SANFL UMPIRING

I am sitting here watching the SA v PA game on ABC as a neutral observer, and
concerned at the impact the umpires are having on the game. There have been numerous
questionable frees that have resulted in goals, and so the scores that result
are more from umpiring decisions rather than the skills of the players. I have seen comments from other posters about the quality of SANFL umpiring in games they have seen.



In this game, there have been several frees from front-on
head tackles, most questionable, as the recipients have either ducked into the
opponent or the opponent has stood his ground and the player run into him. Two
reports ensued from these.


SANFL umpires don’t seem to use any common sense. They are
regimented so much in their interpretation of the rules that the umpires
themselves don’t seem to interpret them. It is a corporate interpretation. “One
size fits all”.


Observations I have seen in the games so far this year:


1.
Umpires take too long to blow their whistles
when a pack forms, and then more players arrive, and before you know it there
are 18 players around the ball.


2.
When a ball up occurs then, 18 players attempt
to get the ball out. It is like a rugby scrum, and I hate rugby. It is a game
that doesn’t move.


3.
When a pack forms, the umpires are watching
where the ball is to see if it moving, and because of that are not looking at
the players to see what is going on. One of the first rules of umpiring is not
to watch the ball.


4.
The umpires are finding too many soft frees that
also change the flow of the game. It is almost as if body contact is being
umpired out of the game. A prime example was a free for a legitimate bump in
the SA v NA game, where the umpire signalled “holding on”.


5.
Umpires are not picking up the first or even the
second free in most cases. It is the third.


6.
There are too many frees at stoppages so that
teams get their clearances from those frees, not from their skills around the
pack.


7.
The holding the ball rule in the pack is a joke.
Umpires penalise a ball getter who is at the bottom of the pack with no
opportunity to get the ball out or even to try to get the ball out. Why go for
the ball?


8.
Umpires do not seem to police the mark, and a
player, in ensuring that his opponent does not move off, sometimes encroaches
over the mark by a toe nail’s length, and gets a 25 metre penalty. No common
sense!


9.
Umpires are too precious. When a player has a
free against him, he may make some comment about the umpire’s mother’s spare
time activities or question the decision. Lo-and –behold 25 metre penalty. In
the old days, the umpire would respond with a comment about the player’s
knitting fetish or some-such, and tell him to get on with the game. No common
sense!


10.
Umpires often seem to be out of position and too
far away from the play. How many times do you see the non-controlling umpire
(50 metres away) make a decision because the controlling umpire is out of
position?


11.
It appears that many of the umpires have never
played football and do not understand what players go through to get the ball.


12.
Like clubs that have players not up to league
standard, there are umpires not up to league standard and that’s where they are
umpiring. Check with the North CEO who had cause to question the umpiring
fraternity in the game against South, and was advised that there were 5
incorrect decisions in the last quarter, 3 of which resulted in goals. Those
changed the result of the game.


I have watched some of the VFL and WAFL games on ABC and the
umpires there do not seem to make the same number of regular controversial or incorrect
decisions. How come they get it right more often?


Our great game is being bastardised by these interpretations,
and the umpires who implement them.


To get back to my initial comment, umpires do not use any
common sense, probably because they are not allowed to. If they don’t toe the
corporate line, they are out. It doesn’t seem to matter that they make an
impact on the result, or continue to make incorrect decisions.

Umpiring has always been a vexed issue in that when the whistle blows, supporters of opposite sides can have diametrically opposed opinions of whether the decision is a right one, or a wrong one.

We will always have controversial decisions, just as we will always have incorrect ones, that's the human factor in umpiring.

However, a number of the points you make are valid concerns. I also watched today's game between South and Port. The decisions made to report those two players were correct ones because umpires are instructed to report such incidents. We need to blame those instructing umpires if such reports are deemed frivolous.

