You’re kidding me: Why Collingwood should've beaten West Coast, and what the AFL can do to end unfair umpire decisions

Indeed, it's been so painful it's been somewhat funny how poorly we've picked at goal.

So Freo had hilarious inaccuracy for four years?

I only had to read AFLeX to know it was no good. ------- Maybe you are not sure about my suggestion. You can rest assured knowing that this idea has potential merit in that it would be a way of breaking up player congestion, reduce stoppages and clarify the HTB decisions removing all doubt as to what is and what isn't a HTB. More attractive play and less injuries are just some of the benefits l perceive with this ruling. ------- And if we trialled it in Tas, SA & WA we could get a good handle on whether it worked or not. I've thought long and hard on this. This is not a knee-jerk, confected idea.

And once upon a time someone thought AFLX was a good idea! :silly: Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see change where I think it is justified. I'm just not sure this is the right one.

Forget the Ums mate! All these things are 50/50 and it goes either ways ... If the Pies kick straight I don't think you'll have this conversation.

No worries. Richmond's game was called chaosball and partly based on that. My abstract demarcation based on off-side or no off-side still has merit. And rest assured I'm not advancing ball promotion indiscriminately but like anything it's a skill that can be honed. ------- Once the lob in tennis was considered a defensive-only shot; not now. ------ Once a reverse sweep was the preserve of the outrageous whereas now even the Khawaja's of the world play it. ------ We have the state league's as trialling grounds. A thousand years ago England spoke German and then Billy the Kid rode into town bringing change that's still happening to this day. Who'd watch MotoX from 70's in preference to what happens now? ------ "Change is inevitable ..... except from a vending machine" (Steven Wright)

We might have to agree to disagree, because I don't think it would promote attack at all. I think it would result in players just blindly hacking the ball forward to another contest, or to a loose defender. That would just play to the benefit of teams who get numbers behind the ball (i.e. flooding). It's why good teams are coached to not just bomb the ball forward, but to break the lines with run and carry. Look at what Richmond did, in their flag years. Get the ball inside 50 with quick movement and then set up a wall to lock it in. The way to beat them was to work through the wall and catch them out the back, but how could defenders do that if they couldn't risk taking clean possession? As it currently stands, at least players are encouraged to pick up the ball and try to find a clear option.

There is a spectrum of pushes. Hawkins is on the gentle end. Naitanui is on the heavy end.

Yep.

It’d promote a game of attack and get rid of the clutterbug footy that goes on now. I’d say get the SANFL, WAFL, TFL & NEAFL on board with trial changes. I’m absolutely convinced it’d make the game more attractive. At least it’d be proactive in trying something that may make the game flow. ——– (Association) Football, Rugby Union & Rugby League have offside rules promoting possession as very important. Australian Football has no offside so therefore territory is the more important aspect. Promoting the ball forward, even at the loss of possession, is the more important thing. Its like an off-spinner who bowls too flat, straight and fast in case they might take a wicket. And because of the serendipitous bounce of the ball happenstance will see you in the scoring zone more often. Again another cricket analogy is apt in that it is rather like where more overs bowled in the day favours wicket-taking. ——- To allow the status quo wreaks of timidity which l think rhymes with stupidity.

The umpiring is a joke. Brad Scott talks tough at the start of the season around 'holding the ball' saying a lot more will be paid, yet after the practice matches it's all reverted back to rarely being paid at all. If a player gets tackled and the ball spills out if he had prior opportunity it should be a free kick to the tackler, not "the ball was knocked out by the tackle, play on". So frustrating for supporters. Play the bloody frees!!!

The umpiring decision related to Willie Rioli being pushed into the point post says a bit about the state of the game. Rioli was pushed in the back (not an aggressive shove, admittedly) and he went head long into the post. He was clearly struggling after the incident. This was clearly a free kick, but it was disturbing to hear the TV commentators saying that it was a slight push, that did not warrant a free kick. The "push in the back" is becoming an issue and I am sure the players are confused and are still searching for the line on this one.

‘Hands in the back’ isn’t a free kick. The free kick is called ‘prohibited contact’ and it has a number of different limbs, one of which is ‘pushes an opposition Player in the back’. ‘Holding the ball’ also isn’t a fee kick; it’s a category of free kick. It contains four different specific free kicks: – Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity – Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal – Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt – Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football Sure, what you’re saying would simplify the decision-making process, but it would also fundamentally alter the game. I don’t think I’d want to watch it if the best ball-winners were penalised for being first to the footy. Hot potato, anyone?

In the end it was poor kicking that cost us that game not umpiring decisions. I don't know about you but I don't go to the footy to watch the umpires. Got to take the good with the bad.

When 4 people who are paid at a semi pro level umpire a game that goes for 100 minutes, is 360 degrees and involves 44 players (potentially 46 with the subs) mistakes are bound to happen. the only solution for mine is having an umpiring bench so the umpires can rotate and have the 4 boundary umpires more involved as well. Even then mistakes will happen and fans will whinge that their team lost purely because of umpires when in reality they don't have much to do with it. They officiate the most complicated sport in the world to the best of their ability and sometimes get it wrong. It is a dead set part of our game, and it will never change. Some teams coach for umpires and don't give as many frees away (see Bulldogs for example) others don't for some reason.

Rules that need to be looked at? How about high hits by a player going high for a mark and in the process driving his knee into the back of the head of a defender. It's blatant. It's easy to see. But it's OK. It's never called. Why?

Author is obviously a pies supporter , and the pies are statistically one of the most favoured teams from an umpiring perspective , along with the throw dogs and west coast, so I’m not sure what point he is trying to make

God I’m sick of taking about umpiring. They don’t determine the outcome of the game if your team loses. Usually, the other team were just better. No doubt the AFL has destroyed the rule book but this trend of blaming the umpires every time your team loses is terribly tedious.