It is the most talked about issue in sport today. Umpires, referees and the rules. Who is right? Who is wrong? And why doesn’t there ever seem to be what we all really want for our sport. And that is consistency.
Umpires! We all have a love hate relationship with them but all we want from the white er yellow/ green maggots is consistency
There is a distinct difference between understanding a sport and understanding the rules of that sport. Players, ex-players and other minorities understand their game more than anybody else. We have rule books and rule makers, but when did common sense go out the window?
An NRL commentator made a comment that umpires/referees don’t have a proper understanding of the way the game works. They understand the black and white rules, but those grey areas of the rules are where they make unbelievable errors. The same is true for almost any sport especially AFL.
In AFL, fans and players alike are bewildered when decisions are made that don’t make a lot of sense. Sure the rulebook states that if a player breaches a rule, then the penalty applies. But to every rule there is a shady grey area open to interpretation. And this is where common sense should prevail, but it does not seem to.
For example, kicking the ball 30-40 metres from the backline in the general direction of the boundary, while under pressure has been called deliberate many times in today’s modern game. But what other choice does that player have? If he holds onto the ball, he will be penalised for holding the ball, but if he tries to offload under pressure, there is every chance of a turnover. And now with the new rule disallowing rushed behinds, what can he do? His only choice is to bomb it out and hope for the boundary, he does and is penalised. Why?
And why when a forward puts the ball out of bounds on purpose in his own 50 metre arc, is he not penalised?
Another example in a rival code is the obstruction rule. Obstruction is when a defender is blocked by the attacking team at making an attempt to tackle the player with the ball (the equivalent of sheparding in AFL). In the NRL the rulebook states that obstruction is illegal and should result in a penalty. Now the reality is, is that if a try is scored in a game, but an obstruction occurs then a no try is given. But if that same play does not result in a try, no penalty for obstruction is given. It doesn’t make any sense and it confuses and intensely frustrates players and fans alike.
One of the greatest things to watch in AFL is when the game is on the line and the umpires put the whistle away and ignore soft free kick. It makes it exciting and enjoyable to watch. But on the flip side, one of the worst things in our game is when the game is tight and umpires pay soft free kicks that result in goals and sometimes decide the results of the game.
So what is the solution? How do we stop these stupid decisions occurring? Well there is a couple of possible answers.
- Make all the rules black and white and not open for interpretation. Do not allow umpires to have a opinion when making a decision.
- Allow common sense to prevail and give players/teams the benefit of the doubt. When doubt does enter the umpires mind and he isn’t too sure, play on.
- Replace umpires with ex players and then we will get better officiating. Maybe.
But will any of these suggestions work? Is there another solution? Will we ever get what we really want in this great game of ours? Will we get consistency? Or are we doomed to put up with this for as long as the game exists? What do you think? Let us know…
June 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I know they have tried getting ex players but lets be honest, being an umpire sucks with everyone abusing them (ie Hall). I think this is the main issue that the AFL needs to look at. If players and supporters treated them with more respect, umpires would stick at the job and maybe, just maybe ex players would pick it up.
Also full other notes:
- AFL is the game where umpires need a skill (bounce the ball)
- ex Collingwood player (name??) umpired for a bit and I think it was his bouncing that was his main issue.
Jermayns last blog post..All we ask for is Consistency Umpire!
June 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Amen, brother!!! Consistency is most definitely what we want. There are some problem areas though.
What is a “common sense” interpretation? If the crowd is equally split between two teams, half will think it’s a free, and the other half will disagree. Who is right?
And that assumes that those baying from the bleachers actually KNOW the rules. If the fans surrounding me each week are any indication, they haven’t got a clue! For instance, 11 rounds in it seems a majority of fans at the game STILL haven’t cottoned on to the way that deliberate rushed behinds are defined/interpreted.
Yelling at the umpire has been a part of the game since I began watching — a long, long time ago. The level has gone up (and the quality down) in recent years, predominantly over confusion and perceived inconsistency. Back in the one-umpire days, there was only one interpretation each week. There were umpires we hated, who we thought hated us. Now, with three, often quite different, interpretations each week — let alone vastly differing interpretations from week to week — it’s no wonder that fans, and players, get frustrated and upset.
It also doesn’t help that Jeff Gieschen’s mob move the goalposts throughout the season. We also have more and more decisions coming from non-controlling umpires. Suddenly a whistle blows and everyone, including players, is wondering what the hell is going on, when in runs an umpire from a couple of miles away to say that someone tapped someone else and award a free kick.
Umpires wired for sound is a good thing for finding out why obscure free kicks are paid, but bloody annoying to hear Steve McBurney wittering on and on!!! And the poor sods at the game who’ve paid their hard-earned bucks to be at the game have no bloody idea, because they’re not wired in.
With all this happening, why would anyone get frustrated?
Solutions:
1. Release the Giesch!!!!
2. A rule interpretation is the same in the Grand Final as it was in round 1 of the pre-season comp.
3. Release the Giesch!!!!
4. Have umpires ‘teamed’ so their interpretations are quite similar.
5. Release the Giesch!!!! (anyone spot a theme here?)
6. Make sure no-one is in any doubt why a free kick has been paid.
7. Welease Woger!!! (tricked you!)
8. Instruct umpires NOT to pay free kicks if they can’t see the ball.
9. Educate the football public on the rules.
10. Release the Giesch!!!! (couldn’t resist another one!)
@Jermayn: The player was Mark Fraser (ex-Collingwood and Essendon), son of champion Bomber CHF of the 60s, Ken Fraser.
