There is an interesting precedent being set at the moment. Jeff Gieschen has, not for the first time, apologised about the awarding of a free kick. This is made more interesting because the Geesh has undermined one of his umpires.
At elite level sport, those who dare take on the responsibility of policing the game are the ones who are under the highest scrutiny. The boss of the umpires stated publicly that the free kick awarded against Scott Thompson was wrong.
Here is the issue. I have read the laws of the game and this is what it is says:
15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Payment of free kick –
(d) Pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football.
I have also watched the incident and to be honest, by the letter of the law, a free kick should have been paid. You can make up your own mind.
Notice that the law doesn’t specify where on the body the push has to be. The push in the back is a separate law.
Jeff Gieschen said, “There was a little bit of incidental contact on the shoulder, but certainly not a push out.”
That’s an opinion, one that is equally valid as Ray Chamberlain’s. So I would have paid the free, Jeff wouldn’t give the free kick, and Razor did.
It’s highly unfair for the spokesperson for the umpire’s association to spend time in front of a screen, watch an incident, probably in slow motion and then apologise to a football club for two incidents in two weeks.
Ray Chamberlain made a decision in a split second, which he believed was correct. The Crows aren’t suggesting that the decision was a factor in their 11 point loss, but in a worrying trend the umpires association seems to playing nice and trying to win friends.
Dean Cox was the recipient of a free kick for no other reason than he asked for one, and now Jeff is doing his best to work his way to the top of the Christmas card list of every Adelaide fan.
The AFL umpires do a good job overall, but no matter how well they umpire the game their performance will be held under a microscope. Each and every week supporters will hold umpires accountable for a team’s loss.
The free kick count in the North Melbourne versus Port game was highlighted as a reason for Port Adelaide suffering their first loss of the season. North received 38 whistle blows compared to Port Adelaide’s 15.
When I watch my team play I look to blame everything other than the obvious reason. North Melbourne were a better team on the day.
As much as we want to believe it, the umpires do not affect the outcome of a game.
Decisions are made and the game moves on. Do we want to reach a point where in game decisions are referred to a video official because umpires are afraid that they will be publically undermined in Monday’s paper?
As a coach of a local rugby side I spend a lot of time speaking to referees, and something I was told is that a match official should never apologise for a decision.
The reason being that a show of indecisiveness means that the players will take any opportunity to question a decision. You were wrong before, you’re probably wrong now.
The next time Ray Chamberlain puts his whistle to his mouth in a marking contest, will he second-guess himself? Every single player now knows what Mr Gieschen thinks is acceptable in those circumstances.
Players can and probably will question most decisions made now. Jeff may have created a monster and I only hope that he is prepared to control it.
Round 6 was supposed to be umpire appreciation round. I can only imagine how appreciated they feel when their boss rings a football club to apologise for a mistake.
I’m not going to hold my breath for the opposite to happen, Nathan Buckley ringing Jeff because Alan Didak staged for a free kick.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
Let me umpire the next Carlton game, I would happily do it for nothing. Will even bring my own kit. That is called dedication to the cause. And even if I am crooked, I would STILL do a better job than the current crop of clowns.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
Back when I was a kid, actually playing the game some of my mates used to go and umpire local league games. They used to make loads of cash out of it. The country, local league umpires would get over a grand if I had to guess. Underappreciated, like hell! They get plenty of loving.
Deep Thinker
Guest
The problem is that umpiring is really hard to do well because the rules committee rely on "interpretations". Interpretations are, well, a matter of interpretation. The rules need to be clearer, but more importantly, intuitive. They currently are far from intuitive. About 25% of decisions I do not understand. I'm sure to some extent the umpires don't either. That is a major problem. ' When Kevin Bartlett has a go at Chris Scott and Nathan Buckley for being disingenuous for saying they are confused, that's just passing the buck. The rules committee needs to pull their head in and listen to the music.
Bayman
Guest
Richard, I presume by "referee weekend afl" you actually mean Australian Rules Football. AFL is not the game, it is one of the competitions around the country which play Australian Rules Football. I only mention it because a) there are not 10,000 AFL umpires and b) those umpires that do officiate in the AFL definitely do not do it for nothing. They get paid.
Bayman
Guest
Dave, Be serious, Hawthorn player Hale is twice the size of Scott Thomson. If you really think that brush of the shoulder was enough to impede Hale in the contest then I suggest you spend a bit more time studying physics. That free was paid based on what Razor Ray thought might be the case, not what was the case. Gieschen's explanation suggested that two actions are required. The contact and the actual push. This is, apparently, the interpretation given to umpires. Razor saw the brush of the arm, expected there to be a push, given the size differential between the two players, and paid it in anticipation of something which never occurred. In other words, he guessed. I have a bigger problem with the following 50 metre penalty which, given the state of the game, was poor discipline from a senior player. I do accept your point about Geischen being seen to undermine his umpire but it also highlights a major problem in the modern game. The rules committee decide to change a rule, players and coaches quickly learn to take advantage, the rules committee then amends, more player advantage followed by more tweaks, as nauseum. Oddly, at no stage does anybody think to just get rid of the change altogether and go back to what was previously relatively simple. The answer is always more tweaks because anything else implies the rules committee messed up in the first place - and we can't have that. It's very hard to justify a rules committee if they do not change things. I find it extraordinary that Thompson's action might be seen as a free against him whereas if he put his forearm into Hale's back and stopped him backing into the contest that would be ok. The rules have become so ridiculously pedantic that it's become a farce. Geischen and his umpires might revel in the pedantic, technical nature of interpretations but the footy public is in a permanent state of frustration. The Thompson decision as an indictment of the current game. If that's what Geischen and his brain dead mates think is progress then it's time they went fishing or stepped in front of a bus.
