Hate blaming Umpires but ........

[SuperDuper]

when a camera is following the game, and I am watching the game on a screen, then I am watching at the same time as the umpire. I can make a decision in exactly the same amount of time as an umpire can. How this combines with an umpires thoughts, and gets relayed to the players.. that is where technology comes in..
but there is no delay...

well.. there is delay between an umpire seeing something and blowing his whistle and then telling the player the decision, and we have all seen many cases of "advantage" being payed in a good and also a poor way, depending if other players have already stopped. but the delay of me watching on a screen and letting players know the decision can be just as small as the delay of an umpire wathing and letting them know. Maybe all players wear wrist bands? I dont know right now...


But to say that technology cannot ever enhance decision making within the same timescale as it takes to currently make decisions and relay them to players.. well I just think you may be wrong.. and all i am saying is that the AFL should be open to all possibilities, rather than taking your attitude of saying no to everything, even though you dont even know what the proposals may be.

[plugger66]

when a camera is following the game, and I am watching the game on a screen, then I am watching at the same time as the umpire. I can make a decision in exactly the same amount of time as an umpire can. How this combines with an umpires thoughts, and gets relayed to the players.. that is where technology comes in..
but there is no delay...

well.. there is delay between an umpire seeing something and blowing his whistle and then telling the player the decision, and we have all seen many cases of "advantage" being payed in a good and also a poor way, depending if other players have already stopped. but the delay of me watching on a screen and letting players know the decision can be just as small as the delay of an umpire wathing and letting them know. Maybe all players wear wrist bands? I dont know right now...


But to say that technology cannot ever enhance decision making within the same timescale as it takes to currently make decisions and relay them to players.. well I just think you may be wrong.. and all i am saying is that the AFL should be open to all possibilities, rather than taking your attitude of saying no to everything, even though you dont even know what the proposals may be.

Well I wont be around to say im wrong because I cant see them ever umpiring off a TV screen as well as umpires. For a start TV is not the way to watch footy because its a 360 degree game.

[SuperDuper]

when a camera is following the game, and I am watching the game on a screen, then I am watching at the same time as the umpire. I can make a decision in exactly the same amount of time as an umpire can. How this combines with an umpires thoughts, and gets relayed to the players.. that is where technology comes in..
but there is no delay...

well.. there is delay between an umpire seeing something and blowing his whistle and then telling the player the decision, and we have all seen many cases of "advantage" being payed in a good and also a poor way, depending if other players have already stopped. but the delay of me watching on a screen and letting players know the decision can be just as small as the delay of an umpire wathing and letting them know. Maybe all players wear wrist bands? I dont know right now...


But to say that technology cannot ever enhance decision making within the same timescale as it takes to currently make decisions and relay them to players.. well I just think you may be wrong.. and all i am saying is that the AFL should be open to all possibilities, rather than taking your attitude of saying no to everything, even though you dont even know what the proposals may be.

Well I wont be around to say im wrong because I cant see them ever umpiring off a TV screen as well as umpires. For a start TV is not the way to watch footy because its a 360 degree game.

well an umpire only gets one angle.. so I dont know what you mean by "360 degree game". Totally meaningless statement.

[plugger66]

when a camera is following the game, and I am watching the game on a screen, then I am watching at the same time as the umpire. I can make a decision in exactly the same amount of time as an umpire can. How this combines with an umpires thoughts, and gets relayed to the players.. that is where technology comes in..
but there is no delay...

well.. there is delay between an umpire seeing something and blowing his whistle and then telling the player the decision, and we have all seen many cases of "advantage" being payed in a good and also a poor way, depending if other players have already stopped. but the delay of me watching on a screen and letting players know the decision can be just as small as the delay of an umpire wathing and letting them know. Maybe all players wear wrist bands? I dont know right now...


But to say that technology cannot ever enhance decision making within the same timescale as it takes to currently make decisions and relay them to players.. well I just think you may be wrong.. and all i am saying is that the AFL should be open to all possibilities, rather than taking your attitude of saying no to everything, even though you dont even know what the proposals may be.

