Don't take umpiring for granted

[boozehound]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Booze, I think you're missing the point a little - while it's true that umpires should be thicker skinned, where is the responsibility for the player to have a thick skin? I don't things have changed that much since I stopped playing that umpires now change their decisions when a player questions them. My attitude eventually was (and I learnt the hard way) is that the more you question or abuse them, the more they go against you (at least in your own perception), so you're better off keeping quiet and concentrating on your own game. As for the right of reply from PHOS, I wouldn’t think that it is their decision to make - it is up to the bloke involved to make that choice, and he may not even know about your article. But for anyone who has read your article, particularly from an opposition team, will they give him a fair go from the opening bounce of their next game? Regardless of what he may say in a right of reply?

I agree with you on this to some extent but I am not talking about abuse. Abuse deserves a penalty but surely there must be some standards to what constitutes abuse? Surely we can interact with umpires? Nothing threatening or abusive. For instance the ump accused me of asking for a free kick everytime i went near it. Wasn't abusing me at all just making a comment. Similar comments made back earn you a twenty five....thats dissapointing.

[hawkseye]

Cant see the point in talking to them at all myself, unless they come in the club after the game.

[RatPack]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Booze, I think you're missing the point a little - while it's true that umpires should be thicker skinned, where is the responsibility for the player to have a thick skin? I don't things have changed that much since I stopped playing that umpires now change their decisions when a player questions them. My attitude eventually was (and I learnt the hard way) is that the more you question or abuse them, the more they go against you (at least in your own perception), so you're better off keeping quiet and concentrating on your own game. As for the right of reply from PHOS, I wouldn’t think that it is their decision to make - it is up to the bloke involved to make that choice, and he may not even know about your article. But for anyone who has read your article, particularly from an opposition team, will they give him a fair go from the opening bounce of their next game? Regardless of what he may say in a right of reply?

I agree with you on this to some extent but I am not talking about abuse. Abuse deserves a penalty but surely there must be some standards to what constitutes abuse? Surely we can interact with umpires? Nothing threatening or abusive. For instance the ump accused me of asking for a free kick everytime i went near it. Wasn't abusing me at all just making a comment. Similar comments made back earn you a twenty five....thats dissapointing.

You're right you should be able should interact with umpires but to quote Forest Gump "Life is like a box of chocolates ..... you never know which one you're gonna get!" Have to agree with Demonseye, just don't talk to them, it doesn't leave you open later in the game. Anyway, said my piece and happy to let it lie. By the way, please don't interpret any of my comments as an attack on Eastern Park Football Club - that was not my intention in any way.

[footy1992]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Booze, I think you're missing the point a little - while it's true that umpires should be thicker skinned, where is the responsibility for the player to have a thick skin? I don't things have changed that much since I stopped playing that umpires now change their decisions when a player questions them. My attitude eventually was (and I learnt the hard way) is that the more you question or abuse them, the more they go against you (at least in your own perception), so you're better off keeping quiet and concentrating on your own game. As for the right of reply from PHOS, I wouldn’t think that it is their decision to make - it is up to the bloke involved to make that choice, and he may not even know about your article. But for anyone who has read your article, particularly from an opposition team, will they give him a fair go from the opening bounce of their next game? Regardless of what he may say in a right of reply?

Why should umpires be thick shinned? Does everybody not make mistakes? So when i player makes a mistake does the umpire have a right to abuse him also? Just have a think about that one. If we didnt have umpires we dont have a game, thats how i see it. And on the point of a player refuting a desicion i know for a fact in the Southern League, A umpire may pay a 50 metre penalty for any disputing of a desicion, wheter it be big or small, which i completely agree with.

[RatPack]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Booze, I think you're missing the point a little - while it's true that umpires should be thicker skinned, where is the responsibility for the player to have a thick skin? I don't things have changed that much since I stopped playing that umpires now change their decisions when a player questions them. My attitude eventually was (and I learnt the hard way) is that the more you question or abuse them, the more they go against you (at least in your own perception), so you're better off keeping quiet and concentrating on your own game. As for the right of reply from PHOS, I wouldn’t think that it is their decision to make - it is up to the bloke involved to make that choice, and he may not even know about your article. But for anyone who has read your article, particularly from an opposition team, will they give him a fair go from the opening bounce of their next game? Regardless of what he may say in a right of reply?