Jimbo
Guest
Look, it is just swings and round-a-bouts, one day you will get a bad break from the umpires, the next day you will get a good break, look at tennis, the vast majority of tennis players never get to review a decision (hawkeye) that may either prove them right or wrong. One thing i learnt is never argue with umpires, even if they are wrong, they are right !!. Generally they try their best, and human error will always happen, they must make split decisions in game that has many grey areas, open to individual interpretation. This is never going to be sorted to everyones satisfaction.
Dave Webb
Roar Pro
In the context of this article there is a problem with umpires being undermined publicly. I'm not for one secon suggesting they have it worse than sweat shop workers. Umpires decisions have no more or less impact on the game than those of the players, they are an easier target though. If their boss apologises on their behalf and says they were wrong it has a knock on effect through all levels of the game and gives validation to arguing with an umpire. Not a good look on umpire appreciation round. Ray didn't make a bad decision on purpose. He thought it was the right one.
Richard
Guest
If that's the attitude Kaga I definitely feel sorry for the 10,000 umpires and officials who referee weekend afl for free every weekend. Hence umpire appreciation week!!
vocans
Guest
I should have said 'held BY SOME to be footy best practice'.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
A central umpire gets about $10,000 AUD for 2 or 3 hours running up and down a field. Under appreciated, you have got to be joking. They get very well looked after and they get to play power games which is what attracts these kind of people to the role in the first place. Someone has to do it, and cop a bit of cheek but really they get a lot for doing very little. Go work in a Bangladeshi sweet shop for a buck a day to see what the definition of underappreciated is.
margaret rafanelli
Guest
umpires may not cost a game but their decisions do change momentum in a game perhaps you would like to look back at the prelim final last year and three costly decisions against adelaide gave hawthorn three goals adelaide lost by five points jeff came out and said the decisions were wrong but it doesnt help after the game is finished margaret
vocans
Guest
I agree about the undermining, but Giesschen's position is not helped by the current cloudiness re rules and so-called "interpretations", which have become de facto rules. Ditto for the umps. The hand on the shoulder is technically over the shoulder as well, but that rule has been undermined by interpretations which see it OKed in many contests, particularly in contests involving many players around, on top of, and even under, the ball. Why sitting on someone's back is not in the back is beyond me, and is responsible for some of the ugliest and most frustrating footy going. I think there are rules there that are unnecessary (sliding and hands in the back for instance) because they were already covered by the relatively simple set of rules we had. The problem is they were 'interpreted' out of existence under directives to speed up the game and so on. Tactics crept into the game which are now held to be examples of footy best practice, but which contravene the rules and, I think, the spirit of the game. Lockett pushes a defender in the back and marks the ball - no free against. Where's the remarkable skill in that? Anyone can push a guy in the back. Lockett using his bulk to ease the defender, who is backing into him, under the ball, and marking is legal and skilled. And not beyond him either as some seem to be implying. Ditto Dunstall. As long as you're going for the ball and not infringing face, back and shoulder it's fine. We need a thorough revision of this interpretation stuff. A system that says we're going to focus on a certain rule this week is in trouble, and implies that some rules are more important than others, and that they do not have to be focused on every week equally.
Ash of Geelong
Guest
Gee remember what is was like before the rules committee , umpires were seen and not heard.
Dave Webb
Roar Pro
In my opinion Scott Thompson pushes the hawthorn player out of the marking contest. The umpire called it as he saw it. The 50 was for Sam Jacobs encroaching on the protected area. So as a counterpoint to your argument, the momentum was stopped by firstly Thompson pushing in the marking contest and then lazy running by Jacobs.
greginbrissy
Guest
this statement: "As much as we want to believe it, the umpires do not affect the outcome of a game." - I believe is completely incorrect. Umpires can affect the outcome of games. Look to Richmond V Freo for starters. But a team that for example is launching a comeback, getting close, only to be hit with a rediculous free against them, then a 50 for arguing it, resulting in an opposition goal - can and will affect the outcome of a game, as the momentum of the comeback can be altered. Inconsistancy can do the same thing - you get pinged for holding the ball at one end, opposition kicks a goal. Same circumstances at the other end, no free paid. Demorilising as a player. I personally think that 'interpretations' need to be removed from umpiring. fix up the laws of the game so that umpires and players both know exactly what will happen in a given situation. remove those stupid laws like the one mentioned above for marking contests, sliding into tackles, etc. I've watched VFL/AFL all my life, played a bit too, and currently there is no way I could sit down with a non-AFL fan and explain to them the rules of the game, as I have no idea anymore - interpretations and rediculous laws are ruinging what we have... fast
andyincanberra
Guest
Jeff Gieschen and Kevin Bartlett are ruining our game with their directives to the umpires. Players are now being rewarded for playing for free kicks. On Anzac day, Ben Reid positioned himself and his opponent beautifully under the ball. All Bellchambers had to do was buckle his body forward, capitulate in the marking competition and he is rewarded with a gimme goal. Gieschen and Barlett need to stand down.