In smokers’ ever-shrinking areas, at coffee machines, across the top of cubicles and desk partitions, and even on the school playground, they – or more specifically their decisions – are a regular topic of Monday morning conversations and arguments each week of the football season.
It’s as common as Mondayitis, and while the long weekend means Monday becomes Tuesday this week, the debate will the same this morning and go somewhere along the lines of: “What was that umpire thinking? That imbecile cost us the game.”
St Kilda supporters in particular will probably be the most vocal, after their club was involved in a couple of calls late in their fourth quarter clash with West Coast, that not only went against the Saints, but could definitely be called game-changing.
The most notable and crucial was the one paid against defender Sean Dempster for his tackle on Matt Priddis. Dempster was penalised for “in the back” of his opponent. Harsh – absolutely. Totally wrong – well, you won’t get too many arguments with that apart from with those who wear West Coast merchandise.
And then we had to the incorrect decision to rule against a goal to Jeff Garlett in the opening quarter of Carlton’s loss to Essendon last Friday. Replays clearly showed it was in fact a goal, but sadly the umpire did not call to use the goal review system. If you’ve got it …. USE IT.
There seems to be so much concern in the game about not wanting to slow it down by referring decisions ‘upstairs’.
Isn’t it more important to take 30-60 seconds and get it right, rather than save that minute and possibly get it wrong? What, is everyone going to miss the last train if we take a few minutes each game for reviews?
Seriously, why bother having it then? Scrap it completely, or use it regularly. It’s about getting it right when ever we can. Umpires won’t get calls right all the time, but there are instances when they are able to get it right courtesy of the goal review. Use it, or lose it.
Carlton lost that game by five points, the exact amount of extra points they should have received from the Garlett incident. You can’t say that cost them the game. It was in the opening term, and so much would have changed had a goal been ruled. But that’s not the point. It should have been a goal – end of story.
As I said the umpires are not going to get it right all the time. They do their best in a very, very difficult job. There is no alternative. You can’t have the entire game overseen by a video review system, then, a 7.40pm game may not finish until well after that last train is being washed in the sheds.
Part of being a footy fan is just accepting it’s all part of the game and has been since the game began. Regardless of the club, take a look on their fan forums, and you are guaranteed to find a thread or two or three on bad umpiring callls that club has been a victim of.
You are going to get some bad decisions from time to time. They hurt like hell, and they usually are only fodder for debate and argument after a close loss … hence the pain.
But all you can do is hope they even themselves out over time, and the reality is, they probably do.
In a perfect world, umpires should not be seen and only their whistles heard.
All I can suggest is to continue to yell at them, continue to bag them on gameday, continue to talk about them on a Monday, continue to tell your mate what you’d like to do to them after your team has ‘got one of those calls.’
But what’s the alternative? While we can and should use the goal review technology, as for general play decisions, as much as we would like it to be, umpiring isn’t black and white (and I don’t mean Collingwood), there are so many grey areas in terms of interpretation, grey areas which send fans grey prematurely. But that’s footy.
I am by no means an apologist for umpires. I too have seen bad decisions cost my team. But until someone comes up with a getter option, it’s what we have to live with.
And just remember, for every bad call we talk about on a Monday or this time Tuesday morning, there are 100 or more that don’t get a mention. Why? Because I guess someone must be doing something right.
Now let’s move on to next week.
Dan
Guest
As I stated , saints had opportunities in the last quarter , I'm not denying that. However the dodgy decisions that were made that cost goals against saints put pressure on the players ... That added pressure in a close game anyway would most definitely contribute to the saints choking infront of goal . You can't say that the umpires had no influence in the results otherwise we would not be here having this debate now , nor would the rest of the social media sites .
A Mans Not A Camel
Guest
It's a great idea I think. This possibly may also serve to help out umpires getting conned by fans/players "no need for review, decision clear"
vocans
Guest
What is most confusing for everyone is that the umpires are told to change their interpretations week in and week out. Stick to the rules with the minimum of interpretation and things would be far less confusing, and I think the game would be much better for it. Interpretations are the problem, and when they create chaos the AFL starts changing rules as well as the interpretations. A mess. Modern footy can do wonders within the rules: the game will keep moving because they are fitter, more skilled with hand and foot, and the tactics are more sophisticated. Also the interchange, sack of balls, and umpires calling play on at frees are good innovations.
A Mans Not A Camel
Guest
yes, definately. some players are better actors than others. It comes down to judgement calls, I just think that in some games (not all the time) it seems like the actors are getting everything their own way. What the umpires did in the GWS / Cats game was a great step forward.
A Mans Not A Camel
Guest
I think if the 3rd umpire up in the stands has the ability to contact the field umpires and say 'hold play for review' - that would be enough. We all know that on the ground it's hard to get it right, as you dont always have the best angle - but the guy up in the stands sees what TV viewers see - I think they would have been able to call for a review immediately should they have had the power to. The TV angles are not always perfect either, but it'd add another option to increase effectiveness.