Well I wont be around to say im wrong because I cant see them ever umpiring off a TV screen as well as umpires. For a start TV is not the way to watch footy because its a 360 degree game.

well an umpire only gets one angle.. so I dont know what you mean by "360 degree game". Totally meaningless statement.

Isnt there 3 umpires? Do you think TV gives as good of a picture as being at the ground. I wouldnt think so. I umpire and have for many years and even with players in the way its better to be 15 metres from the play at ground level and relying on TV. If they were going to do it in any sport then rugby League would be the sport and even they don't do it. It wont happen IMO ever but if it does it wont be while im around. I don't think TV decisions are the way to improve the umpiring. Im unsure what can really ever be done to be honest. We have TV decisions for goals and we cant even get that right and that is when the play has stopped.

[SuperDuper]

when a camera is following the game, and I am watching the game on a screen, then I am watching at the same time as the umpire. I can make a decision in exactly the same amount of time as an umpire can. How this combines with an umpires thoughts, and gets relayed to the players.. that is where technology comes in..
but there is no delay...

well.. there is delay between an umpire seeing something and blowing his whistle and then telling the player the decision, and we have all seen many cases of "advantage" being payed in a good and also a poor way, depending if other players have already stopped. but the delay of me watching on a screen and letting players know the decision can be just as small as the delay of an umpire wathing and letting them know. Maybe all players wear wrist bands? I dont know right now...


But to say that technology cannot ever enhance decision making within the same timescale as it takes to currently make decisions and relay them to players.. well I just think you may be wrong.. and all i am saying is that the AFL should be open to all possibilities, rather than taking your attitude of saying no to everything, even though you dont even know what the proposals may be.

Well I wont be around to say im wrong because I cant see them ever umpiring off a TV screen as well as umpires. For a start TV is not the way to watch footy because its a 360 degree game.

well an umpire only gets one angle.. so I dont know what you mean by "360 degree game". Totally meaningless statement.

Isnt there 3 umpires? Do you think TV gives as good of a picture as being at the ground. I wouldnt think so. I umpire and have for many years and even with players in the way its better to be 15 metres from the play at ground level and relying on TV. If they were going to do it in any sport then rugby League would be the sport and even they don't do it. It wont happen IMO ever but if it does it wont be while im around. I don't think TV decisions are the way to improve the umpiring. Im unsure what can really ever be done to be honest. We have TV decisions for goals and we cant even get that right and that is when the play has stopped.

you know as well ias I plugger, that any single decision is 95% of the time make by a single umpire. The number of times umpires make long distance decisions is very small. Each has there own part of the ground, and only one viewing angle... anyway if you want to put your head in the sand.. fine by me

[gringo]

when a camera is following the game, and I am watching the game on a screen, then I am watching at the same time as the umpire. I can make a decision in exactly the same amount of time as an umpire can. How this combines with an umpires thoughts, and gets relayed to the players.. that is where technology comes in..
but there is no delay...

well.. there is delay between an umpire seeing something and blowing his whistle and then telling the player the decision, and we have all seen many cases of "advantage" being payed in a good and also a poor way, depending if other players have already stopped. but the delay of me watching on a screen and letting players know the decision can be just as small as the delay of an umpire wathing and letting them know. Maybe all players wear wrist bands? I dont know right now...


But to say that technology cannot ever enhance decision making within the same timescale as it takes to currently make decisions and relay them to players.. well I just think you may be wrong.. and all i am saying is that the AFL should be open to all possibilities, rather than taking your attitude of saying no to everything, even though you dont even know what the proposals may be.

Well I wont be around to say im wrong because I cant see them ever umpiring off a TV screen as well as umpires. For a start TV is not the way to watch footy because its a 360 degree game.

well an umpire only gets one angle.. so I dont know what you mean by "360 degree game". Totally meaningless statement.

