Incompetent umpiring

[BigMart]

So he had no input???

Why is he paid again???

I don't care of your his brothers uncles best friends accountant.... Good on you

And rooey

I could have made a case for him not moving well 12 months ago, don't worry about R1..... 10 years at CHF will do that......

His hamstring/knee injury has obviously slowed him, only have to look at his output over 29 matches since..... Not bad, but not what he was...... Why?? Perhaps injuries have taken their toll
BTW as I said..... 80% of N.Riewoldt is better than 80% of key Fwds in the AFL

But then again you have know idea.... So why bother

[kosifantutti]

So he had no input???

Why is he paid again???

I don't care of your his brothers uncles best friends accountant.... Good on you

And rooey

I could have made a case for him not moving well 12 months ago, don't worry about R1..... 10 years at CHF will do that......

His hamstring/knee injury has obviously slowed him, only have to look at his output over 29 matches since..... Not bad, but not what he was...... Why?? Perhaps injuries have taken their toll
BTW as I said..... 80% of N.Riewoldt is better than 80% of key Fwds in the AFL

But then again you have know idea.... So why bother

Have you blokes thought about starting your own forum?

I can't work out how the recruitment of Cripps, Roo's knee and the name of Bevo's daughter have anything to do with incompetent umpiring.

[kosifantutti]

It should be said that the added degree of difficulty associated with recently introduced rules, and the insistence of rules that adjudicate not on what an umpires sees, but what is believes was the intent of the player, makes umpiring much more difficult than it should be.

What would be wrong with making the game easier to umpire?

So every defender under a bit of pressure could dribble the ball out of play or handball it out.

Every time a player gets locked up in a tackle it would be holding the ball because the umpire can't judge what a player's intent was.

I reckon it would be a much uglier game.

[plugger66]

So he had no input???

Why is he paid again???

I don't care of your his brothers uncles best friends accountant.... Good on you

And rooey

I could have made a case for him not moving well 12 months ago, don't worry about R1..... 10 years at CHF will do that......

His hamstring/knee injury has obviously slowed him, only have to look at his output over 29 matches since..... Not bad, but not what he was...... Why?? Perhaps injuries have taken their toll
BTW as I said..... 80% of N.Riewoldt is better than 80% of key Fwds in the AFL

But then again you have know idea.... So why bother

Again you miss the point. A person blamed Bevo for recruiting Cripps. I said he wasnt to blame. You then chimed in for no reason to tell he is still employed. Big deal. So is Michael Nettlefold. And you miss the point about Rooy as per usual. After round one, yes round one, you said he was basically gone because he couldnt run. Moved like a super rules player and you could somehow tell that off TV when they never show the leads and releads. It was crap. Then you say the next few weeks will see how he is going. Make up your mind. Far to easy.

[Life Long Saint]

Absolutely spot on.

A classic example of this is the deliberate out of bounds rule. A player can deliberately take the ball out of bounds as long as he demonstrates to the umpire somehow that he didn't mean to. So the umpire is effectively judging the players acting ability. This happens dozens of times a week, and everyone knows that the players intention is to kill the ball, but if he pretends he is fumbling it's allowed.

The umpire shouldn't have to judge the players intent. Simplify the rule.

And how could you do that? Interpretation is a huge thing in our game. Always has been and always will.

It doesn't have to be, Plugger! Scrap the rule altogether...Or pay everything. Take the intent out of the equation.

The AFL want to slow the game down but don't want stoppages. It's counter productive.

Our game could be so much better if we got rid of some of the rules that make us frustrated with the umpiring.
1. The deliberate OOB rule as mentioned above...Throw in the deliberate point rule too. Talk about creating a problem with a needless rule!
2. Why does it matter who takes the free kick for an out of bounds on the full? Why should it be the nearest player? More often than not, it will be but far too often you see the umpire take the ball from a player that is ready to kick only to call another player over that is 30m+ from the play so he can kick it. Stupid! As long as the kick is taken within a 10s time frame who really cares?
3. Why does the player need to wait for the umpire to set the mark again for a 50m penalty? In the days of the 15m penalty, the player always had the option to play on. If the player runs ahead of the umpire going to set the mark then play on should be called.
4. Our biggest goal umpiring issue would go away with a simple rule change. If the ball snicks the post on the way through but still goes through for a goal then it's a goal. Only pay the smaller amount when the ball hits the post and comes back in to play.

