Author Topic: State of Umpiring [merged]  (Read 397100 times)

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019.2020
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3000 on: May 18, 2024, 10:11:29 AM »
I also think the AFL is going too far with the head contact + suspensions.

Given the earning potential of an AFL player (particularly the ones that 'make it' long term) I think they should be asked to sign a waiver that prevents them from suing the AFL or clubs for damages later in life.

Waivers don't hold up in court more often then not with this sort of thing though if the players can prove gross negligence or a breach of duty of care.... :shh
Not true if your a global pharmaceutical manufacturer and a country gave you complete indemnity against liability.  :rollin
The club that keeps giving.

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019.2020
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3001 on: May 18, 2024, 10:27:03 AM »
He is correct on all points.

Largely speaking the game is less interesting as a result.

Very true Andyy, I find that the vast majority of games are unwatchable. I start to watch a game, get bored with the lack of contests & hearing umpires saying "stand, stand,  stand". I either change the channel or turn the TV off & go watch paint dry or grass grow, which is far more exciting.

Yeah it's sad.

When I was a bachelor I would watch basically every game from Friday night, Sat PM, Sat night and Sunday.

Now sometimes I actually struggle to watch the Richmond games with much enthusiasm...

As a spectacle it's deteriorated significantly and I blame the rule changes.

I agree. I have been this way for some time. Granted I obviously watched more games during our dynasty but I have struggled to watch other AFL for over a decade.

I blame this on one rule that has done more damage to the game than any other rule.......

PRIOR OPPORTUNITY!

This one rule has ruined the game and made it significantly more difficult for the umpires also by adding a whole lot of grey.

I can't remember when but it was posted on this forum where an umpire listed up to 7 things he must consider before deciding whether or not a player should be penalised for holding the ball or incorrect disposal.
This adds to inconsistencies in a game because each umpire isn't going to view an incident the same way.

Get rid of this one rule and the game will survive.
Players will only take possession when they are able and if they can dispose of the ball. You won't get the mindless passing to players in a worse situation to force stoppages.
Free kicks will be paid because there is less grey (ie. you choose to possess the ball and get tackled you must dispose of it).

#endprioropportunity

P. S I also hate the stand rule. It's juvenile! And the nominated ruck rule which is also juvenile.

The club that keeps giving.

Offline Hard Roar Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8099
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3002 on: May 18, 2024, 11:31:55 AM »
Agree with that post :thumbsup.
“I find it nearly impossible to make those judgments, but he is certainly up there with the really important ones, he is certainly up there with the Francis Bourkes and the Royce Harts and the Kevin Bartlett and the Kevin Sheedys, there is no doubt about that,” Balme said.

Offline Tiger Khosh

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4477
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3003 on: May 18, 2024, 12:08:25 PM »
Disagree strongly. Just another unnecessary rule change. And what would it result in? Players just grouped together standing around the ball afraid of picking it up because if they do and get immediately tackled they give away a free kick?

I’ve said it before I’ll say it again, leave the bloody game alone. Don’t create rules to influence and effect the style in which the game is played. Let teams and coaches dictate their own style and do what their supposed to do and come up with strategies to beat their opposition.

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019.2020
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3004 on: May 18, 2024, 01:41:24 PM »
Disagree strongly. Just another unnecessary rule change. And what would it result in? Players just grouped together standing around the ball afraid of picking it up because if they do and get immediately tackled they give away a free kick?

I’ve said it before I’ll say it again, leave the bloody game alone. Don’t create rules to influence and effect the style in which the game is played. Let teams and coaches dictate their own style and do what their supposed to do and come up with strategies to beat their opposition.

No that's not what will happen at all. I agree with your sentiments that we should avoid more rule changes though.

You see the game was perfectly okay for approximately 150 years before they brought in the prior opportunity rule (1996 I think ) because of narcissistic coaches (ie Sheedy) and commentators wanting to "help" the ball player and stop taggers from "ruining the game".

Thing is that good ball players still were able to get the ball and dispose of it ie. Greg Williams, "Flee" Weightman, Dean Kemp, Paul Couch, Ablett snr. Etc.

