Umpires and interpretation

[dawson]

Interesting observation today in the Australian by Chip Le Grand in that 20 deliberate out of bounds paid in Rounds 12-15 and just two paid since.

This is one of the things I hate about the AFL. The Umpires department is always very precious about itself and especially a goofball such as Jeff Geischen.

There is no where to go but anarchy and chaos if in some weeks you are strict on a certain rule and in other weeks turn a blind eye.

A favourite one of theirs is holding the ball where the latitude from week to week is staggering.

With something like the ruckman taking the ball from the ruck contest, everyone is cool with that because there is consistency from the first bounce to full time and from week to week - if you take it from the contest and don't get rid of it, you are going to get pinged.

The Umpires seem fixated on down the ground and off the ball free kicks. Footy is heading down the soccer track where players are basically cheating to win their side a free kick. Matthew Lloyd conceded as much today - he said given the importance that they beat the Demons, the ends justified the means.

This charade is then exacerbated at the tribunal when the victim says "Don't suspend the guy, I was acting (really badly) and just trying to win a free kick."
This is exactly what happened in the BBBH-Simon Beaumont case last week.

Thank god, they have at least stopped the 'umpire contact' free kicks because they were the dumbest of the lot. Still can't believe that Matthew Nicks got pinged against Collingwood a few years ago and Todd Curley (and Diesel Williams) were scapegoats as bad as I have seen. Totally left high and dry in execution by media. The whole thing basically ended Curley's career.

At the end of the day, players are going to do what they can to win the game - Cressa taking a dive against Shmock-lop to kick a goal after the siren is an example but as long as the players know they can con the umpires, it will keep on happening.

[SXP]

Maybe tribunal should suspend Jeff Geischen for life!

[dimelb]

Agree with you about players taking a dive - umps should know better. But Williams a scapegoat? I don't think so. In any other local football code he would have been shot at dawn.

[sharp9]

This ENTIRE problem could be fixed with one interpretation.

IF, IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UMPIRE, A PLAYER GOES TO GROUND WITH MORE FORCE THAN THE CONTACT FROM ANOTHER PLAYER, THEN HE SHALL BE DEEMED TO NOT HAVE BEEN INFRINGED UPON.

Very, very simple. It is absolutely blindingly obvious when a player either throws himself to ground, or allows himself to be doubled over in a marking contest when brushed from behind. At the moment the umpires are directed to ignore this and pay a free if there was contact.

They have done this a little in soccer (where you can get sent off for diving or booked for milking).

Diving in footy should be a fifty metre penalty. That would stop it quick smart.

You can't stop players from appealing for a free, of course, but that is different from milking.

[sharp9]

And another thing....I thought you weren't allowed to shepherd in a marking contest?

Has barely been paid all year. Technically if you impede a player from going for a mark and you don't go for the mark yourself, then that's a free isn't it?

No consistency.

Forgot to mention another umpire shocker on Sunday...Barry leapt for the mark without touching the player in the back, stayed in the air grabbed for the ball (but dropped it) and was pinged for infringing the other player in a marking contest. How is this possible!!!!!!?

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no law about how long you can hang for before taking a speccy is there?

The commentators said "early leap," but that only applies if you miss the ball....otherwise it's genius isn't it?

[floppinab]

Forgot to mention another umpire shocker on Sunday...Barry leapt for the mark without touching the player in the back, stayed in the air grabbed for the ball (but dropped it) and was pinged for infringing the other player in a marking contest. How is this possible!!!!!!?

A little technical but Leo did two leaps on Sundy. The first one he got pinged for he did put a hand on the shoulder on the way up (albeit very very slightly, the replays did show it although the commentators missed it). The second one was "clean" and the umpie did allow play to go on.

[sharp9]

I missed the little hand on the shoulder, then.

Why don't they ping BBB's defenders for a little hand on the shoulder? Mmmmm???

[liz]

Also, in the first of those two incidents Leo didn't come anywhere close to marking it so even without the hand on the shoulder it could have been interpreted as an unrealistic attempt to mark. In the second case it certainly was a realistic attempt and he rightly didn't get pinged for it.

Great moment of the game - possibly the matchwinning effort for us.

[Jon]

Originally posted by lizz
Also, in the first of those two incidents Leo didn't come anywhere close to marking it so even without the hand on the shoulder it could have been interpreted as an unrealistic attempt to mark. In the second case it certainly was a realistic attempt and he rightly didn't get pinged for it.

Great moment of the game - possibly the matchwinning effort for us.

Does the rule only apply to a marking contest though? I thought if you were making a genuine attempt to spoil - say to punch the ball away - and managed to make contact with the ball you were in the clear.

I actually thought that first free against Leo might have been because the umpire didn't think he got a hand to it, rather than that he failed to mark it.

I may be wrong. But if you jump too early in a contest, and still manage to get a finger to it, they seem to let it go. Goodes has managed this a few memorable times. But I've also seen him pinged when he failed to recover from an early leap and couldn't get near the ball.

Agree that second contest by Leo was huge!

[Sid]

I think in Leo's first attempt, the umpires saw the hand on the shoulder in order to lift himself up. The commentators saw this. If he didnt put the hand on the shoulder, i think he would have been ok since he touched the ball.

As for Bazza's contests, i think that the defender always obstruct his arms. He does drop some easy marks though... He kicks more goals when playing on rather than from taking marks nowadays.

[jixygirl]

If the umpires did not see the hand, then I wonder how they would justify the free, seeing that Leo got a hand on the ball. Hall definitely has dropped some pretty simple marks that have made me want to scream, but the umpires do give him a bit of a harsh go. Any other player (except for a couple) would not have been reported for that so called head butt. This is where the whole consistency thing comes into play.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by lizz
Also, in the first of those two incidents Leo didn't come anywhere close to marking it so even without the hand on the shoulder it could have been interpreted as an unrealistic attempt to mark. In the second case it certainly was a realistic attempt and he rightly didn't get pinged for it.

Hang on...so there's a rule that says if you drop a mark you get pinged because it was too hard for you and it would have been a screamer if you'd held on to it? Which rule is that, Liz?

Hands on the ball is an attempted mark IMO

[sharp9]

And yet opposition teams can "go for a mark" and only hit Barry's arms and back yet they are deemed to be attempting a mark?

[floppinab]

I've been bagging Hall about his marking but he is being slammed particularly in the last few weeks for no frees.

In the first half of year he seemed to be more harshly treated in giving away frees purely for the way he goes about his vigorous attack on the opposition player with the footy.

[dawson]

What about when Nicks received a free kick.
He stopped when the whistle was blown and sort of started again, kicked it straight to a Docker and it wasn't brought back???