[plugger66]

Absolutely spot on.

A classic example of this is the deliberate out of bounds rule. A player can deliberately take the ball out of bounds as long as he demonstrates to the umpire somehow that he didn't mean to. So the umpire is effectively judging the players acting ability. This happens dozens of times a week, and everyone knows that the players intention is to kill the ball, but if he pretends he is fumbling it's allowed.

The umpire shouldn't have to judge the players intent. Simplify the rule.

And how could you do that? Interpretation is a huge thing in our game. Always has been and always will.

It doesn't have to be, Plugger! Scrap the rule altogether...Or pay everything. Take the intent out of the equation.

The AFL want to slow the game down but don't want stoppages. It's counter productive.

Our game could be so much better if we got rid of some of the rules that make us frustrated with the umpiring.
1. The deliberate OOB rule as mentioned above...Throw in the deliberate point rule too. Talk about creating a problem with a needless rule!
2. Why does it matter who takes the free kick for an out of bounds on the full? Why should it be the nearest player? More often than not, it will be but far too often you see the umpire take the ball from a player that is ready to kick only to call another player over that is 30m+ from the play so he can kick it. Stupid! As long as the kick is taken within a 10s time frame who really cares?
3. Why does the player need to wait for the umpire to set the mark again for a 50m penalty? In the days of the 15m penalty, the player always had the option to play on. If the player runs ahead of the umpire going to set the mark then play on should be called.
4. Our biggest goal umpiring issue would go away with a simple rule change. If the ball snicks the post on the way through but still goes through for a goal then it's a goal. Only pay the smaller amount when the ball hits the post and comes back in to play.

Sorry but if they got rid of delibrate out of bounds the game would be pathetic. Players would go to the boundary even more than they do now. You also need to set the mark otherwise some players could just about get a 100 metre penalty on some occasions. And our game has points so hiting the post is point and so it should be. Not many if any other games have a lowere scoring system so they have to pay a goal or it would be nothing. Dont mind the idea of anyone taking the free but really it is hardly an issue.

[bergholt]

And our game has points so hiting the post is point and so it should be.

nah, that's crap. it's just an arbitrary rule, there's no reason that you couldn't just judge on where the ball ends up. if it hits the post and goes through the goals then it's a goal, if it bounces back into play then keep playing. not complicated at all in effect and simplifies the work of the umpires.

the fewer weird, baroque rules the game can have, the better. i also reckon they should get rid of the rule where if no-one touches a kick-out from full-back then it's a free kick. it's just an unnecessary rule in this day and age.

[Life Long Saint]

It doesn't have to be, Plugger! Scrap the rule altogether...Or pay everything. Take the intent out of the equation.

The AFL want to slow the game down but don't want stoppages. It's counter productive.

Our game could be so much better if we got rid of some of the rules that make us frustrated with the umpiring.
1. The deliberate OOB rule as mentioned above...Throw in the deliberate point rule too. Talk about creating a problem with a needless rule!
2. Why does it matter who takes the free kick for an out of bounds on the full? Why should it be the nearest player? More often than not, it will be but far too often you see the umpire take the ball from a player that is ready to kick only to call another player over that is 30m+ from the play so he can kick it. Stupid! As long as the kick is taken within a 10s time frame who really cares?
3. Why does the player need to wait for the umpire to set the mark again for a 50m penalty? In the days of the 15m penalty, the player always had the option to play on. If the player runs ahead of the umpire going to set the mark then play on should be called.
4. Our biggest goal umpiring issue would go away with a simple rule change. If the ball snicks the post on the way through but still goes through for a goal then it's a goal. Only pay the smaller amount when the ball hits the post and comes back in to play.

Sorry but if they got rid of delibrate out of bounds the game would be pathetic. Players would go to the boundary even more than they do now. You also need to set the mark otherwise some players could just about get a 100 metre penalty on some occasions. And our game has points so hiting the post is point and so it should be. Not many if any other games have a lowere scoring system so they have to pay a goal or it would be nothing. Dont mind the idea of anyone taking the free but really it is hardly an issue.

