It’s a job that when done to perfection goes completely unnoticed, but when sub-par, in even the thinnest of slivers, is the reason for the all the world’s perils.
Umpires. I don’t envy them.
It takes a strong will and keen mind to deal with the pressure of stepping out and attempting to control 36 beasts with white line fever. At the highest level you have the protection of being surrounded by the white noise of tens of thousands of indiscernible voices, but at the lower levels you can hear every foul-mouthed parent spitting venom straight at you, coaches who don’t care how close they get in your face or what they say.
I know. I’ve been one.
So when the vehement anger that comes from the sidelines while volunteering to help kids, sometimes as young as nine, became the norm, I stopped. It became an awful experience.
That’s why I’ll never turn on an umpire during a game. I’ll never blame them for a loss. The game happens so fast that you don’t have preconceived ideas of teams or players that would affect any decision. Whistle, run, switch focus, whistle, new focus, run – I barely kept up, and I can only imagine it’s nothing but a blizzard of movement at the highest level.
I do, however, have massive issues with the cognitive load that is endlessly heaped on umpires. It’s almost biblical in the way one rule directly contradicts another. With the AFL doing its utmost to be an innovative and dynamic sporting body they often move to paper over the cracks rather than identify the real causes. Sub rule, anyone?
Think of that big red rubber-band ball that sits on people’s desk. It’s a perfect metaphor – one rule, then another, then another to fix that rule. The original problem is then completely lost.
The myriad of coaches across the AFL are like a stable of corporate lawyers. They will always find ways to circumvent and manipulate rules to fit them. The rules committee always seems to be just behind that 8-ball.
(Image: AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
How do we help the guys and girls in various shades of fluro? Put the onus right back on the players. A player who leads with his head gets no protection? That’s a great move. Players are using their fragile skulls less and less as instruments to draw a measly free kick. It became a player’s choice.
My main focus here is the deliberate out of bounds rule. I like it. Keeping the ball in play, going faster, getting slicker with the handballs or swift feet out of congestion makes for great viewing, and the game has gone up a notch as a result. I know that it’s far from perfect and still needs to be settled in the minds of players, umpires and fans alike, but asking an umpire to consider a player’s ‘intention’ is nigh on impossible despite seeming to be in the fabric of the game.
So, when a player roosts a kick clear of a pack towards space and it dribbles toward the boundary, end over abnormally shaped end, with opposition players jogging after it with arms outstretched like Christ the Redeemer, there is genuine nervous anticipation from everyone in the crowd. Either call the umpire makes will draw the ire of half of those in the stands and adoration from the rest.
Here’s where we fix it. If the AFL really wants the ball to stay in play and keep the game moving, then if the opposition player has an opportunity to pick it up and keep the ball in play but chooses not to, throw it in.
An opposition player who decides they’d rather chaperone the ball over the line than take possession will lose the benefit they would have been gained by any intention from the kicker.
The crowd will then be calling on their player to get the ball instead of relying on an umpire’s seemingly impossible call.
I’d also like to see this ruck rule around the ground cleaned up. The third man up ruling will bring back the dominance of ruckmen and allow umpires to focus on two duelling players rather than bodies flying in from every angle.
This nomination step is ill-conceived at best and childish at worst. I don’t expect to see top-level players essentially asking permission of the umpires to take part in the game. It’s poorly designed and executed without confidence. This one annoys me because there is already a rule for ruckmen that seems to have been completely ignored.
In the centre square there is a big ten-metre circle that is there solely for the ruckmen. They get a run-up and they get the space to manoeuvre in any direction they like. The best part is that the umpires, along with the millions watching, have no confusion about who the competing ruckmen are. No-one nominates. They just line up.
Why, then, can we not lift and shift that clearly viable ruling around the ground? I’ll paint you a very easily achievable picture;
- Ball comes to rest beneath a pack of players.
- Umpire swoops in and collects the ball.
- Umpire calls for all players bar the competing ruckmen to exit the ten-metre protected zone.
- Ball is thrown up and once it leaves the umpires hands players can enter that zone.
- If a third player is in that zone after the umpire calls for everyone to leave, the free kick is awarded to the opposing ruckman.
This clearly allows umpires to see who will be contesting and immediately makes the players accountable. They must be aware of who will be lining up at any given moment. This removes the need for umpires to scan a swirling, jostling thicket of players to see who has raised their hand.
