Umpires to crack down on hand gestures

[BulldogBelle]

What next? .....

Umpires to crack down on hand gestures (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25311007-19742,00.html)
The Herald Sun
Mark Stevens | April 09, 2009

POINT to your eyes at your peril. That is the message from the AFL umpiring department after Sunday's 50m penalty against Western Bulldog Brad Johnson for dissent.

Johnson pointed at both eyes after Stefan Grun declined to pay a mark in the Dogs match against North Melbourne and copped a heavy penalty.

Although the AFL has accepted Johnson's story that he was suggesting his opponent had taken his eyes off the ball, umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen said it was dangerous to be so demonstrative.

"The umpire who was 10 or 15m away could not hear what Brad was saying, but saw his demonstrative hands and fingers towards the eye," Gieschen said.

"Normally that constitutes 'open your eyes' to the ump. I'm not saying Brad was indicating that, but Stefan Grun said he interpreted it that way."

Another Bulldog Will Minson was penalised for the same hand signal last year.

"People will say its sensitive and an over-reaction, but we are really committed to maintaining a good environment," Gieschen said.

He said the AFL had to set the standard, given problems with recruitment and retention of umpires at lower levels.

[LostDoggy]

...
"People will say its sensitive and an over-reaction ...

Perhaps because it is!

[Sockeye Salmon]

God these wankers are precious.

Come on Aker39, defend this one.

[LostDoggy]

Why do we have to hear them telecasts? Its like they are stars of the show.

[The Underdog]

Why do we have to hear them telecasts? Its like they are stars of the show.

I have this ongoing fear that Stephen McBurney will become the voice of my internal dialogue...

[AndrewP6]

I like hearing the umps' commentary. Helps to reinforce my view that they are morons. They ought to have the word "PRECIOUS" stamped on their backs. To call pointing at your eyes "dangerous to be so demonstrative"...please... these idiots spoil the game... and it all starts with Gieschen.

[alwaysadog]

Another case of hind sight justification by those who are insecure but who use their authority to justify the incomprehensible.

[GVGjr]

Another case of hind sight justification by those who are insecure but who use their authority to justify the incomprehensible.

Yes, this is getting way too silly. Changes are being made for the sake of it rather than the change adding any real value to the game.

[Rocket Science]

How about the free kick paid against Heath Shaw, plus a 50 metre penalty resulting in a point-blank Geelong goal, plus a farking report for 'touching' the umpire during this evening's game?

I always thought the term 'aerial ping pong' being thrown around by neckless, north of the border types when having a dig at Aussie Rules was lame in the extreme...I never for one second contemplated that our game would evolve in such fashion as to actually deserve the term.

These days I find I routinely become as enraged when watching a game of AFL footy, not necessarily involving the Dogs either, as I do when I hear politicians speak. That's not right.

[Happy Days]

What next? .....

Umpires to crack down on hand gestures (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25311007-19742,00.html)
The Herald Sun
Mark Stevens | April 09, 2009

POINT to your eyes at your peril. That is the message from the AFL umpiring department after Sunday's 50m penalty against Western Bulldog Brad Johnson for dissent.

Johnson pointed at both eyes after Stefan Grun declined to pay a mark in the Dogs match against North Melbourne and copped a heavy penalty.

Although the AFL has accepted Johnson's story that he was suggesting his opponent had taken his eyes off the ball, umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen said it was dangerous to be so demonstrative.

"The umpire who was 10 or 15m away could not hear what Brad was saying, but saw his demonstrative hands and fingers towards the eye," Gieschen said.

"Normally that constitutes 'open your eyes' to the ump. I'm not saying Brad was indicating that, but Stefan Grun said he interpreted it that way."

Another Bulldog Will Minson was penalised for the same hand signal last year.

"People will say its sensitive and an over-reaction, but we are really committed to maintaining a good environment," Gieschen said.

He said the AFL had to set the standard, given problems with recruitment and retention of umpires at lower levels.

Sounds like a glass of cement job.

Compared to other sports, i.e soccer (as much as it pains me to call it a sport), our umps have it easy.

[AndrewP6]

How about the free kick paid against Heath Shaw, plus a 50 metre penalty resulting in a point-blank Geelong goal, plus a farking report for 'touching' the umpire during this evening's game?
.

No problem for me on the Shaw incident... he's an idiot. Hope he gets a week. Knowing the match review panel/tribunal, he might get a month!

[Rocket Science]

Why? Because a suspension's genuinely deserved for his heinous crime?...or because he's a Pies player? What if it was Boyd, or Johnno?...Give 'em a week and cop it sweet you reckon?

Give me a freakin break.