The game would not be "pathetic" for removing the deliberate OOB rule...If you're worried about it then pay them all...I am merely removing the responsibility for the umpire to be a mind reader and for the rule to be applied consistently. Too often the AFL bring in a rule change that doesn't improve the game at all.
You clearly missed the part where I said that "If the player runs ahead of the umpire going to set the mark then play on should be called"... The umpire would still go and set the mark because there are clearly times when a player would want to take the 50m penalty...especially if it leads to a shot at goal.
Just because a rule "makes our game unique" doesn't mean that it is a good rule. With all the scrutiny on umpires (and goal umpires especially) sometimes the best solution is actually the easiest solution. Rather than implementing technology to help rule on decisions a minor rule change would (for once) make the umpires life simpler and the game delay free.

For years we only had two boundary umpires. Twenty years ago I was at a sportsmans night and asked one of the high profile umpires of the day that it is time we had four boundary umpires as the play had become that quick that they were stuggling to keep up. He disagreed stating some garbage about the quality of umpires would decrease because you would have more of them...Well...It only took the AFL 20 years to acknowledge and rectify the situation.

Rather than making the umpires task simpler in a demanding, fast paced, high pressure situation, the AFL are making it harder and, therefore, more frustrating for the footy fan.

AFL is supposed to be the people's game...but never has an organisation refused to listen to its major stakeholders like the AFL. Coaches, players, administrators all come and go but the fans are the ones that pay the money, attend the games and provide the TV networks with their high ratings...Yet we are never listened to.

[plugger66]

And our game has points so hiting the post is point and so it should be.

nah, that's crap. it's just an arbitrary rule, there's no reason that you couldn't just judge on where the ball ends up. if it hits the post and goes through the goals then it's a goal, if it bounces back into play then keep playing. not complicated at all in effect and simplifies the work of the umpires.

the fewer weird, baroque rules the game can have, the better. i also reckon they should get rid of the rule where if no-one touches a kick-out from full-back then it's a free kick. it's just an unnecessary rule in this day and age.

They tried the point hitting the post and coming back into play in the pre season. I dont think it worked. Obviously that is my opinion and I am sure many others would disagree. And i reckon in todays footy where the skills are so good if you got rid of kicking out from a point and not touching it, players would bail out to the boundary more often than they do now. people complain about playing along the boundary as it is. That would add to it as would the other poster saying get rid of deliberate. That rule must always stay and we can have last man who touched it gets a free against. Again that just didnt work as shown in pre season.

[Thinline]

Extra field ump.

That is all.

[ThePunter]

The holding the ball rule is a reasonably simple rule adjudicated poorly, with umpires having an tendency to make decisions when they are not in a good position to see a player trying to get rid of the ball.

The rule is thus:

If you are tackled before having prior opporunity to dispose, you must attempt to dispose, but if you are prevented from doing it legally by the tackle, it is play on.

If you are tackled after having prior opportunity to dispose, you must dispose of the ball legally, regardless of the effect of the tackler or other people.

There is no rule called "dropping the ball" and never has been.

The deliberate rushed behind rule works, but part of the reason it was introduced was to stop a team like Hawthorn, with all their great backline kicks, getting what is essentially a free kick in their backline through rushing a behind. Not letting the player who rushed the behind kick the ball in would have slowed down the game and taken away most of the advantage from rushing a behind and kicking the ball in quickly. This situation was created by the AFL anyway when they let teams kick the ball in before the flags were waived by the goal umpire, a decision made at the altar of "speeding up the game".

Almost no decisions in soccer are made based on the intent of the player. I would suggest that before the 1970s, footy umpires were in almost the same situation, so the tradition argument is hokum.

[ozrulestrace]

Pure and simple-bring back "What's Your Decision?" that used to be on "World of Sport" in the olden days.
I can still remember an umpire who said quite honestly "I'm not sure why I paid that decision" and he didn't go to hell or Manangatang Thirds for being honest.
Now he'd be dropped or protected by a waffling Geischen whose answers leave us no clear about the current interpretation of a rule.

[matrix]

[BigMart]

Do you realize how arrogant "far too easy" sounds..... Absolute tosser

Michael Nettlfold.... Yeah good example, if his role was recruiting adviser???

Riewoldt..... Would you like me to use statistics to back up my argument???
He simply is not the athlete he was, are you even attempting to argue that???

And, did I say he was "finished" did I??? Don't let the truth get in they way of your argument....

He did not move at all well against Troy Chaplin who got votes whilst beating him, then he beat two hacks and did ok against mcpharlin.... Break even probably