#AFL Round 16 Bombers v Swans Sat 6-Jul at MCG #AFLDonsSwans @sydneyswans

[Ludwig]

While your proposed changes might make it a bit easier to umpire, it may increase the number of ugly, grinding mauls: especially getting rid of the handball and allowing the play to continue after dropping the ball. I think that this could lead to extended periods of play, where a tackled player drops the ball and when another player gets possession, they are immediately set upon and then a wrestling match occurs, until the ball is again dropped. If once again, the ball ends up close by, whoever decides to chance picking it up, is then likely to also be immediately tackled. And so on, and so on, and so on. So for that scenario, I think there needs to be a circuit breaker, like holding the ball or illegal disposal decisions.

There probably needs to be something to address the rolling mauls, but I'm not sure what that might be other than the umpire stopping play and throwing the ball up. Maybe the umpire stops the play and throws the ball toward the centre of the ground. That would be interesting, if not very strange. There would probably have to be some kind of delay of game penalty.

But forgetting about the rule changes and go back to the general problem of having so many emotionally invested fans for all clubs often feeling that their side lost the game because of biased or poor umpiring. And it's often a central issue of discussion of the footy talk shows. You don't get the in basketball, for instance. No one says the Golden State Warriors lost the NBA championship because of poor refereeing, and there certainly are many miscalls in basketball. The difference is that most fouls in basketball are due to some kind of interference or unfair contact, but in AFL we are forcing the umpire to decide if a kick went 14 metres or 16 meters, or a player got a knuckle to a dropped ball or not. We are asking the umpires to decide games by making very fine measurement decisions.

I will add to what I said before by addressing the issue of the year, the goal review. Again, someone has to decide if a molecule from the surface of a football came into contact with a molecule from the surface of a fingernail. The obvious solution is to change the rule so it doesn't matter if the ball is touched, or if it hit the goalpost. If the ball is kicked and goes between goal posts, then it's a goal. No need for goal reviews.

[Nico]

What irritates me most about the umpiring is not the number of frees given against (which are mostly there) but the one that aren't paid, and annoyingly similar frees that are paid to the opposition. As Stevoswan said in another post "I just think that there has to be better ways of taking the game out of the umpires hands more by actually just making it easier for them to get the traditional rules right" and I would also add adjudicate illegal disposal e.g. pay a free for dropping the ball and not allow a player to pass it to a teammate. Also reward the tackler for correct tackles. I have watched games from the 70's,80's 90's where there was only one umpire and the game flowed. The umpires would also quickly ball up and there were no "rugby" like mauls. The rules have been around for a long time, the umpires should just enforce them. If the penalty count blows out so be it. Eventually the message will get through to the players.

Mate, back in the day, if a player handed the ball to a team mate it was deemed a throw.

[Nico]

I agree on those, and did feel they were pretty obvious ones to miss. I feel like we didn't really get any 50/50 calls and the Bombers seemed to get all theirs. I don't think Anthony McD-T was pushed in the back, but was awarded a free and a shot on goal. At the other end I thought Isaac took a strong overhead mark in our forward 50, clearly controlled it then had it knocked out of his hands yet no call.

The ATW one was right in front of us and we didn't think he even got touched let alone in the back. Again the replay on the big screen was damning.

[Meg]

The ATW one was right in front of us and we didn't think he even got touched let alone in the back. Again the replay on the big screen was damning.

The TV replay clearly showed the push in the back. It was pretty gentle, not a shove, but it was there.

[Meg]

I will add to what I said before by addressing the issue of the year, the goal review. Again, someone has to decide if a molecule from the surface of a football came into contact with a molecule from the surface of a fingernail. The obvious solution is to change the rule so it doesn't matter if the ball is touched, or if it hit the goalpost. If the ball is kicked and goes between goal posts, then it's a goal. No need for goal reviews.

I agree with you on that one.

[bodgie]

+1 re touched ball

and if the ball goes through after touching the post that would be a goal. If it bounces back into play its play on or a point?

[Ludwig]

If it bounces back into play its play on or a point?

Play on sounds like more fun.

[Auntie.Gerald]

It’s interesting that Clarkson at the hawks is staying with a uncontested chip and catch style in the main

Given that his team is re building you must suspect his breakfast catch ups with the powers at be at the AFL will see the rolling maul and paddle and throw footy tightened up

Clarkson is a big believer in a mostly uncontested style of footy that starves the opposition of the footy and allows the hawks to control the game with the ball in hand

I like that we have gone more 50/50 this season with our styles of footy as it allows us to be flexible against different teams and different stages of a game

But it allows us to be more flexible to AFL changes

At the moment the maul and paddle limits the downside on a bad exit from the pack .......... but it is making footy fairly boring and predictable

[Blood Fever]

Will Hayward needs to be dropped for his rubbish decisions. Takes a mark on 50 in the 3rd Q, stands there for an eternity while we had 3 players on their own inside 20 metres for a month of Sundays yelling for it, then tries a crap short pass, turnover. Any chance he might have a shot himself. How did he miss the goal from the top of the square. No excuse but the 50 metre penalty should have been on the goal line as the man was standing the mark on about 51 metres. However, his undisciplined play and poor set shot kicking has cost us week in week out.

Thought Ollie Florent found it a bit tough yesterday.
Ben Ronke...mmmm. Had to look hard to see if he was on the ground.
Rose...needs to put his body on the line rather that just putting his pinkies in at the contest.
Melican ... I just can't warm to him. His first half was so forgettable. In the last quarter Rampe has the ball, Melican is 50 metres on his own on the fat side, nup, not going there and went straight up the guts. Said it all for me.
James Rowbottom played a very good game.
Allir is a star. Got most of our centre clearances.
An Essendon fan I was with got it right when he said Essendon got its run on in the last quarter when they dominated the centre clearances.