The heavy-handed and hyper-sensitive manner in which the 'contact with umpires rules' is administered is enough to make the uninitiated think umpires had previously been subject to regular, deliberate and grievous man-handling on the part of players, and that consequently some sort of iron-fist crackdown was in order to arrest a serious blight on the game.

It's completely and utterly over the top, and I might add also at practical odds with efforts to improve the general public perception of umpires as a whole.

[Go_Dogs]

Why? Because a suspension's genuinely deserved for his heinous crime?...or because he's a Pies player? What if it was Boyd, or Johnno?...Give 'em a week and cop it sweet you reckon?

Give me a freakin break.

The heavy-handed and hyper-sensitive manner in which the 'contact with umpires rules' is administered is enough to make the uninitiated think umpires had previously been subject to regular, deliberate and grievous man-handling on the part of players, and that consequently some sort of iron-fist crackdown was in order to arrest a serious blight on the game.

It's completely and utterly over the top, and I might add also at practical odds with efforts to improve the general public perception of umpires as a whole.

What were there, something like 4 or 5 incidents already this year? Perhaps more. I don't think rubbing players out is the answer, and if the contact is very minimal, it shouldn't even be an issue, but they need to keep watching it as its seeming to become more and more common.

I guess what the AFL is saying is that the players have to show a duty of care towards the umpires, and they'll be pretty strict about enforcing it.

[Rocket Science]

As regards in-play contact: It barely requires repeating but it's a high-tempo, high-paced contact sport in which play can unfold in any direction, and there's going to be occasional accidental contact with umpires. Nobody's out there actually looking to collect an umpire, who incidentally have their own knack of getting in the way of play, and players, from time to time.

As regards other incidental contact between player and umpire: It's obviously best not to tempt fate, particularly in the current environment, but again where's the common sense? If there's clearly no aggression involved, no demonstrative force, and the player isn't being derogatory or threatening, where's the problem?

What Shaw did may have been silly given the umpire's/AFL's propensity for hyper-sensitivity, but it was none of those things, yet it cost his team a goal and he's now on report.

As with all matters of officiating, the AFL only seems to know the sledgehammer and walnut approach, without ever deigning to consider it might be guilty of overkill or even misguided in some areas, and both the spectacle and spirit of football at the highest level is more the poorer as a consequence.

[aker39]

As regards in-play contact: It barely requires repeating but it's a high-tempo, high-paced contact sport.


Except the contact seems to be happening at stoppages.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Except the contact seems to be happening at stoppages.

Well it would, that's where there's the most players in a small area.

[AndrewP6]

Why? Because a suspension's genuinely deserved for his heinous crime?...or because he's a Pies player? What if it was Boyd, or Johnno?...Give 'em a week and cop it sweet you reckon?

Give me a freakin break.

.

Whoa, simmer down... just trying to have a little humour at Shaw's expense... I admit, I don't much like him (or the Pies)... if the same happened to any of our boys I'd be p****d off too. It was a ridiculous over-reaction...

[Rocket Science]

Well it would, that's where there's the most players in a small area.

Exactly, congestion punctuated with man-on-man contests breaking in all directions.

[Rocket Science]

Whoa, simmer down... just trying to have a little humour at Shaw's expense... I admit, I don't much like him (or the Pies)... if the same happened to any of our boys I'd be p****d off too. It was a ridiculous over-reaction...

Fair enough, the footy world rightly rejoices when misfortune befalls the Pies but the ire wasn't really aimed in your direction so much as those influencing the state of the game.

[AndrewP6]

Fair enough, the footy world rightly rejoices when misfortune befalls the Pies but the ire wasn't really aimed in your direction so much as those influencing the state of the game.

just off topic, what does "l'enfer, c'est les autres" mean? I know les autres means "the others" or something similar..,

[hujsh]

just off topic, what does "l'enfer, c'est les autres" mean? I know les autres means "the others" or something similar..,

Quick Google search indicates that it is "Hell is other people."

[Rocket Science]

'Huis-clos' (No Exit) is a 1944 existentialist play by Jean-Paul Sartre, which is the source of perhaps Sartre's most famous quotation, "l'enfer, c'est les autres" (Hell is other people).

It's incidentally only a partial quote, the full line actually reads "Hell is other people, and a game of footy marred by the hands in the back rule."

[aker39]

Exactly, congestion punctuated with man-on-man contests breaking in all directions.

That's fine, just don't go in one direction, that is, behind where the umpire is backing out.

[LostDoggy]

I think touching the umpire should be a free and so should insulting and aggressive behavior to the umpire. You can disagree with their decision being poor but they are the authority of the game and must be respected.

