State of Umpiring [merged]

[Andyy]

It was rubbish

Very very soft but you can see why the umpire paid it. Perryman took his eyes off the ball to look at his opponent and took steelys legs from under him is how the umpires who justify it.

Nah, it was bollocks IMO.

Perryman found the ball drop, checked for oncoming traffic, and simply protected the marking space. No free kick.

I reckon it was payback for the bollocks Nank HTB/Membrey goal.

They’ve been very consistent in that if you take your eyes off the ball and initiate contact with your opposing player that they will likely pay a free kick.

I think this is one of the most inconsistent, lowest standard, years of umpiring and MRO/tribunal decision making I have ever seen. Period. Every week the decisions are terrible, going both ways.

You are allowed to protect your space/the ball drop and I absolutely believe you should be able to check if there's someone coming to contest you unless the WankFL thinks you're supposed to wait for a chest mark without doing due diligence.

The free kick should only be paid if a player is not realistically attempting to mark the ball and are just shepherding someone out of the contest.

[Tiger Khosh]

It was rubbish

Very very soft but you can see why the umpire paid it. Perryman took his eyes off the ball to look at his opponent and took steelys legs from under him is how the umpires who justify it.

Nah, it was bollocks IMO.

Perryman found the ball drop, checked for oncoming traffic, and simply protected the marking space. No free kick.

I reckon it was payback for the bollocks Nank HTB/Membrey goal.

They’ve been very consistent in that if you take your eyes off the ball and initiate contact with your opposing player that they will likely pay a free kick.

I think this is one of the most inconsistent, lowest standard, years of umpiring and MRO/tribunal decision making I have ever seen. Period. Every week the decisions are terrible, going both ways.

You are allowed to protect your space/the ball drop and I absolutely believe you should be able to check if there's someone coming to contest you unless the WankFL thinks you're supposed to wait for a chest mark without doing due diligence.

The free kick should only be paid if a player is not realistically attempting to mark the ball and are just shepherding someone out of the contest.

I agree with all this just playing devils advocate as to how the umps would just it as the correct decision.

Perfect example of your last sentence was Tresize being so obvious with it in the last quarter. It was him and vlas and 1 magpies forward (can’t remember who) and in the most obvious way possible he just completely barged him out of the way lol.

[one-eyed]

Greg Swann, the AFL’s new Executive General Manager Football Performance, touched on a number of other divisive footy topics:

Stand rule

“We’re going to look to do what you should do when if it’s to stand you stand.

“Don’t run outside five and all that, you actually stand. That’s been widely endorsed by the clubs as well.

“It’s coming back to what we’re about - trying to make the game simpler for the umpires. There’s too many decisions.

“I don’t think the rule was designed to actually allow people to run off. If you look at the stats, the people getting off the mark are clogging the game up. That’s not what we want in that space.

“The stand should just stand.”

Sub rule

“Clubs don’t like it. We’ll have a look at that.

“It will be about the stats again, if you lose players in the first or second quarter and how that affects your ability to win games.

“Does that change if you’ve got four on the bench or five?

“I think we’ll have a look at that.”

Four umpires

“It enables some of the more experienced umpires to stay in the game longer which I think is an advantage because they just don’t have to do the running they used to.

“I think we’ll be sticking with four umpires.”

Insufficient intent

“We’ll have a look at maybe last touch from a kick or a handball between the arcs.

“They do it in the SANFL, they do it in AFLW. It’s morphing into that anyway so maybe we have a look at that as well.”

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2025/07/28/swann-why-the-afl-is-taking-no-further-action-against-greene

[WilliamPowell]

Swan is kidding himself if he believes the Club's support the stand rule.

What they want if it has to stay is for it to be adjudicated consistently

If he truly wants to make things easier for the umpires and at the same time you bin the stand rule, ruck nomination rule

[Andyy]

Swan is kidding himself if he believes the Club's support the stand rule.

What they want if it has to stay is for it to be adjudicated consistently

If he truly wants to make things easier for the umpires and at the same time you bin the stand rule, ruck nomination rule

I don't understand why they appear so willing to die on this hill (stand rule).

Otherwise it sounds like they want to increase the bench/get rid of sub - good.
Four umpires, I think the standard has dropped personally, unsure if they're related - meh.
Insufficient intent, sounds like they just want to remove more responsibility/decision making, make the job easier - don't approve.

[Tiger Khosh]

Swan is kidding himself if he believes the Club's support the stand rule.

What they want if it has to stay is for it to be adjudicated consistently

If he truly wants to make things easier for the umpires and at the same time you bin the stand rule, ruck nomination rule

I don't understand why they appear so willing to die on this hill (stand rule).