Why should umpires be thick shinned? Does everybody not make mistakes? So when i player makes a mistake does the umpire have a right to abuse him also? Just have a think about that one. If we didnt have umpires we dont have a game, thats how i see it. And on the point of a player refuting a desicion i know for a fact in the Southern League, A umpire may pay a 50 metre penalty for any disputing of a desicion, wheter it be big or small, which i completely agree with.

I don't think we're talking about abuse in this particular instance -while I wouldn't bother, many players will at least want to know what they did wrong - otherwise how can they try to correct it the next time round? An Umpire should be "thick skinned" enough to answer a reasonable question if its asked in a reasonable manner - without further penalising the player.

[footy1992]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Booze, I think you're missing the point a little - while it's true that umpires should be thicker skinned, where is the responsibility for the player to have a thick skin? I don't things have changed that much since I stopped playing that umpires now change their decisions when a player questions them. My attitude eventually was (and I learnt the hard way) is that the more you question or abuse them, the more they go against you (at least in your own perception), so you're better off keeping quiet and concentrating on your own game. As for the right of reply from PHOS, I wouldn’t think that it is their decision to make - it is up to the bloke involved to make that choice, and he may not even know about your article. But for anyone who has read your article, particularly from an opposition team, will they give him a fair go from the opening bounce of their next game? Regardless of what he may say in a right of reply?

Why should umpires be thick shinned? Does everybody not make mistakes? So when i player makes a mistake does the umpire have a right to abuse him also? Just have a think about that one. If we didnt have umpires we dont have a game, thats how i see it. And on the point of a player refuting a desicion i know for a fact in the Southern League, A umpire may pay a 50 metre penalty for any disputing of a desicion, wheter it be big or small, which i completely agree with.

I don't think we're talking about abuse in this particular instance -while I wouldn't bother, many players will at least want to know what they did wrong - otherwise how can they try to correct it the next time round? An Umpire should be "thick skinned" enough to answer a reasonable question if its asked in a reasonable manner - without further penalising the player.

Yes i agree with you in that example, common sense is generally used by the umpires, when a player yells at a umpire its much different to when he approches the mumpire and asks him. Basically it all comes down to umpire relations, if you seem like you genuinely want to know what the issue was the umpire will basically always tell you, just respect him/her, like they respect you!

[Boris]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Booze, I think you're missing the point a little - while it's true that umpires should be thicker skinned, where is the responsibility for the player to have a thick skin? I don't things have changed that much since I stopped playing that umpires now change their decisions when a player questions them. My attitude eventually was (and I learnt the hard way) is that the more you question or abuse them, the more they go against you (at least in your own perception), so you're better off keeping quiet and concentrating on your own game. As for the right of reply from PHOS, I wouldn’t think that it is their decision to make - it is up to the bloke involved to make that choice, and he may not even know about your article. But for anyone who has read your article, particularly from an opposition team, will they give him a fair go from the opening bounce of their next game? Regardless of what he may say in a right of reply?

I agree with you on this to some extent but I am not talking about abuse. Abuse deserves a penalty but surely there must be some standards to what constitutes abuse? Surely we can interact with umpires? Nothing threatening or abusive. For instance the ump accused me of asking for a free kick everytime i went near it. Wasn't abusing me at all just making a comment. Similar comments made back earn you a twenty five....thats dissapointing.

Boozehound you even ask for free kicks when you're not near it.

[oldslow]

Big Ezy, why am I not surprised to see you weigh in on the umpire debate.....

Phos are more than welcome to have a right of reply in my article next week if they like.....