I’m not convinced that ex-players will necessarily make better umpires. I’m not sure it’s the right temperamental makeup.
PS: Release the Giesch!!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder
June 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Part of the problem is that the rules have become so fluid – changing from one year to the next (sometimes even more often than that) that umpires are never given the chance to settle into any kind of rhythmn. And this rubbish about changing “interpretations” makes it worse. I think there needs to be at least a 5 year moratorium on any rule changes, including “interpretation”. Any problem that hasn’t needed dealing with in the last 100+ years, doesn’t need dealing with now. Let the game, and the umpires sort it out without needing to be so heavy handed with rule changes.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I think AussieRulesBlog brings up a good point about the 3 umpires and how they all have 3 different views which can bring the inconsistency…
I actually think Giesch has been good as the coaches boss (I know you hate him AussieRulesBlog). I feel he has brought more openess to the trade than before. Yes screwing around with the rules is a pain BUT I think that is more the idiots behind the Rules committee than Giesh.
I listened to Giesh on 6pr in Perth and he was well open to cristism imo.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I don’t hate him — that’s nowhere near strong enough!!
It’s the Giesch and Rowan Sawers who tell the umpires how to interpret the rules. The Rules Committee (another rant some other time) just write the rules. Interpretations that change almost weekly are down to the Giesch.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder
June 10th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
More often it’s not the rule that changes. “Hands in the back”, for instance, has always been in the book, but used to be called a “push in the back”. Then some moron decided that even the slightest touch was the same as a full-blooded push, and told the umps to apply the same penalty. I’ll give you one guess who. . .
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder
June 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
whatever happened to incorrect disposal, i hate when a player takes on the game, gets caught but the ball spills out or the player simply drops the ball and doesn’t get penalised. unless it is blatantly obvious the umps should put their whistles away.
Defenders and forwards wrestling with each other and ruck decisions also frustrate me, half the time players don’t even know who will be the recipient of the free kick because they are both infringing.
I hate when fans use the umpires as an excuse but it can be really really annoying. Even when the Dogs were pumping Sydney a few weeks ago Barry Hall pulled Lake to the ground in a marking contest and somehow received the free kick. A couple of weeks earlier Russell Robertson lost his balance and fell over in front of Dale Morris yet the umpired paid a push in the back. How can these blokes make big decisions in front of goal when in all essence they are using guess work?? If you are not 99% sure then DON’T PAY THE BLOODY FREE KICK!!!
June 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I guess it’s different for you Deano, but after I’ve seen a game live, if I watch a replay, many of the decisions I queried strongly from the stands are proven at least understandable by the TV close-ups. There are always issues of whether you agree with a particular interpretation, but the umps do seem to mostly get it right according to their weekly instructions.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your final remark.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder
June 11th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Which I think is the main point of SunCity_Royals comments and article that the game should just be left alone. The hands in the back rule is one of the worst rules ever and personally I do not blame the Giesh, he only upholds the rule. Its the idiots who change the rules in the first place who should be blamed.
btw has anyone noticed that the game in the last few weeks has been much more free flowing than the first few weeks of the season?
June 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Jermayn, the rule wasn’t changed! It was the interpretation that was changed.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder
June 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
So instead of using your hands to stand your ground if your caught behind you cannot. Means it went from a PUSH in the back to HANDS in the back. The rule wording was changed and so it makes it a rule change in my books.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
@aussierulesblog – I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the Giesch that changed it though
June 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
See Rules of the Game 2009
Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if
he or she:
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such
contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player
is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
I’d love you to tell me which part of this wording is different, Jermayn.
A few years ago, umpires would explain to players that the free kick was awarded “because there were two actions”. On the interpretation we began the year with, placing your hand on the opponent’s back became a free kick. Show me where it says that in the rule book!
@Geoff: Well who decides how the umpires will interpret this rule, Geoff?
What’s happened over recent weeks is that the umpires have relaxed their interpretation of free-kickable actions. There are many fewer tiggy-touchwood free kicks being paid. The rules haven’t changed since the pre-season competition began. Have a look back at a pre-season game and tell me if it looks like the same rule book is in operation!
Release the Giesch!!!!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder
June 11th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
@aussierulesblog – as I remember it, Adrian Anderson as football operations boss. But that’s from memory, I’m not saying that’s definitely true.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Geoff, I bow to your greater knowledge! After an extensive search, revealing pretty much zero information on the AFL website about how all this works, I came across this piece by Derek Humphrey-Smith which lays the blame for the “hands in the back” interpretation of Rule 15.4.5 squarely at the feet of the Laws of the Game Committee, chaired by Anderson.
I would still contend that varied interpretations WITHIN the season are Gieschen and Rowan Sawers’ work. Sawers, incidentally, is on the Laws of the Game Committee.
Frankly, whether the rule or interpretation is good, bad or indifferent is of no moment to me, as long as it is applied consistently through the entire season. Notwithstanding that desire, I agree with you that it would be preferable that rules and interpretations made practical sense and that they were left alone, in general.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The eye of the beholder