Otherwise it sounds like they want to increase the bench/get rid of sub - good.
Four umpires, I think the standard has dropped personally, unsure if they're related - meh.
Insufficient intent, sounds like they just want to remove more responsibility/decision making, make the job easier - don't approve.

Because they think the fans wanted new rules introduced to improve scoring even though this was never put to the fans and that all evidence suggests it has had little to no effect.

Last touch rule sounds lame as. I really don’t understand why they always feel the need to add and tinker rules when doing nothing is the better and easier option. There isn’t a sport in the world which goes through as many rule changes as the AFL. It is ridiculous!

[Andyy]

Swan is kidding himself if he believes the Club's support the stand rule.

What they want if it has to stay is for it to be adjudicated consistently

If he truly wants to make things easier for the umpires and at the same time you bin the stand rule, ruck nomination rule

I don't understand why they appear so willing to die on this hill (stand rule).

Otherwise it sounds like they want to increase the bench/get rid of sub - good.
Four umpires, I think the standard has dropped personally, unsure if they're related - meh.
Insufficient intent, sounds like they just want to remove more responsibility/decision making, make the job easier - don't approve.

Because they think the fans wanted new rules introduced to improve scoring even though this was never put to the fans and that all evidence suggests it has had little to no effect.

Last touch rule sounds lame as. I really don’t understand why they always feel the need to add and tinker rules when doing nothing is the better and easier option. There isn’t a sport in the world which goes through as many rule changes as the AFL. It is ridiculous!

I think he's made it quite clear that they're looking at it to reduce error rates in umpiring.

Easier to just have a last touch rule vs interpreting intent etc. He's even commented that it's heading in that direction > intent was the rule but now the interpretation seems to be whether or not a team mate was close enough to where your disposal went, intent or not.

[Tiger Khosh]

Yeah I completely get it, but changing a rule to make it easier for umps doesn’t really serve the game.

They’re essentially saying we’re gonna bring in this new rule because the other new rule we brought in that wasn’t needed and has made the game worse is too hard for our officials to umpire.

[Andyy]

Yeah I completely get it, but changing a rule to make it easier for umps doesn’t really serve the game.

They’re essentially saying we’re gonna bring in this new rule because the other new rule we brought in that wasn’t needed and has made the game worse is too hard for our officials to umpire.

Yes, it's like lowering speed limits for the morons who shouldn't have a license.

[JP Tiger]

I really want more clarity on the details of the 'last touch' rules before I can really comment.  The devil is always in the details with rule changes. 

But just like the stand rule fiasco, I expect the AFL to rush in a new rule without testing it & then realizing they need to patch it up with more rules that are equally stupid & even more confusing for the fans & more condemning for the umpires who have to apply them ... 
Nothing to see here ...       

[Tiger Khosh]

I really want more clarity on the details of the 'last touch' rules before I can really comment.  The devil is always in the details with rule changes. 

But just like the stand rule fiasco, I expect the AFL to rush in a new rule without testing it & then realizing they need to patch it up with more rules that are equally stupid & even more confusing for the fans & more condemning for the umpires who have to apply them ... 
Nothing to see here ...   

The use it in the SANFL so they’ll say that’s their testing already done.

[WilliamPowell]

I really want more clarity on the details of the 'last touch' rules before I can really comment.  The devil is always in the details with rule changes. 

But just like the stand rule fiasco, I expect the AFL to rush in a new rule without testing it & then realizing they need to patch it up with more rules that are equally stupid & even more confusing for the fans & more condemning for the umpires who have to apply them ... 
Nothing to see here ...   

The use it in the SANFL so they’ll say that’s their testing already done.

They've also been using it in the AFLW for the last 4+ seasons and it is so horribly umpired that you don't know which way they are going to call it. It is definitely a chook lotto scenario. Zero consistency

[MintOnLamb]

Don’t quite know where to comment on this but the Tom Stewart decision by the MRP was woeful.
He must have bribed someone.

[Tiger Khosh]

Also Curtis getting 1 game for an open hand / punch to players throat/head while they gave lynch 4 weeks? Crystal clear consistency by the mro as usual.

[Damo]

Also Curtis getting 1 game for an open hand / punch to players throat/head while they gave lynch 4 weeks? Crystal clear consistency by the mro as usual.

But more to the Lynch one than the Curtis one
Curtis 1-2 probably right ?

As for Stewart , he did nothing wrong

Those sooking he got off are dreaming .. so an AFL player can no longer jump in the air anticipating a smother etc