Melican is fine and did his job. It was late in last quarter so naturally Rampe was looking straight up the ground. Agree about Rose. Hayward looks nervous with ball in hand but strikes me as a confidence player and could catch fire. Would hold my nose and leave him in.

[dejavoodoo44]

Play on sounds like more fun.

I was agreeing with you; up until then. That is, if the ball goes through, it's a goal, and it doesn't matter if it's been touched or hit the post. But to me, if it hits the big stick and doesn't go through, then it should be a behind. My reasoning concerns player safety. I can easily imagine a ball thudding into the fat bit and only rebounding a metre or so. With desperate players trying to gather the ball, there seems to me, too much potential for them to do themselves an injury, through hitting the post at high speed.

In regards to perceptions of unfair umpiring, I think one of the problems, certainly from the point of view of non-Victorian fans, is that the structures are Victorian dominated. Most of the game's administrators are in Melbourne. Most of the AFL media are Melbourne based. And most of the umpires live in Victoria. So, when a non-Victorian side travels to play in Victoria and a lopsided free kick count ensues, it's easy for supporters to make a case, that the Victorian umpires are being influenced by Victorian fans, the Victorian media and the Victorian administrators, to give an unfair advantage to the Victorian teams.

Personally, I would like to see a long term plan to address that. Which would be for the AFL to do much more to develop umpires from outside of Victoria, in order to eventually have a system of neutral umpires. For instance, if a South Australian team plays a Victorian team in Melbourne, then the umpires would come from any other state or territory. Much the same way that international level cricket umpires, don't officiate tests in their own country, or overseas tests involving their own nation. I think that system would cut down on the perceptions of bias. I also believe that it would cut down on actual bias: but to discuss that, it would have to be a much longer post.

[dejavoodoo44]

Melican is fine and did his job. It was late in last quarter so naturally Rampe was looking straight up the ground. Agree about Rose. Hayward looks nervous with ball in hand but strikes me as a confidence player and could catch fire. Would hold my nose and leave him in.

Yes, Melican has improved after a slow start to the season, when he probably wasn't fully fit. I'm happy for him to hold his place. And with Hayward: the likely replacement for him is Menzel, but he was quiet last night. So it looks like Will stays by default.

[Ludwig]

I was agreeing with you; up until then. That is, if the ball goes through, it's a goal, and it doesn't matter if it's been touched or hit the post. But to me, if it hits the big stick and doesn't go through, then it should be a behind. My reasoning concerns player safety. I can easily imagine a ball thudding into the fat bit and only rebounding a metre or so. With desperate players trying to gather the ball, there seems to me, too much potential for them to do themselves an injury, through hitting the post at high speed.

In regards to perceptions of unfair umpiring, I think one of the problems, certainly from the point of view of non-Victorian fans, is that the structures are Victorian dominated. Most of the game's administrators are in Melbourne. Most of the AFL media are Melbourne based. And most of the umpires live in Victoria. So, when a non-Victorian side travels to play in Victoria and a lopsided free kick count ensues, it's easy for supporters to make a case, that the Victorian umpires are being influenced by Victorian fans, the Victorian media and the Victorian administrators, to give an unfair advantage to the Victorian teams.

Personally, I would like to see a long term plan to address that. Which would be for the AFL to do much more to develop umpires from outside of Victoria, in order to eventually have a system of neutral umpires. For instance, if a South Australian team plays a Victorian team in Melbourne, then the umpires would come from any other state or territory. Much the same way that international level cricket umpires, don't officiate tests in their own country, or overseas tests involving their own nation. I think that system would cut down on the perceptions of bias. I also believe that it would cut down on actual bias: but to discuss that, it would have to be a much longer post.

If it hits the post ............ 3½ points. Split the difference.

In the game now, hitting the post is a disappointment. But how exciting having the ball coming back onto the field of play. And if the ball hits the post on the fly and bounces back into play, the rule should be that it can still be marked as long as it hasn't hit the ground. Every one of those posters would be a highlight.

[neilfws]

If we played better, we might have won in spite of the perceived umpiring discrepancies

I didn't see this game, so can't comment on the umpiring. But I tend to agree that winning is more about playing better than the other team, and less about bad umpiring.

I think the most unfortunate thing is the focus on the free kick count. I can understand it, and I think people seize on it because it's the only data regarding free kicks that we have. We are not told when in the game they are awarded, for example, or how many led directly to a goal.

There is in fact very little evidence that larger free kick differentials lead to larger scoring margins. Even if there is an effect, other factors are just far more important. I'll make a graph one day but I doubt it will convince anyone who believes otherwise

[Industrial Fan]

Heeney held his non mark for longer than when he was called for holding the ball

[Blood Fever]

I didn't see this game, so can't comment on the umpiring. But I tend to agree that winning is more about playing better than the other team, and less about bad umpiring.

I think the most unfortunate thing is the focus on the free kick count. I can understand it, and I think people seize on it because it's the only data regarding free kicks that we have. We are not told when in the game they are awarded, for example, or how many led directly to a goal.

There is in fact very little evidence that larger free kick differentials lead to larger scoring margins. Even if there is an effect, other factors are just far more important. I'll make a graph one day but I doubt it will convince anyone who believes otherwise

I'm feeling threatened by your graph!