Isnt there 3 umpires? Do you think TV gives as good of a picture as being at the ground. I wouldnt think so. I umpire and have for many years and even with players in the way its better to be 15 metres from the play at ground level and relying on TV. If they were going to do it in any sport then rugby League would be the sport and even they don't do it. It wont happen IMO ever but if it does it wont be while im around. I don't think TV decisions are the way to improve the umpiring. Im unsure what can really ever be done to be honest. We have TV decisions for goals and we cant even get that right and that is when the play has stopped.

They would have been rusty but that was horrible umpiring. No feel for the way the game was being played. Lenient sometimes excessive the next. The Rooey one had the boundary umpire and two field umpires nearby and they stuffed it up. If they didn't see it it was a miracle. I believe they knew it wasn't on purpose but don't know the rules. That or they were on the take. They decided a game by going to far one way. The AFL need to get better people if they are stuffing up. I would rather one good umpire than 3 s*** ones.

[CURLY]

To suggest umpire don't umpire differently towards different players or teams is foolish.

[Con Gorozidis]

Just watched the replay. And the umps did effect the outcome of the game. you pay the free to Lonie but dont pay the one to McCarthy and we win. Simple as that.
Now it could have easily gone that way and should have if you see the replay. Now I just hate having umps changing the result.

[saintspremiers]

Just watched the replay. And the umps did effect the outcome of the game. you pay the free to Lonie but dont pay the one to McCarthy and we win. Simple as that.
Now it could have easily gone that way and should have if you see the replay. Now I just hate having umps changing the result.

Would've helped but you can't say we would've won. I don't think we would've even been in front had that happened.

[Sainternist]

It was a dismal game for the umpires. But even more dismal for us in that we lost it by playing - as Tommy Hafey used to call it - dumb footy.

[saynta]

To suggest umpire don't umpire differently towards different players or teams is foolish.

I think it's fair to say that the top teams get a better run and that interstate umpires are swayed by one-eyed home crowds.

[saynta]

$10K - sh!t - if that is true we are all doomed, 1/4 of a million for 22 weeks umpiring and not being considered professional. That it - over - not interested in discussing this topic any further. If they got $30K between them for that display we are all screwed - 1/4 million and they serve up that crap - give me a break - they need to be held accountable for that sh!t, 1/4 million per annum - give me the f@rken stats as to missed frees, bad calls etc and f@rking dock their pay - this is highway robbery

Please Plugger do not tell me that you think todays performance warranted $10K????????

No I was wrong. They may have got 6-8K today. I reckon umpires deserve every cent. As I said I don't see what the AFL can do to make them better.

So the AFL just gives up? Let the umpires intrepret the rules differently from one contest to the next? Allow them to wreck games?

6-8k is way too much for those flogs, and 24, 25 and 31 umpired us today.

I'd be checking to make sure than none of their family or close friends are betting on the matches they're umpiring too. Too easy to turn your 1/4 million into one million.

[saintmont]

I was at the game lets say I was bewilded with some of there decision. It turn me off the game because I could not work out there decisions. And I came from Tassie to see this game.

[Sainter_Dad]

Just in the interest of being fair - I still think that there were significant issues last night, on both sides, from the umpires. The thing that really stands out is again the free kick count. We were slaughtering the Suns in all aspects of the game. Hardness, toughness and skill (in most respects), however still the free kick was still in their favour 19 - 17 (and three of those to us were 50 mtr frees). At half time they were 10 - 10. The Suns comeback seemed to be fuelled by a few dodgy decisions and non decisions.

On the plus side, it was great to see a free given to Riewoldt after Ablett just blatantly pushed him into the marking contest. I loved seeing the little weed yelling at the umpire. I cant lip read well, but it looked like he was saying "I am Gary Ablett, I can push whoever I like, there is nothing you can do about it."

[gringo]

Just in the interest of being fair - I still think that there were significant issues last night, on both sides, from the umpires. The thing that really stands out is again the free kick count. We were slaughtering the Suns in all aspects of the game. Hardness, toughness and skill (in most respects), however still the free kick was still in their favour 19 - 17 (and three of those to us were 50 mtr frees). At half time they were 10 - 10. The Suns comeback seemed to be fuelled by a few dodgy decisions and non decisions.