I listened to Richard Williams with interest as I was keen to understand the game from the umpire's point of view. Apart from the annoying habit of agreeing with 100% of the umpires' calls, his comments were well worth listening to.

At one point he was talking about the high number of free kicks, suggesting that maybe it was too high. I've heard other people at times also critical of umpires for paying too many frees.

Sorry, but if the free kicks are there, pay them. Don't worry about whether there are too many, or not enough, just watch the game, and when you see a free kick by the letter of the rules, pay it. If there's 200 free kicks, then so be it.

My biggest gripe about umpiring is the amount of interpretation factored into each decision. If a player is pushed in the back, it's free kick. Don't worry about the player's intentions, etc, he pushed another guy in the back .. pay it.

I also have problems with how umpiring interpretations seem to alter over the course of a game. What is holding the ball 10 minutes into the 1st quarter is not holding the ball 20 minutes into the final quarter, especially when the scores are close.

Once again, umpires need to have the balls to make calls in tough situations. I feel they are shirking their responsibilities by taking the easier option to call "play on". If the free is there, it MUST be paid.

And I especially liked the OP's comment about them being quicker with the whistle. I am not enoying these rolling scrums where the ball is locked in under the pack and going nowhere. Just ball the damned thing up, don't stand there watching players rolling around on the ground wrestling each other .. it's dull.

To be honest, I've watched the game for a long time, possibly too long. I understand as much about umpiring these days as I do about what's going on out there with the players .. and that is less every day.

Interesting comments.
I personally thought the umpiring in the Port South game was appalling as did most who witnessed the game.
A failure by the umpires to pay the first free results in unsightly packs and melees and generally results in a ball-up- keep the game moving by paying the first free kick.
Umpires to me seem to be way out of position these days so they dont see the frees, there are 3 of them out there so the one nearest the play should endeavour to get closer- it wont matter.
Players are now sucking the umpires in by ducking their heads into tackles, it is rife in the league these days, I guarantee there were 10 frees paid in this manner at Noarlunga on Saturday.
As for the reports...well Redigolos report should not have been a free kick let alone a report. he was standing flatfooted with arms out to his side and the Port player ducked his head straight into his midriff
The other report, on Nick Murphy was to my way of thinking a totally different story... hopefully the tribunal will see it that way too.

Agreed B&W - primarily your comments about the umpiring are what made me put a lot more thought into the general overview of how they perform. There was one umpire at Noarlunga, who has been the subject of comments about his ability, but seems to be the golden boy. Last year, there were a record number of reports and I believe he was probably the fastest pencil in the ranks, and those record numbers did not include those reports that were thrown out before they reached the review panel (or whatever they want to call it these days). Why is it that every aspect of the game, such as the players, the coaches, the CEOs, the spectators (Centrals supporters, The Taj, Snouts Louts, et al), and the media, all are criticised for their actions, successes and failings, but the umpires are untouchable? They are an integral part of the game, and as such, should be subject to the same scrutiny, and be prepared to respond publicly to any criticism that comes forward. Consider what sort of society we have when the lawmakers and those who implement the laws are above criticism!

Adelaide Hawk wrote:
And I especially liked the OP's comment about them being quicker with the whistle. I am not enoying these rolling scrums where the ball is locked in under the pack and going nowhere. Just ball the damned thing up, don't stand there watching players rolling around on the ground wrestling each other .. it's dull.

Yes! I still maintain that the whistle isn't being blown quick enough not only here, but also when a player has been tackled and in no way can get rid of it. The umpire waits a few seconds even then, and calls for a ball up. It is here that these sling/dump/chicken wing/whatever you could call it tackles happen, because the umpire isn't doing anything, so the player thinks "Oh, I have to do something other than just hold on".

In the past probably 2-3 years, it's either that rolling scrum or keepings off. And very little in between.

And of course the need to constantly penalise and not uncommonly report a player just because contact with the head is made. Hence players ducking and putting the head down when not even necessary.