Umpires should be only adjudicating the game, not controlling it.
Remember: the umpires didn’t cause your team to lose. Your team did that all by themselves.
Give them a break.
David
Guest
Yep blame the rules but wait a minute we all thought the umpires knew the rules obviously they must have a different rule book as most people are left bewildered by many calls. Look most of the calls are ok but so many times the ump calls it wrong and at crucial times. If the umps were held to account for obvious wrong and in some cases biased calls then they may be more consistent. Bad calls is bad performance and so should be dropped until their performance is up to scratch. Lastly stop putting these well paid umps in an untouchable bubble they are not the game.
Ray Bullock
Roar Rookie
GIVE THEM A BREAK ? Oh the poor things. AFL umpiring is nearly at rock bottom. I agree that they are having a bad time managing the stack of extra responsibilities . They have trouble handling the basics. Their 3 umpire system is catastrophic.. Here we have perhaps the worlds biggest playing arena and we have umpires running out of bounds ,next to the fence umpiring the game. Let's not even entertain 4 of them running around. Good grief. Talk about the" Keystone Kops" The ruck ruling is simple . Have one player from each player go for the ruck. Running around trying to confirm who is rucking is ridiculous. You must have a good feel for the spirit of the game to umpire it. This is what is called common sense. Sadly lacking. The language used at players sounds like a school headmaster and a bad one at that chastising naughty boys. Apart from a list as long as your arm for decision blunders ,the official footwear of an umpire is a WHITE coloured shoe. Not white with black laces , grey with no white at all . Surely as nit picking it is ,it's not to hard to wear white shoe laces. This is basics. I have seen incidents over the last couple of years ( standing there with hands on hips ,a complete no no) that are taught when umpiring juniors,that those umpires wouldn't do. By the way I have umpired 300+ games myself. The whole umpiring system needs a complete over haul with a new strategy from new coaches. This current lot have blown their brains out .
Cat
Roar Guru
That's where 15.2.4 comes in and why defining what 'prior opportunity' is is so important
Stewie
Guest
I'm more concerned about the "Correct Disposal" in 15.2.3.ii Technically that means that if a player is being tackled, he/she HAS to either handball or kick, otherwise it's a free kick, yeah? So the constant dropping and throwing should be pinged?
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
Remember how AFL HQ proposed a couple of years back to start fining players for staging, and then enforced it for an entire week?
Onside
Guest
What I imagined (hoping for) was less congestion from through ins and subsequent ball ups.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Onside Because of the curvature of the boundary - I don't like the 'last touch' concept. Also because of the odd shape of our ball. The net result would be to discourage play from within about 15metres of the boundary on each side. What that means is that the 'defending' set up (the old fashioned 'wall') needs only to focus through the corridor of the ground and actually make that zone more congested. Personally - our game is about the contest, and winning the contested and loose ball. I don't like anything that removes the desire of a player to make an effort to take the ball. Watching someone 'escort' the ball over the boundary line is counter intuitive to how our game has been played. The AFL needs to be a little more willing to hold true to our game. The flip side is that the boundary throw in isn't quite so evil - - it's another of our great features, a 50/50 neutral restart from which anything might result. This in turn dictates how strategies unfurl. With 30 seconds to go a team attacking and in front by a couple of points - will be trying for a goal but happy to lock the ball inside F50. The defenders might get a hurried kick out but the corridor is covered - kick has to go near the boundary - it crosses - umpire wouldn't have called it deliberate given the pressure and the funny bounce but with the last touch rule the attacking team knew that in this circumstance they get a free kick. Game as good as over. Whereas, a throw in, neutral restart - and anything can come from that stoppage situation.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Knoxy And of course the scenario - scores level - shot after the siren.....hit's the post flush on.....would this be an exception where the poster counts as a point if play is 'dead'?
Onside
Guest
What effect would the following have on the game, 1.player is responsible for ball going out of bounds anywhere on ground : free kick to opposition , or, 2.player is responsible for ball going out of bounds between 50 metre lines : free kick to opposition.. Doesn't matter how ball comes off the player , on the full, along the ground ,any reason at all, the other team get the ball.
