us the game, but it was in the first half.

Any umpire who guesses should be sent bush next week, as they were when real footy was played.

Correctomundo!


Or when they let an earlier incident affect or influence the next one....Its a subconscious thing, but it happens....And its annoying.

[meher baba]

I think the umpiring standards are low ATM, but only biased in the sense that - like the courts in this country - umpires will tend to give a bit more leeway to the "underdog" and a bit less to the "tall poppies".

Oh, and there is a particularly marked tendency among AFL umps (compared to officials in other sports I watch) to be influenced by the crowd.

Why is the standard so low? I have banged on about this before, so I'll be brief, but I believe they have been encouraged to see themselves as stars in their own right, rather than just as humble servants of the game. In other sports, officials are trained to try to forget the names of teams and players and think of them as colours and numbers. In AFL, they are encouraged to call the players by the nicknames and engage in chitchat FFS!! We even occasionally hear them through their bloody mikes trying to make jokes or even offer commentary on the play. Absolutely bloody ridiculous IMO.

End of rant.

[bozza1980]

Luke Darcy (who is on the rules committee) has been saying since its inception that the players have far more leeway on this rule than they have been displaying. It was designed to combat the "walk over the line" deliberate points. Any sort of pressure and the umpire will give you the benefit of the doubt if you rush it through.

You are probably right, but what player is going to rush a behind under no pressure?? Even the walked behinds (apart from Joel Bowden's from a couple of years ago) it could be argued that the player was under pressure.

What I think is interesting is, that had he hit the behind post with his rushed behind the umpire would have had no choice but to penalise him for deliberate out of bounds, yet he achieves his aim of rushing a behind, which is against the rules too and it's play on.

The rule was a pathetic knee jerk reaction and now it's not even being enforced. Weak.

[plugger66]

Luke Darcy (who is on the rules committee) has been saying since its inception that the players have far more leeway on this rule than they have been displaying. It was designed to combat the "walk over the line" deliberate points. Any sort of pressure and the umpire will give you the benefit of the doubt if you rush it through.

You are probably right, but what player is going to rush a behind under no pressure?? Even the walked behinds (apart from Joel Bowden's from a couple of years ago) it could be argued that the player was under pressure.

What I think is interesting is, that had he hit the behind post with his rushed behind the umpire would have had no choice but to penalise him for deliberate out of bounds, yet he achieves his aim of rushing a behind, which is against the rules too and it's play on.

The rule was a pathetic knee jerk reaction and now it's not even being enforced. Weak.

It has done 100% what it was designed to do and that was stop the walk over behind. I suppose the other option is to get rid of it and we can see those great walk over behinds again.