Is it the umpires or the rules the issue ?

Good question WYM. Probably a combination of both. The AFL in their infinite wisdom (and methods of "improving" the game) have continually tinkered with the rules and interpretations, and those marvels of development have altered the way the game is played, and mostly not for the better. It's a softer game with, in many cases, body contact being penalised. Unfortunately, because our SANFL umpires have a stepping stone to the AFL, our rules are becoming subject to the same sanitising of the game. Therefore, the umpires are instructed to interpret the rules as such, but some, fearful of their future opportunities, become a little too zealous with their decisions and go overboard, and rather than let something go, penalise what is often seen as a trivial offence, if it is indeed an offence at all. Like AH said, there are too many umpires with different interpretations of the same rule. As Spellie also says, umpires circle the pack like vultures waiting for the player to do something, and then the extra tackle occurs, which would not have been done if the whistle had been blown when the pack formed. The game would move faster too. And like a player who fails to follow the team plan, I'm sure there are umpires who do something similar. Unfortunately, I think we will continue to be left with a sense of frustration while watching the game at present. It is no wonder players get frustrated - they are not sure where they stand, and when that happens emotions boil over and then you have a melee. I think it's a case of "grin and bear it".

the thing that amazed me over the weekend was friday night they were hot on holding the ball in packs, however they WERE consistent with it & on saturday they let it go & didn't ping it very often in pack situations.....Jeremy Clayton got a free for 'in the back' on the half forward flank southern end grandstand side, he did milk as they all do but what got me was the umpire was shielding his eyes from the sun & paid the free about 15-20 seconds after it actually happened

The word "interpretation" should simply not be used in relation to football rules. Write them the way you want them and that is it.

There have been so many interpretations of holding the ball, does anybody know what it was originally invented to police?

And why are rules changed / invented to change the way footy is played?
Surely that is the province of players and coaches.

It's funny the rules have been tweaked over time to speed the game up. Now it is too fast and we have a sub rule to slow it down.

And why with 3 umps they are blindsided on the flanks is beyond me. Surely one of them could position himself near the boundary line rather than the corridor. Have seen this start to happen in the AFL.

The majority of frees they tend to see is when the ball isn't moving, it still seems too fast for them to pick up frees consistently when players are on the move.

It is all too inconsistent for mine and certainly influences the contest. As to whether results have been influenced is hard to say. But sometimes these sorts of average calls or non-calls certainly can affect the flow of play for one side.

A situation that doesn't seem to get better with each passing season.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:The word "interpretation" should simply not be used in relation to football rules. Write them the way you want them and that is it.

This is what happened initially, and then the custodians of the game over generations have ticnkered with them to the degree that they make little sense at all. Some changes to interpretations have been necessary ones as coaches and players continue to invent ways to exploit the rules.

Those of us lucky enough to remember Lindsay Head will also recall he loved to run, wait for someone to tackle him, and just before the tackle was applied he would throw the ball out in front in bouncing style. Strange this is, the ball never bounced back to him, but he won a free for hanging on. Thank goodness that was outlawed.

We currently have a modern version of that, players about to be tackled buckling at the knees promoting high contact. That needs to be outlawed as well. We are now seeing players going in as low to the ground as possible. It's ugly and creates potential injury.

Those of us also lucky enough to see Bill Wedding ruck, what a joy that was to see. No grappling, holding on, pushing and shoving, just two large men jostling for position with their bodies, leaping towards the sky, and guiding the ball to their rovers. Ruckwork these days is just ugly. How many times do you see two rock apes wrestling each other to the ground as the ball lands on the ground without anyone touching it, or one ruckman leaping and being pushed aside whilst they are in the air?

It's all illegal, rules are still in place to prevent it from happening, but you'd never know it the way the game is umpired. I don't blame umpires, I blame those who are instructing them.

