Why would you be an Umpire?

Umpires have one of the hardest jobs. Its not as if they umpire how they want to umpire and they're allowed to do so, they're coached on every decision, their posititioning and how they bounce every game... they came to a conclusion that a field umpire makes on average 3000 decisions every game...

They get some leeway with the "in the opinion of the referee" clauses that make these things a bit more subjective.

"Feedback"... It's not "feedback" it's "gamesmanship".

So, does that mean you disagree with the article?

I dare suggest that a chef, a politician, a cab driver or your kids grade 3 teacher do not rock up to work and get abused for the duration of their shift by a bunch of idiots who don’t actually know the rules (dropping the ball anyone?). They also don’t cop death threats as their walking off the ground and have their work for the day put on slow motion and analyzed looking for anything that may be considered a mistake. To somehow suggest that because the players and coaches are not allowed to comment on umpiring decisions means that they are not being scrutinized is silly. There performance is measured by every tom, dick, harry, commentator, analyzer, blogger and of course internally with different umps being dropped and promoted each week according to the performance. The last thing we need is the players and coaches having pop shots as well.

Ironicly one of Andy Roddicks most famous comments in tennis history is one in which he said "Stay in school kids or you'll end up being an umpire"

I understand all that and what I would say here, is the "rules committee" needs to take some responsability for the standard of umpiring and as such, share in the criticism. When I played junior footy, the umpire used to say "make the ball your object and I will protect you". That then gave the umpire a very clear definition of how to adjudicate the game - from his own words. These days, the rules have become so complex that the umpire does struggle to weigh up all the different aspects in a split second. What they now need to do is get it back to basics - protect the player making the play from high or low tackles, in the back, etc. and then reward good tackles, when they are made, regardless of all this prior opportunity crap, or whether they are making an attempt - if it doesn't come out, holding the ball and move on. Other than that, marking contests are fairly allowed to play out (holding and high contact) and that should be about it. They just need to blow the whistle a bit more often and regardles of where the infringement takes place. I'm sick and tired of watching 2 ruckmen beat the living suitcase out of each other at a boundary throw in and that's fine, yet over the back once the ball gets out, a midfielder gets a little tap on the shoulder and it's paid as high contact. Or the CHF that gets belted all day by his opponent and never gets a kick and as soon as he holds his position and the backmen runs into him, he gets pinged! An umpire needs to be instinctive with his decision making, not thumbing through the rule book in his mind, before blowing the whistle. We all make mistakes, but I reckon we all know when something doesn't look, or sound right, in our chosen field, or profession, or even hobby. This is when a "decision" needs to be made, rather than ducking it and just sitting back and seeing how it unfolds and therefore avoiding criticism over having made a poor decision, by not making one at all. Sometimes you need to have the courage of your convictions and blow the whistle! I've umpired and yes - it is a tough job and can be very thankless. But having played the game gives you instincts about what is happening and this is where "common sense" overides rule books. The main thing the article is trying to get across is the umpires are considered sacred and beyond scrutiny. I think they need feedback - both positive and negative and a lot of the rules can then be debated. Presently, the rules committee meet and decide what umpires need to police and then that is foisted onto the players and the supporters. No right of reply is avaialble, other than the crowds response to the umpires decision, or lack of a decision. It's time for a little bit of honesty and transparency.

And under-performing umpires do get stood down, which has a very real impact on their earning. I think the AFL is certainly overprotective when it comes to criticism from the media and players/coaches, and I'm under no illussion that sub-par performances are acceptable and go unpunished behind the closed doors at AFLHQ.

Ah, the great myth that each umpire only makes a handful of decisions per game .... The job is mind-boggling when you consider in a marking contest, the umpire needs to decide the following: 1/ did the ball travel the required distance 2/ was the kick clean or was there a touch off the boot 3/ was the player marking the ball the only player to touch it 4/ was the ball controlled by the player taking the mark 5/ did either player infringe in the marking contest 5i/ hands in the back 5ii/ holding 5iii/ high contact 5iv/ chopping the arms 5v/ contact iniated before the ball was within the required range All in the space of 1 to 3 seconds. Extrapolate that for every kick, mark, tackle, etc, and it is a seriously busy 100+ minutes for the match officials.

I agree with almost all of the above comments, especially that umpiring performances should be subject to both criticism and praise depending on their merits. And i think that the AFL website's weekly segment on umpiring decisions is making inroads into that. However, I think that the suggestion that umpires are getting paid well for doing little work is drawing a long bow - although I realize that comment was being made with tongue firmly in cheek. Yes, they might only pay a free kick on average once every 15 minutes but that is hardly equivalent to the number of decisions being made. I recall a champion data statistic saying that umpires make, on average, 1300-1500 decisions during a game of AFL. At the end of the day, it is a tough job and there are more umpires leaving the profession than there are joining so I have no issues with the umpires being paid well for their job. I certainly wouldn't do it!

Coaches and players can be criticised for their performance, or praised. Same with a chef, a politician, a cab driver or your kids grade 3 teacher. So, why shouldn't it be the same for an umpire? The main thing we need is "balance" when discussing umpiring performances. Rather than just finding the guy who stunk it up big time on the weekend, we also need to provide "positive" reinforcement to the guys who get it right! I will always remember when Grant Thomas spoke out in defence of fellow coach, Bomber Thompson, who had dared to publicly criticise an umpires performance the week before. Sitting down as a Saints supporter at Subiaco, watching the Saints playing the Dockers and controlling the game, up by about 4 or 5 goals, mid way through the third term. Let's just say, Freo won the game after the siren and that night received 5 free kicks that resulted in goals, compared to the Saints, none! Grant Thomas merely said, why are we making umpires so precious that we can't discuss their performace, or say something (as Bomber had done) when they're not up to scratch. One of the umpires was heard to say as they hopped back on the plane to Melbourne - "Now I know what it's like to have a win." Umpires are not incapable of responding to criticism and that is why it needs to be both ways - negative and positive. Nobody like being clobbered week in, week out. A pat on the back every so often goes a long way, as well. The other thing you need to consider McRath is, the pay packet. Not sure what an AFL umpire earns, but I would reckon it wouldn't be too bad. This year the 3 umpires in the round 4 clash between the Saints and Dockers awarded 24 free kicks during the course of a game. That's 8 each for the entire game, or 2 each, per quarter, or one decision each, every 15 minutes or so. Not bad money if you ask me!

Hi McRath - I have been wondering about the best way to solve the umpiring-reaction thing... It seems that public debate regarding NRL decisions can lead to a specific official being dropped from duties/demoted to the grade competition, etc. Whether such debate should mean the media/fans can virtually drive a ref away is another matter. While I am unsure of the exact wording of the laws relating to the world game, it would seem to me that EPL managers do have the occasional chance in press conferences to air their views on the outcome of ref decisions - but steer clear of specifically naming/shaming the refs themselves as persons. Eg - Sir Alex Ferguson, for example, might say that he thought player X's sending off was a bit harsh in his view, but that's football. Or we didn't think it was a penalty, but the ref gave it, etc. And that's it. The coach is allowed to have a say and then presumably the FA can either discipline the club or advise the ref for further performances if required. Other than that, it sounds like a fair mid-way to me.