On the plus side, it was great to see a free given to Riewoldt after Ablett just blatantly pushed him into the marking contest. I loved seeing the little weed yelling at the umpire. I cant lip read well, but it looked like he was saying "I am Gary Ablett, I can push whoever I like, there is nothing you can do about it."

Terrible again last night but luckily we didn't seem to need them to win.

[bergholt]

Just in the interest of being fair - I still think that there were significant issues last night, on both sides, from the umpires. The thing that really stands out is again the free kick count. We were slaughtering the Suns in all aspects of the game. Hardness, toughness and skill (in most respects), however still the free kick was still in their favour 19 - 17 (and three of those to us were 50 mtr frees). At half time they were 10 - 10. The Suns comeback seemed to be fuelled by a few dodgy decisions and non decisions.

I didn't notice the umpires last night, either way. And that was watching it on TV where usually the mistakes are more obvious.

There's no reason the free kick count has to be perfectly even or aligned with who's playing better. Sydney lost the free kick count 14 to 21 last night and they won by more than double on the scoreboard.

Last week the umpiring was poor, this week I'd say it was fine.

[matrix]

i thought we got the good end last night
there was at least 6 occasions i reckon i cringed as i knew a free was coming for them that was totally deserved....and it wasnt paid

saw GC players get rode in the back a few times that was let go
a couple of throws
thought we lucked out a little tbh

[8856brother]

Thought they were on the wrong end of some 50/50s in their forward line. Our 100m penalty goal was the direct result of a howler.
Thought we got the rub of the green last night. If you don't think umpires give home town decisions, watch the reply of Shenton deliberate out of bounds.

[Sainter_Dad]

Matrix, I thought we broke even, however, I still thought the umpiring was poor. The 50/50's were there for both sides, and they were either paid or not paid, however things like the non existent on the full, deliberate OOB etc leave me wondering where umpiring is heading.

My old hobby horse again comes out. There should be no free kicks for high tackles, there should be a free for dangerous tackles. If a player touches you on the shoulder currently, not dangerous, but a free. If you get clotheslined, definitely a free. This may solve the ducking situation.

I still believe that umpires should be employed full time and therefore be accountable for their game.

The AFL highlight poor performances by the players through their stats, we should also do that for the umpires.

[Moods]

Umpy's were good last night. Made mistakes, but generally were pretty good and were consistent.

[spert]

I wouldn't be complaining about the umps from last night- not great, but both sides got the benefit of the doubt.

[kosifantutti]

A few howlers last night in my opinion.

The deliberate against Shenton. One of their players blatantly whacked the ball over the line near the point post but that was OK.Plenty did what Shenton did and that was OK as well.

The out on the full against Armitage when it touched his foot and rolled over the line. Boundary umpires must get bonus points for plucking obscure out on the full decisions? It wasn't in the spirit of the law and it was blatantly wrong.

The 50m against Wright or Savage or someone else. Suns player marked and momentum of both players caused them to crash into each other but there was no intention and the Suns player was over the mark. It would have been a great look if the defender had jumped out of the way and let his opponent play on.

[Dis Believer]

There were some howlers last night (not as many as last week) but the difference is if it's not all one way. If they all go against your team, then you notice it and are pissed off about it. If the howlers are about fifty/fifty then most people don't worry about it. It's not about mistakes, it's about being disadvantaged by them, and last night they went both ways, and we were probably a touch in front.

[gringo]

There were some howlers last night (not as many as last week) but the difference is if it's not all one way. If they all go against your team, then you notice it and are pissed off about it. If the howlers are about fifty/fifty then most people don't worry about it. It's not about mistakes, it's about being disadvantaged by them, and last night they went both ways, and we were probably a touch in front.

I thought when they were coming back it was largely on a period of very one sided decisions.

[FQF]

One of their players blatantly whacked the ball over the line near the point post but that was OK.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't deliberate have to be a disposal and whacking/paddling the ball is not a disposal?