How many times do we see infringements where everyone in the crowd has seen it, but the only people who apparently missed it are the 3 umpires? That's my pet hate, obvious free kicks let go. Then next minute, they pull out a free and you hear people in the crowd saying, "what was THAT for?".

Yeah the game seems more about stopping your opponent getting the ball, than getting it yourself.

No matter where you are, defending, forwards or midfielders or whoever, the ball has to be the prime object of your effort. Surely?

My favourite was a couple of years ago when the umpire blew a free and pointed north. The other umpire simultaneously blew a free also and pointed south.

That incident summarises umpiring in general for me.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Yeah the game seems more about stopping your opponent getting the ball, than getting it yourself.

No matter where you are, defending, forwards or midfielders or whoever, the ball has to be the prime object of your effort. Surely?

Yep. I realise I played in the troglodyte era and times have changed, but you're right that we used to make the ball the chief objective. You only bumped or tackled when an opponent got to the ball first, and you only punched the ball when you were not in a position to mark. Gaining the ball and kicking more goals than your opposition was always paramount.

More importantly, if you made front position and the ball you object, umpires tended to reward you. These days, it sickens me to see a player get the ball first, get tackled with his arms pinned and ridden into the ground to the degree he can't get rid of the ball, and he's done for holding the ball.

I couldn't play the contemporary game.

As a timekeeper for the Eagles underage games, I see many wrong decisions by the umpires, both for and against the Eagles, I know the umpires in lower grades are learning the rules and so forth, but I think that they watch to many AFL games and try and copy the AFL umpires a little too much.

The Holding The Ball interpretation, under the current rules, does not reward the player who makes the ball their first object in many ways. If a player is first to the ball and a pack descends upon him, too often the first player is the one punished.

That said, I've been to around 17 games this year and have thought the umpiring has been pretty reasonable overall this season, acknowledging that, like any occupation, mistakes are made along the way.

I honestly think Australian Football has reached the stage where they need to rip the rule book up and start again. For too long, the rules have been pretty much left to people like Jeff Gieschen to interpret, if he thinks something's a good idea it's changed, and everyone else has to live with it.

We continue to have ridiculous situations where Gieschen comes out and says high tackles are not a problem. This happens because the AFL do not want to be held responsible should we have another Neil Sachse incident. The player making the ball his object is not protected anywhere near enough by today's umpiring.

We need a forum consisting of people from all walks of football life, administrators, umpires, coaches, players, club doctors, legal people etc, and determine what really are priorities in the game these days.

Our rules are an anachronism. If we aren't enforcing some of them, get rid of them. I guess what I'm saying is the game has changed completely from the one I began to understand nearly 50 years ago, but we still have basically the same rules with a whole lot of interpretations of those laws.

It's like the old lounge chair. You can use so much tape to hold it together, but eventually it will just fall to bits.

It's a different game, a different era, different attitudes to safety in the workplace, etc, it's time we had clear rules set in place to accommodate it.

Here is a hypothetical.

How would it affect the game, if there wasn't a holding the ball rule at all.
Does it become rugby?
Do the number of ball ups treble?

I just cannot understand what the rule is intended to police due to the vast number of ways it has been adjudicated.

That word "interpretation" again......

I think most would agree that holding the ball is very much a part of the game, offered as an incentive for the tackle. However, we shouldn't ever forget that the person making the play should be given every advantage.

To see a player in the clear run down by a tackler is a spectacular part of the game.

I really liked the prior opportunity rule where a player, having gained possession, is tackled fairly and is unable to dispose of the ball. However, I fail to understand why a player gains possession, is tackled immediately, ridden to the ground with 4 opponents lying all over him, and is done for holding the ball.

I'd like to ask the umpire exactly how that player had any hope of ever disposing of the ball. Today's umpires must be superhuman.

Too many free kicks are paid from the players reactions and not by the incident. Staging for frees is creeping in bit by bit each year. I hope our game never reaches the pathetic acting/staging seen in that boring round ball game.