Knoxy
Guest
I've heard people suggest this before. The problem I have with it is that a player having a shot could completely miss and just score a behind where as another player who has a much more accurate shot but just hits the post gets nothing. Why should a player who completely misses be rewarded more than a player who just misses and hits the post?
Perry Bridge
Guest
'Prior Opportunity' is the worst thing. Once upon a time you took possession if clear to do so or knocked/tapped the ball forward - the imagery of Keith Greig or Bryan Wood or Geoff Ablett fighting it out on the wing was a highlight of some games. High pace, contested play. Movement. Now - players are encouraged to take possession at all times. Remember when diving on the ball - Glenn Archer was an expert at it - it was decided that you lost 'prior opportunity' by doing that. Even that has been relaxed. The 'ball player' is over protected by prior opportunity - - and this actually puts them at greater risk. There are more tackles and the player in possession in our game is expect to attempt to dispose of the ball. Look at the Waite tackle on Lynch from Round 7 in Hobart and had Lynch not tried to kick the ball then the tackle would have been pretty well text book and Lynch could have protected himself. The prior opportunity gives too much lee way to the tacklee - which is why the tackler has to wrench the guy to the ground and try to kill the ball. Or - - do we get the umpires to really crack down on incorrect disposal irrespective of prior opportunity although the current system would see players better off NOT trying to dispose of it - let it spill free, get dislodged by the tackle. This is the dilemma. Concussions as a result of tackles with the head hitting the ground are probably the main or close to the main cause of concussions currently.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I Know but the time they are hanging on seems to have got longer. Meanwhile 15.2.5 frees are awarded willy nilly and the "tackle" is usually anything but correct.
GJ
Guest
In 1859 there was no television, slow motion replays, or the option of going to a review system either. I'm not advocating change to what I suggested. All options need to be addressed and considered though if another change is being considered. It often seems that small engineering changes made for the benefit of human safety inadvertently create new unforeseen hazards.
Slane
Guest
Exactly! In my opinion umpires are a little too lenient in letting players get away with dropping the ball while beig tackled. If we had an actual definition of 'prior opportunity' my griping can be de/legitimized.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Oh I know Lin is trying to draw a free or two but if you think Selwood and Sicily aren't you need the help. The only thing they are likely to break is an AFL free kick record. The noble warrior thing is getting a bit old. Waiting for the day an opponent steps out of the way and lets Duckwood throw himself to the deck.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#GJ it's an original 1859 rule that the ball must be kicked through the goals and not deflected off post or person. We can't drop that without creating a new sport......like soccer or Gaelic. It's actually a real distinction - for all the claims of soccer being the 'true football' - - they don't have to kick a goal - - it is scored. It's purely quantitative. Australian Football has always had a qualitative component to scoring a goal. And this helps in discussions when soccer people claim it's too easy to score a goal in AFL - tell 'em we actually have to kick it and the opposition doesn't just have one goal keeper able to use his hands. re the hitting the post - - it is simple as is - each post adopts the value of the lesser of the conjoined 'boundaries'. i.e. the Goal post is a behind and the point post is out of bounds. That's simple enough. Our game has some unique imagery, unique sounds and events. The groan of the home team as the ball slams into the post is one of those sounds.
Enough already
Guest
Agreed. I think that taking judgement calls off the umpires hands would make it easier though.
GJ
Guest
Saw a SANFL game on tv the other day. It was interesting to watch what happened when the ball went over the boundary line. The players and crowd knew exactly what the rule interpretation was. No noise or influence coming from crowd noise. The players weren't appealing to the umpire for possession of the ball. The players immediately set themselves up to continue the game. Basically there was no BS. I doubt the AFL will adopt the rule change. They claim to be closely monitoring the pros and cons. I am starting to doubt there will be any change, and I am starting to think the AFL prefer the drama.
Cat
Roar Guru
It very much is related. All that you mention only matters if the umpire has deemed the player to have had prior opportunity. If no prior opportunity exists there is no rule requiring correct disposal. The ball is allowed to be dropped, knocked out or held onto if no prior. This is why an actual definition for prior opportunity is so important.
Paul D
Roar Guru
If he is still able to dispose of it correctly I've got no problem with that. If a player has someone by the waist or legs for a few seconds but can't bring him to ground and he's still able to handball it away properly I think it should be play on. It's AFL, not tiggy.