Robbie
Guest
I don't think the problem is the umpires, it's the rules. The rules have changed too much in recent years and the umpires are probably as confused as the players, but are told to simply "get on with it". As for the goal review, as long as the system stays the same it'll continue to be pointless. Cameras need to be set up specifically for the goal review, they can't keep using the cameras set up for TV or 99% or reviews will come back "inconclusive". As for the unreviewed Garlett goal, the goal umpire had no doubt it wasn't a goal, Garlett himself didn't think he kicked it and Fletcher played on straight away, who was going to call for a review? Human beings make mistakes, so do computers.
Me Too
Guest
Actually it was BOTH skill errors AND umpire errors that cost them the game. Why focus on one and not the other? With just one occurring they would have won the game. Both need to be worked on by those on the field - players AND umpires.
Michael Cowley
Expert
In hindsight, I can see your point Swampy, but the reality is, he played on and kicked a goal. He just didn't get paid for it.
Swampy
Guest
Didn't Jeff Garlett mark the ball 2m out from goal? Pretty dumb playing on, in my view he should be getting ripped if he played on there. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Chaos
Guest
The 'mark' Darling had taken off him was pretty poor. St Kilda had so many oppurtunies to win the game in last quarter and didn't take them. I can't believe their fans are whinging about the free kicks. Their players skill errors cost them, not the umpires.
Chaos
Guest
Look Dan why not look at the skill errors from the Saints that led to them losing in 4Q. 1. Saints had two late set shots at goal. Pretty straight forward. They miss both. 2. Maister falls over in chase. Allows goal from McKensie. 3. 'Roo' didn't kick the ball properly and allowed Wilson to touch it over the line. 4. Montagna missed goal, should have handballed to two Saints players in square. Skill mistakes by the St Kilda players not umpires. They kick any of those goals or Maister doesn't fall over and Saints win. Full stop. Don't blame the umpires. Saints had plenty of oppurtunities to win. Didn't take them.
Australian Rules
Guest
Thats right. It's the ones paid in the dying moments of a game that really cruel the match. The Priddis free was one - the Selwood free against North was another. Just awful that 2 incorrect free kicks can result in 2 wins for the same team. Generally however, the umpiring has been fantastic of late - and it feels good to say it!
dan
Guest
I am so frustrated with the resluts of Sunday nights match between St kilda and West coast! as the paper states in the stats ...it was no surprise to see WCE victorious in what was definately seen as controversial ! Stkilda had opportunities to shrug off west coast , however the pressure mounted due to the umpires influence. it wasnt just in the last quarter , Roo nailed a perfect tackle inside 50 that dispossessed his oponent as he tried to kick... now their is no GREY area in that decision.. thats a rule thats always their! HOLDING THE BALL!!! so why was it called play on????? But the last qaurter is where the damage really showed. game was in the balance and 3 gift goals were given to WCE and basically the game was given to them on behalf of the umpires! The AFL needs to realise that its the supporters that make this game what it is! and they are entitled to have their say... and maybe now they should start listening to what the supporters are saying and do something about this game before it is completely destroyed! So many rediculous rules are in place, in which half the umpires do not know how to implement them... therefore the game changes dramatically, and thats not fair! not just the Saints game but so many poor decisions this year have been made that have made or broken a game. umpires are to be "seen not heard" so to speak in a game... this is clearly not the case anymore. I am certain the umpires from the Saints game wont be showing their faces in the streets for awhile cos i saw some extremely angry saints supporters giving them the hurry curry as they left the ground... and you know what.... I think they actually deserved it. they need to know that they decided the winner of that game not WCE ... and they should also be sat down and a please explain to be done. Look saints are certainly not a final threat so it does no damage in that respect , but as a football club trying to get some confidence back , it certainly takes a huge hit! this needs to be sorted and sorted now. In this day and age it should not be happening!!!!!
Michael Cowley
Expert
That's a viable solution. A quick word in the umpire's ear saying hang on a second. And really how many close decisions are there in a game? It's not like you need to check every scoring shot.
Michael Cowley
Expert
They got a decent sized spray at quarter time. Teams won't be able to take that attitude of having an easy day with GWS for too much longer, or someone will end up with egg on their faces.
Macca
Guest
What technology would of helped on Friday that wasn't already available?
Keen Observer
Guest
Very sensibubble, with the goal review "system" to be scrapped to put in the proper technology next year.
Macca
Guest
Richo - I was always told by many coaches "DOn't bother arguing with the umpire becuase they aren't going to change their mind" now are you saying "unless you argue you won't get the right decision"? Surely the video umpire has the ability to radio through almost immediately on something like that and say "hang on, I want to have a look at that, it looked like a goal to me and everyone else watching the game".
TomC
Roar Guru
I noticed that too. I think the Cats rocked up expecting an easy day of it. Their defensive work was awful in the first quarter. I suspect Chris Scott had some very harsh words for them at quarter time and after the game.
Richo
Guest
"But it also shouldn’t be upto the player to kick up a fuss" True but if the umpire is confident of their decision and the player doesn't appeal, then why would a review be called? Calling for a review for every close decision would become tedious very quickly.