Umpiring

[CureTheSane]

OK, so what is the answer?

Full time?
More umpires?
More accountable?

I never really understood the argument that more umpires would recuce the accuracy of their decisions.

Common sense tells us that more eyes will pick up more.

BUT, it will slow the game down, and wrap it up in cotton wool even more.

Making them more accountable is potentially going to increase their anxiety levels and cause even more poor decisions.

Full time employment is going to take money from the clubs, but seems to be the option most attractive to me.
I suppose one could question why a full time umpire should earn 200K per year though.

So what are your answers to this problem?

[Bleed Red Blood]

Full time umpiring for me, but 200k is a bit much imo.

Video umpiring might have to be looked at, it will definitly slow the game down though.

We shall see.

[liz]

I'm not sure about the concept of full-time umpires. What would they do all week? As it is, full-time players have a lot of spare time on their hands and clubs are increasingly encouraging them to study or find other ways of using their time constructively. And they have to train, condition themselves, work on game plans, hone their skills etc.

How much time can umpires spend each week practising how to bounce a ball?

I understand that part of the argument is to retain quality umpires by giving them more of a career but to me the solution seems like a clumsy way of addressing the issue.

I very rarely agree with anything Sam Newman says but he did make a comment a week or so ago that made sense, suggesting that the umpires give up on the ticky-touchy frees. I know there are arguments both ways but I think it might be easier to stomach the occasional 'obvious' one that wasn't paid if there weren't so many trivial ones that were. Whether this means reviewing the written laws or its just a matter of interpretation and application I am not sure.

Frees that really annoy me include:

- technical ruck contest ones, particularly those that occur when the players are just jostling for position. These are big guys and their strength is part of their art

- ones for 'over the shoulder' where a player is legitimately trying to spoil and only makes slight contact with the top of the shoulder or the neck. If contact is made to the head fine, or if the contact is forceful, but Rogers got pinged in one at the weekend where the contact certainly looked incidental to his action of spoiling and his opponent was in no danger of being hurt

- holding contests where both players are grappling with each other. If one player uses sufficient force to push the other to the ground or clearly get them out of the marking contest, fair enough, but we see so many where both are holding on yet a free is arbitrarily given to one.

- in the back decisions where the player with the ball has clearly dived forwards onto the ball and the tackling player has not caused this forwards motion. If the forwards motion causes the player to lose his footing, fine, play a free but otherwise why not play on (unless the tackler applies real force to the back of the opponent once they are on the ground - in which case it has the potential to cause injury and should be penalised). The one against Schneider on Misiti is an example of this taken to a stupid point, IMO.

Another of my pet hates is where players are pinged for holding the ball the instant they are tackled, which often seems to happen when the player has gone for a bit of a run. Surely a player is not obliged to dispose of the ball until he is tackled and deserves a least a second to make that disposal once he is tackled. If he is unable to do it properly - and I mean really do it properly, by all means ping him, but at least give him a chance.

[Mike_B]

I'm still of the opinion if they're going to change umpiring conditions/numbers etc, the need is for 4 boundary umps. How many times do you see them 100 m behind the play and trying to make a call whether a ball is in or out. As it is now, they have 3 rotating through the game to cover the 2 positions, but this is where the umpiring really falls down.

[sharpie]

I think a good change would be to empower the boundary umps to assist decisions on the field, such as if they see a throw or something that the umps miss, they can intervene.

May slow the game down a tad, but I think it works well in the Rugby codes.

[dread and might]

OK how about this beauty..... now i know there is no easy answer, and nobody wants the game slowed down but, something that really gets on my nerves is:

a player is running with the ball,i.e the ball is not in dispute, he is tackled, no prior opportunity, but as a result of the tackle the ball spills free, he drops it, or,if there was prior but he drops it as a result of the tackle, then someone from his team picks up the ball and starts running WTF?

surely this is akin to a throw, incorrect disposal call it what you like but his team should not be able to have clean posession when the ball has not been disposed of properly.

now, as i said there is no easy answer but i reckon if they cracked down on this, a player would either try not to drop it, whereupon the umpire would make the decision wether he had "prior" or not, then we would have a bounce or a free... or he would dispose of the ball. if there is incorrect disposal, there would be a free for a throw or a bounce.......

[ScottH]

Yes, I have noticed this over the last few years, they used to pay dropping the ball/Incorrect Disposal a lot, but now, they don't seem to care.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
I think a good change would be to empower the boundary umps to assist decisions on the field, such as if they see a throw or something that the umps miss, they can intervene.

May slow the game down a tad, but I think it works well in the Rugby codes.

My suggestion was that instead of 3 field umpire and 2 boundary umpires, you have 5 field umpires, each with a part of the field to patrol, with overlaps, so they do the boundary as well. Perhaps one of the field umpires could be the senior one, such as they have in other codes.

[CureTheSane]

That sounds, um sound NMW.

Funny how there are a gazillion people at the board complaining about the umpires, and when the opportunity is made for them to make a suggested chane to the way the game is umpired, they are all MIA....

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
My suggestion was that instead of 3 field umpire and 2 boundary umpires, you have 5 field umpires, each with a part of the field to patrol, with overlaps, so they do the boundary as well. Perhaps one of the field umpires could be the senior one, such as they have in other codes.

Power to the linesman, sorry Boundary Umpire.

They could were mikes and earpieces like the the NRL and at least point out what they see, if there is an infringement, or tell the ump which way a free should go (Ref:C. Bolton). It would give the 3 Umps 2 extra sets of eyes.

[SXP]

The field umpire should definetly consult linesmen if unsure (as they did in soccer or rugby) and have 2 goal umps on each side.