reads like a press release from the AFL. A few assertions of Blake's should be challenged:
This is Bubbles* (he is no more a razor than a spoon is a steak knife) big problem. He is looking to make the big call all the time. Being in the play gives him oxygen and you can see that when he is in the mood, he delights in being the focus. He can obviously be unobtrusive (it has actually happened!!) when he umpires, but it is obviously not how he prefers it!
* Bubbles - for those who missed it - Gieschen in his report on the game last week described Ray as 'bubbly and gregarious', which were reasons to like him! I think Bubbles is therefore an infinitely better moniker for him than Razor!
As for the fans wanting their umpires to be submissive, what a load of BS. We only want them to be CONSISTENT and incidental to the game! I think the majority of the AFL's rules in regard to the umpires (no excessive backchatting, no touching them) are incredibly important and are spot on. One of the worst images in world sport is in the EPL and other major world soccer leagues where players get in the face of the referees, wrap their arms around them and pat them condescendingly. Equally, officials should NOT get in players faces either - that Blake thinks it is a good thing that Bubbles does is patently stupid.
The question surely then is 'why is it rare that he is hardly noticed'? If he does his job like the other 29 umpires on the senior panel, he would be less noticed more often surely - WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE. Bubbles clearly gets some kind of fix from being out there and it is ridiculous. If he wanted to be famous, he should have tried out for Neighbours, So You Think You Can Dance or Australia's Got Talent!
I suspect he makes most of the other umpires cringe as much as the rest of us, not that the AFL empire would ever admit as much. Derek Humphrey Smith sees the problem, so it beggars belief that HQ is honestly happy with how Bubbles goes about it.
Really? Blake watched the game? Sorry, but I doubt that very much. If he did, he watched it with one eye shut and must ducked off for a pee a lot - missing much of what was contentious in the game. Sure - the two frees at the end of the game he refers to were there - but the damage was done much earlier than that!
Unsurprisingly, he makes no mention of the joke paid to Ballantyne when the game was barely minutes old nor the fact that Ballantyne's free for being held away by Grundy like the little pest he is was never warranted. The message out of that game is that (1) staging is alive and well in the game and will not be curtailed by the umpires and (2) if you are an annoying little twat and start the niggly weak stuff, you are a fair chance to suck in an umpire and get yourself a free. Neither should be a feature of the game, but umpiring like last week's will do bugger all to stop it.
Derek Humphrey Smith hits the nail on the head! Then Blake shows how thoughtless his whole article is by agreeing that Bubbles has a problem and needs to sort it out, but is NEEDED by the game.
In short - if Bubbles continues to the act the way he wants to act, rather than the way he should and can act - No, the game doesn't need people like him. The heroes and villans should come from the playing group (and they do) - there is simply no place for umpires who think themselves to be part of the action and entertainment.
If I ever needed someone to defend me - I'd go for someone other than Martin Blake. His puff piece intended to support Bubbles does more to highlight his faults than support him!
And finally- if you're still reading - apologies for taking up so much cyberspace on an umpire! But it does feel better for having spewed it all out and I hope I haven't bored you to death!
What's his problem? Chamberlain gets in the players' faces. He's bound to make a big call somewhere along the line; in fact, he wants to make that call. Armed with that whistle, there is no mistaking who's in charge. Fans, who like their umpires to be submissive, cry foul.
* Bubbles - for those who missed it - Gieschen in his report on the game last week described Ray as 'bubbly and gregarious', which were reasons to like him! I think Bubbles is therefore an infinitely better moniker for him than Razor!
As for the fans wanting their umpires to be submissive, what a load of BS. We only want them to be CONSISTENT and incidental to the game! I think the majority of the AFL's rules in regard to the umpires (no excessive backchatting, no touching them) are incredibly important and are spot on. One of the worst images in world sport is in the EPL and other major world soccer leagues where players get in the face of the referees, wrap their arms around them and pat them condescendingly. Equally, officials should NOT get in players faces either - that Blake thinks it is a good thing that Bubbles does is patently stupid.
The thing is, he can umpire. In 2010, his best year, he officiated his first grand final, and then the replay, and did a brilliant job. In fact, he was hardly noticed, which is rare. But last weekend, a bit of the old Ray bobbed up.
I suspect he makes most of the other umpires cringe as much as the rest of us, not that the AFL empire would ever admit as much. Derek Humphrey Smith sees the problem, so it beggars belief that HQ is honestly happy with how Bubbles goes about it.
So here's the postscript to last weekend. I watched the game, then went through the tape and looked at the big moments and decisions. Sydney did not lose because of Ray or the other umpires. The Swans lost their rag, started carping and behaving out of character.
Here's another thing. Chamberlain did not pay the 50-metre penalty against Tadhg Kennelly at the end, nor the free kick against Heath Grundy for a throw that led to Fremantle's sealing goal. It was another umpire.
Here's another thing. Chamberlain did not pay the 50-metre penalty against Tadhg Kennelly at the end, nor the free kick against Heath Grundy for a throw that led to Fremantle's sealing goal. It was another umpire.
Unsurprisingly, he makes no mention of the joke paid to Ballantyne when the game was barely minutes old nor the fact that Ballantyne's free for being held away by Grundy like the little pest he is was never warranted. The message out of that game is that (1) staging is alive and well in the game and will not be curtailed by the umpires and (2) if you are an annoying little twat and start the niggly weak stuff, you are a fair chance to suck in an umpire and get yourself a free. Neither should be a feature of the game, but umpiring like last week's will do bugger all to stop it.
Typically, these things get lost in the noise that surrounds Ray Chamberlain. I asked former umpire Derek Humphery-Smith, a valuable commentator on the topic, for an opinion. ''I think the best umpires are those who complement the contest, not attract attention away from the contest. That's the danger that Ray falls into on occasions,'' he said.
I agree with that. So you work it out, Ray.
Because footy needs people like Ray Chamberlain.
There, I've said it.
I agree with that. So you work it out, Ray.
Because footy needs people like Ray Chamberlain.
There, I've said it.
In short - if Bubbles continues to the act the way he wants to act, rather than the way he should and can act - No, the game doesn't need people like him. The heroes and villans should come from the playing group (and they do) - there is simply no place for umpires who think themselves to be part of the action and entertainment.
If I ever needed someone to defend me - I'd go for someone other than Martin Blake. His puff piece intended to support Bubbles does more to highlight his faults than support him!
And finally- if you're still reading - apologies for taking up so much cyberspace on an umpire! But it does feel better for having spewed it all out and I hope I haven't bored you to death!

Comment