What does over-umpiring mean? Does it mean frees being given that shouldn’t be because they’re not in the rules? If so, that is incorrect umpiring.
Or does it mean frees being given that are in the rules but not there? Because that is incorrect umpiring too.
What I think people often mean is that frees that are there shouldn’t be given because they don’t like the style of game they think it produces.
Is their diagnosis of what ails the game correct? I agree with criticising incorrect umpiring, hopefully fairly. But it is not over-umpiring.
Good footy, great footy, is seen in the display of a wide variety of skills and personal attributes. This includes playing the game in all its phases.
Very often it leads to exciting flowing footy, and tight head-to-head footy, both of which take considerable skill at the highest level. The rules and their interpretations should always prioritise and protect these skills.
Frees can break up poorly skilled plays, and give the players the chance to get back to the skills. They also mean the less skilled don’t drag everyone down to the same level.
Otherwise, flowing footy becomes manic chaos and tight footy becomes constipated congestion. And it isn’t fair footy, especially when the rules are allowed to be knowingly flouted because they can get away with it.
There have always been those who thought the game was nothing but slowed by frees. They may have had a case in the days when fitness, coaching, skill levels, and game styles were not where they are now. But it is now a failure of players and coaches if they don’t take immediate advantage of free kicks.
Brad Scott loves his Roos to get frees. Every coach does. If you want to open up a game or move it out of constipation into tight footy, give the frees where they are so the skills can flourish. The game is under not over-umpired too often.
How about, for example, protecting the recipient from low skill stalling tactics like those many pushes in the back or side after a mark or free is given. The player pushed often ends up on the ground.
I know the dodgy rationalisation for it, but how about gracefully accepting you and your team were bettered and get on with it?
Believe it or not, the rules (and their interpretations) evolved over a long period to foster the kinds of footy we love. At least until recently, when some (not all) have been more about cosmetics and fads than skill, protection of players’ bodies, and fairness.
Pity the umps who are pilloried for not ‘letting the game flow’ (against the rules) but quickly reminded when they didn’t give a free they should have.
And, when voices off keep focusing them on this or that rule of the day, how do you keep consistent with all of the rules? Bugger if I’d put a whistle to my lips in this climate.
We don’t get to great footy by breaking the rules.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Agree totally.
Cat
Roar Guru
With only a minute to play in a close game that's EXACTLY when time wasting is an issue.
powa
Guest
I think the Dixon call was subjectively the wrong call, there is an established precedent for players knocked to the ground to have some leeway, especially if the opposition are intentionally keeping that player on the ground after the whistle, it may not be a rule, but 99/100 times the leeway is given
Craig Delaney
Guest
The rules don't serve the game unless they are applied as consistently as possible. Something like the Dixon play-on should never be subjective because we have a definite time span to work on. So it should be consistently applied. The Dixon thing was probably bound to happen eventually for two reasons: the players do test the 30 second limit (which is their right), and so someone would get it wrong one day, but in this case the second reason comes into play, and that is the fact that the umps do not consult a time piece (as far as I know). I agree about subjectivity being a part of umpiring. It's similar to the split second decision making by batsmen in cricket or baseball, slips catches and so on. That's where long experience of the game helps make the best umps.
John K
Guest
I have to disagree with you Wayne. I think it's just the opposite - objective umpiring is the problem. The AFL keeps wanting to legislate its way to certainty with the rules and it's always disappearing over the horizon for them. In the meantime the rulebook gets thicker and thicker with rule changes and amendments. Umpiring - good umpiring - is a subjective business. We may not always agree with the call but umpires need to be freed up to make subjective calls on deliberate out-of-bounds, in the back, around the neck and interference. If not, we'll be left with the state of affairs we have at the moment. The play-on call on Charlie Dixon is a good case in point. It was over-umpired. The 30 second rule was brought in to stop time wasting when shooting for goal. A good rule. But the umpire needs to be able to apply it with common sense. With a minute or so to go in the game, time wasting was not an issue. Dixon should have been allowed to have his shot. Far better for the game to be decided by the shot for goal than a pedantic 'play on' (BTW I don't barrack for Port). I know people will say rules are rules. But the rules are only there to serve the game, not an end in themselves. I believe that Thursday night's game would have been better served if Dixon had been allowed to have his shot. Port earned that and I guarantee not a single person would have left the ground because of time-wasting. I'm not blaming the umpires here. I think the problem comes from higher up. The AFL and their rules committee seem to think that if they can only add a few more tweaks to the rules every year they'll eventually arrive at their Nirvana - a game where no one can argue with the decisions. It doesn't exist. Umpiring has to be allowed to revert to common-sense interpretation by the individual umpire. You didn't always agree with the great umpires of the past but at least you respected them. Today's umpires aren't even afforded that.
Craig Delaney
Guest
It may be the missed free rather than the wrong frees. I'm not the statistcal type, but I wonder how many frees are missed in a game? A missed free can confer an advantage that can be capitalised on. Milera was tackled the other day, and the ball dropped to the ground in what looked like an incorrect disposal. No free against. It was not far out and, if my memory is right, the Crows got a score out of it. That kind of free not given has been quite common since last season.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Beg to differ on the rhetorical questions. I know what you mean and they bug me too. Usually it's pollies or other people trying to set the agenda in the wrong direction. But my questions are seriously meant. They are actually questioning those who argue for over umpiring about exactly what they mean by their words. Then I offer my take on the issue. It's good to know the problem with style didn't lead to disagreement. Most of us agree that umpiring is difficult and has been made more difficult by decisions made over some years. The fault is not with the umps. We need to be careful, however, that this understanding does not cloud the very real issue that the adjudication of the game is tending to damage it as a spectacle, and its reputation as a sport. A few more inane tweaks might tip some kind of balance.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I don't think the umpiring is that bad. What is becoming a cancer is the constant criticism of umpiring. The AFL's facebook page is almost unreadable
Wayne
Roar Guru
Subjective umpiring is the problem, with the direction coming out of AFL HQ. But honestly, how many mistakes does any one player make in a game, and is still held as a great performance. Around 85% efficiency? So 15% inefficient. The umpires make a handful of decisions wrong, lets say collectively 20 'wrong' calls. Out of the 1000's of decision points in a game, a 2% wrong call rate is pretty good.
TomC
Roar Guru
Opinion articles peppered with rhetorical questions or questions to oneself really bug me. They're completely unnecessary and just cause confusion. Self-indulgent pedantry aside, I broadly agree with the article. The issue in the AFL at the moment isn't really over vs under umpiring, but what we expect of officiating and the calibre of individual umpires. Unfortunately I think the way the rules have evolved has made it just about impossible for any set of umpires to call a game consistently and objectively. It seems as though umpires are increasingly expected to make judgement calls on subjective grounds. When individual decisions get criticised I'm sure umpires would take it somewhat personally, even if they can't really defend themselves publicly. But if there's an increase in errors this season it's more likely due to the job getting harder rather than umpires getting worse. Even without the changing interpretations, the game gets faster and players seem to be playing for free kicks more often.