The umpiring problem

[dimelb]

Some straight talking from Richard Hinds.
"In the face of growing disenchantment, the AFL refuses to acknowledge what club officials and, particularly, fans have known for some time - there is a significant problem with the rules/umpiring."
" ... umpires are being compelled to impose draconian rules to the letter of the law, with those willing to do so most officiously apparently given the greatest seniority."
Read the whole piece.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfn...e#contentSwap1

[AnnieH]

Good on Eddie for going them.

The maggots think they're bigger than the game. I'm sure I spent the whole of last year saying that.

There were some decisions last Saturday in our game that were just mind boggling.



( I just said good on Eddie ... kill me now!!)

[liz]

The thing - OK, one of the things - that frustrates me about Adrian A and Andy D is that they seem to think they "own" the game. The overwhelming voice coming from players, clubs and fans is that they want fewer rules, fewer free kicks, and much less unnecessary interference from the umpires and the rules committee in games. And yet these voices, loud and clear, seem to be being completed ignored by an AFL management intent on shaping the game the way they want it shaped.

[laughingnome]

I don't always agree with Hinds but that article is right on the money. When is the AFL Commission going to wake up and smell the discontent? For that matter, how much longer do we have to put up with Andy D? Isn't it about time someone booted him out of his office?

[AnnieH]

I don't always agree with Hinds but that article is right on the money. When is the AFL Commission going to wake up and smell the discontent? For that matter, how much longer do we have to put up with Andy D? Isn't it about time someone booted him out of his office?

Good question. An AFL coup! Sounds promising.

Does anyone know how one becomes the boss of the AFL?
Is it like voting in a pope?
Do they advertise the job in the local paper?
Are you only allowed to serve two terms, like the american president?

Questions, questions, questions.

[pinkemu]

"As much as I hate to defend the Pies"

McLaren should have been fined or even suspended (1 game) for his "interference" on Shane O'Bree.

[cruiser]

I just read this article online and was going to post a thread and link to it if it wasnt here already. A very good assessment by Richard Hinds. There has been much deserved criticism here and on Big Footy of the number of rule changes and over officiating of our game.

I totally agree with Liz's comment above - the arrogance demonstarted by Demetriou and Anderson in their responses to critiscim of rule changes and umpiring is gobsmacking, and it would appear that Hinds' agrees:

At the same time, the current blitz on accidental contact by players on umpires at centre bounces only enhances the belief that umpires are precious and over-protected - unfair when the thin skin belongs not to those blowing the whistle but those making the rules.

[Darren Thomson]

Their giving free kicks for ingrown toenails now, forgive an old league supporter but the game, at times, as much as I love it, looks like it's being umpired for girls to play

[reigning premier]

To some extent I think the umpires are being a little "precious" when it comes to contact. When you have 45 people + running around on one field, there's bound to be some, occassional, accidental contact. This is part of the game. However, when a player lays a hand on an official in the course of the game, it needs to be very carefully scrutinised.

Heath Shaw, IMHO, was rightfully suspended. He should count himself lucky that it wasn't more. Brett Kirk (And several others) however, should count themselves unlucky as their contact was in a contest with another player, not an argument with an umpire.

Malthouse should be facing at least a two week ban as should Eddie and Jeff with $50k fines slapped on top. The dissent they have shown the officials (and the AFL to a lesser degree) is totally unacceptable. It does come down to setting an example and coaches and club presidents should be setting the highest example of them all. Is it any wonder that Shaw thinks he has the right to not only question the umpire, but to physically harass them when that's the sort of leadership shown at Collingwood?

The umpires will ALWAYS make mistakes (Just as players who get paid $500k a year manage to miss goals, kick the ball OOF and drop sitters do). And yes, the way they are expected to "interpret" the rules is frustrating for all concerned. Nonetheless, without the officials, without the umpires, and without the rules, we have no game whatsoever. The umpires are the custodians of the rules and need to be treated with as much respect as the game itself. They are sacrosanct, just like the game itself.

It is not the umpires who think they are bigger than the game, only those that seek to deride those who officiate and mange the games for their own benefit are the problem here.

[dimelb]

To some extent I think the umpires are being a little "precious" when it comes to contact. When you have 45 people + running around on one field, there's bound to be some, occassional, accidental contact. This is part of the game. However, when a player lays a hand on an official in the course of the game, it needs to be very carefully scrutinised.

Heath Shaw, IMHO, was rightfully suspended. He should count himself lucky that it wasn't more. Brett Kirk (And several others) however, should count themselves unlucky as their contact was in a contest with another player, not an argument with an umpire.

Malthouse should be facing at least a two week ban as should Eddie and Jeff with $50k fines slapped on top. The dissent they have shown the officials (and the AFL to a lesser degree) is totally unacceptable. It does come down to setting an example and coaches and club presidents should be setting the highest example of them all. Is it any wonder that Shaw thinks he has the right to not only question the umpire, but to physically harass them when that's the sort of leadership shown at Collingwood?

The umpires will ALWAYS make mistakes (Just as players who get paid $500k a year manage to miss goals, kick the ball OOF and drop sitters do). And yes, the way they are expected to "interpret" the rules is frustrating for all concerned. Nonetheless, without the officials, without the umpires, and without the rules, we have no game whatsoever. The umpires are the custodians of the rules and need to be treated with as much respect as the game itself. They are sacrosanct, just like the game itself.

It is not the umpires who think they are bigger than the game, only those that seek to deride those who officiate and manage the games for their own benefit are the problem here.

I'm happy to go along with all this. In fact, I think the umpires themselves are unhappy about the present state of affairs and may resent the rules committee's usurpation of their (the umpires') role of custodians of the game. This is why I headed the thread "The umpiring problem"; the fundamental problem in my view is not the umpires (always excepting Chamberpot) but the interference of the rules committee and their failure to adequately consult with others before meddling with the game. I agree with Paul Roos in his statement that the game should be allowed to evolve; I think Nathan Buckley has said similar things. The handling of the dreaded flood is a good example; any team now that relies too heavily on flooding will pay the price on the scoreboard. That's how it should work.