Its hardly their fault rules commitee make changes and add new one to a game which needs too many decision too often. No wonder they get it wrong so often. It doesn't help when your boss Gieschen is an idiot and you have 3 central umps all with different interpretations.

[LostDoggy]

I just like to add to my comments, touching the ump is different to accidently contact with is almost inevitable in today's football. They are very precious over this.

[LostDoggy]

And hand gestures? Surely a quiet word is all that is needed unless it is by a repeat or recalcitrant offender.

Our umps need a lesson in leadership and authority -- they will be respected when they behave like people deserving respect and treat all players with similar respect. Listening to them whinge and suck up to the glamour players while being touchy as all teak about the slightest perceived offense doesn't make them respectable, it makes them sooky-la-las, and that's when you need heavy-handed, little girl rulings from AFL HQ to enforce order.

They are becoming more of a joke all the time, and when I hear that the reason we need to 'protect' umpires is because there are young ones entering the system who can be intimidated, that's all I need to know about the calibre of people they are recruiting -- we need stronger characters, not more weedy types who become little nazis when given the smallest bit of authority over those they've always felt inferior to.

[AndrewP6]

Quick Google search indicates that it is "Hell is other people."

Nice work, thanks...

[AndrewP6]

'Huis-clos' (No Exit) is a 1944 existentialist play by Jean-Paul Sartre, which is the source of perhaps Sartre's most famous quotation, "l'enfer, c'est les autres" (Hell is other people).

Thanks....interesting....

It's incidentally only a partial quote, the full line actually reads "Hell is other people, and a game of footy marred by the hands in the back rule."

:):):):) Brilliant...

[AndrewP6]

And hand gestures? Surely a quiet word is all that is needed unless it is by a repeat or recalcitrant offender.

Our umps need a lesson in leadership and authority -- they will be respected when they behave like people deserving respect and treat all players with similar respect. Listening to them whinge and suck up to the glamour players while being touchy as all teak about the slightest perceived offense doesn't make them respectable, it makes them sooky-la-las, and that's when you need heavy-handed, little girl rulings from AFL HQ to enforce order.


Well put. I hate they way they feel it's OK to be chummy with the players, but you can't go near them with a ten-foot pole. Calling a player by his nickname should be reserved for teammates, and of course rabid sideline supporters... but not the precious whistleblowers...

[AndrewP6]

I think touching the umpire should be a free and so should insulting and aggressive behavior to the umpire. You can disagree with their decision being poor but they are the authority of the game and must be respected.
\.

Agreed on aggressive or insulting behaviour. That stuff doesn't belong. But a hand on the arm isn't aggressive or insulting. Nor is pointing at your eyes. I know they're kind of hamstrung (bad pun!) by the stupid rule-makers.

[LostDoggy]

Agreed on aggressive or insulting behaviour. That stuff doesn't belong. But a hand on the arm isn't aggressive or insulting. Nor is pointing at your eyes. I know they're kind of hamstrung (bad pun!) by the stupid rule-makers.

No if touching the ump is in the rules then hands on him should be punishable. Williams got weeks for it years back.

I never said point at your eyes should be punishable, depends on the manner it is made, Johnno wasn't aggressive.

[LostDoggy]

And hand gestures? Surely a quiet word is all that is needed unless it is by a repeat or recalcitrant offender.


Depends on the context and if it given in a degrogatory manner by the player. I doubt Johnson's was.

[AndrewP6]

No if touching the ump is in the rules then hands on him should be punishable. Williams got weeks for it years back.

I never said point at your eyes should be punishable, depends on the manner it is made, Johnno wasn't aggressive.

If memory serves me correctly, Williams actually pushed the ump. Much worse than Shaw's touch. Didn't some bloke put his arm around one last year? Seems far too sensitive to me. If it's in the rules, the rules are stupid. There has to be some leeway.

You may not have said pointing at eyes is punishable, but the whistle blowers did. That was part of the reasoning behind their explanation, that the action was overly "demonstrative"

Pathetic I think....

[LostDoggy]

If memory serves me correctly, Williams actually pushed the ump. Much worse than Shaw's touch. Didn't some bloke put his arm around one last year? Seems far too sensitive to me. If it's in the rules, the rules are stupid. There has to be some leeway.
Your memory is poor. It was after the game and the ump approached Williams, Williams might have pushed him but he was in his face. Shaw approached the ump, there was no need for Shaw to touch him.


You may not have said pointing at eyes is punishable, but the whistle blowers did. That was part of the reasoning behind their explanation, that the action was overly "demonstrative"
Pathetic I think....

I agree here, its just poor umpiring and Gieschen being the idiot he is.