Great players will always find a way to get the ball and win the ball even if they need to tap it forward a little and get some separation first. I used to do it playing junior footy too. The rule was always black and white and very easy to adjudicate, possess the ball and you must dispose of the ball by hand or foot or your penalised. We all knew this even playing back yard footy. It all changed when this stupid rule was invented. Now we have the grey in the game that was never there to begin with.

The fact is that this rule was an actual "rule change" and like all other "rule changes" it has mostly failed to have the desired effect and has inevitably resulted in a worst outcome that intended.
The club that keeps giving.

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19433
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3005 on: May 18, 2024, 01:54:10 PM »
If a player has time enough to take more than one step then they have time enough to get rid of it....same goes if they're spun more than 180 degrees in tackle with at least the non-ball carrying arm free... :shh

Would also increase the minimum distance for a kick to be marked from 15 to at least 20..... :shh

Get rid of all of Wimpleys "state of the game/stop Richmond" arse rules... :shh

Also end the ludicrous "nominated" ruck mularkey ...under 9's stuff .....just penalise third man up and if both sides do it  then play on..... :shh

Then after all that's done - a complete moratorium on any further rule changes.... :shh
« Last Edit: May 18, 2024, 07:29:57 PM by one-eyed »
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019.2020
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3006 on: May 18, 2024, 04:56:05 PM »
Is there's any real proof that Hocking wanted to stop Richmond from winning finals and premierships and devised the Stand rule?

Or is it just a rumour?
I haven't been able to find any real proof anywhere but I do remember reading it somewhere of an actual plot to stop Richmond.

Just so I can prove it to my brother in law and show him myself.


The club that keeps giving.

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19433
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3007 on: May 18, 2024, 05:21:49 PM »
Is there's any real proof that Hocking wanted to stop Richmond from winning finals and premierships and devised the Stand rule?

Or is it just a rumour?
I haven't been able to find any real proof anywhere but I do remember reading it somewhere of an actual plot to stop Richmond.

Just so I can prove it to my brother in law and show him myself.

Common knowledge he was unhappy with the way players were "aggressively" manning the mark and singled out Richmond and Cotchin & McIntosh in particular to colleagues at the AFL....been mentioned in the media ....articles in the HUN but they're behind paywalls... :shh
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13305
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3008 on: May 18, 2024, 08:20:38 PM »
What was the 50m against Rioli for?

Offline Knighter

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3009 on: May 18, 2024, 08:23:08 PM »
Umpires are stuffen cheats. FO corrupt football league

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019.2020
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3010 on: May 18, 2024, 08:42:24 PM »
Is there's any real proof that Hocking wanted to stop Richmond from winning finals and premierships and devised the Stand rule?

Or is it just a rumour?
I haven't been able to find any real proof anywhere but I do remember reading it somewhere of an actual plot to stop Richmond.

Just so I can prove it to my brother in law and show him myself.

Common knowledge he was unhappy with the way players were "aggressively" manning the mark and singled out Richmond and Cotchin & McIntosh in particular to colleagues at the AFL....been mentioned in the media ....articles in the HUN but they're behind paywalls... :shh
Thanks. I actually just remembered I had asked this question before and MT linked the article.

Old man memory kicking in I guess
The club that keeps giving.

Offline Hard Roar Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8099
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3011 on: May 18, 2024, 08:47:05 PM »
What was the 50m against Rioli for?

Balding too early
“I find it nearly impossible to make those judgments, but he is certainly up there with the really important ones, he is certainly up there with the Francis Bourkes and the Royce Harts and the Kevin Bartlett and the Kevin Sheedys, there is no doubt about that,” Balme said.

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13305
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3012 on: May 18, 2024, 08:47:48 PM »
Why wasn’t that a free against  Cameron for an unrealistic marking attempt?

He didn’t touch the ball and took Nank out who was our only defender in the contest

WTF

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19433
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3013 on: May 18, 2024, 08:49:41 PM »
Why wasn’t that a free against  Cameron for an unrealistic marking attempt?

He didn’t touch the ball and took Nank out who was our only defender in the contest

WTF

More unrealistic than the one Lefau got pinged for.... >:(
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40319
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: State of Umpiring [merged]
« Reply #3014 on: May 18, 2024, 08:58:49 PM »
They've been brilliant tonight

 :sarcasm2
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)