This guy made several calls that weren't just missed decisions or borderline calls but were blatant grandstanding and showing his authority. The worst kind of copper is one that lets the power go to his head and trust me there are plenty out there, but in the end they get no respect. Same goes for umpiring. Without being agressive, you could not even speak to this guy without a twenty five metre penalty. To me a thicker skin is required to be an umpire.

Couldn't agree more that you need to be thickskinned to be an umpire, and from what I'm told - there seems to be no restrictions on the abuse players (and spectators) dish out to them - it seems that it's all fair to scream abuse at them. I bet umpires would love to scream abuse at players everytime they made a mistake. And - I have seen the PHOS B grade umpire - if it's the same bloke - a fairer bloke you wouldn't meet, but I bet if he reacted as you suggested - then it would be from the constant abuse from EP players......pretty simple really.

Well bigfella is at it again just can't help himself. You do seem to have a real prob with EPFC but it is easy to hide behind your logon and sling shit. As Booze asked who are you and what have you done in footy I think either an average footy player who couldn't get a kick against EPFC or a SAAFL umpire in which case you should be ashamed of yourself. And before you start carry on and backing the rubbish we call umpires at the moment, I took a year off footy in 2007 and went umpiring for the year. The following is fact ; I had full intentions of umpiring in the SAAFL but after hearing the bias attitude of the umpires there I decided to umpire in the Adelaide Plains and enjoyed every min of it, why because most (not all) were not from the area and had no loyalties or hatred of the sides competing. We had a good relationship with the players including a couple of beers after the game often shouted by players. I was questioned about decissions at times as we all are and answered the question when asked without carry on like a knob on a power trip. I will never say I know everything about umpiring but I know the spectators come to see the footy not a clown in the middle trying to rule the game, it's pretty simple play it as you see it, talk to the players as adults not kids, and let the players play!!

[Benchwarmer]

How many times do you watch a game and think "why doesn't that player just shut up - the umpire won't change his decision!".

A number of times, I have seen one particular player moaning incessantly week after week after week after week about umpires (usually without bending down and getting into a pack, copping a bump or two and getting dirty) - I am sure that these sorts of players spend their working days ringing up companies complaining about service or the weather or any little thing that embeds itself in their little minds. These people should learn to cheer up and shut up!

Then again, there are very few brain surgeons who play or umpire football.

[ezydoesitbigfella]

This issue isn't over?

[oldslow]

This issue isn't over?

Another great coment from the great man

[finn]

firstly, there are good and bad umpires and in club umpires this difference is exacerbated by the very fact that they are club umpires and hence, instead of them being considered mistake prone they are considered favouring the club they emanate from. usually club umpires try to do the right thing and are fair - usually they do not receive umpire training which perhaps the saafl should look into and they do make mistakes just like players do.

the major problem for is the very public airing of booze's completely subjective opinion in a widely disseminated publication that also acts as the unofficial budget for the saafl in that it can be downloaded and given out at games - yes, i know it has a header stating its independence on pge 1 but it can be easily overlooked. this airing came after one playing exposure to b grade umpires and one exposure to the phos umpire. as an old editor of a newspaper, the insinuation is evident within the article that the phos umpire favoured his team ie cheated - this goes very close to character defamation as the umpire can be very easily identified. the other problem i find is that its just a vent, a very easy thing to do - there's no solutions or theories given which is harder to do.

we've all wanted to vent our frustrations but this wasn't the forum in which to do so.

[ezydoesitbigfella]

firstly, there are good and bad umpires and in club umpires this difference is exacerbated by the very fact that they are club umpires and hence, instead of them being considered mistake prone they are considered favouring the club they emanate from. usually club umpires try to do the right thing and are fair - usually they do not receive umpire training which perhaps the saafl should look into and they do make mistakes just like players do.

the major problem for is the very public airing of booze's completely subjective opinion in a widely disseminated publication that also acts as the unofficial budget for the saafl in that it can be downloaded and given out at games - yes, i know it has a header stating its independence on pge 1 but it can be easily overlooked. this airing came after one playing exposure to b grade umpires and one exposure to the phos umpire. as an old editor of a newspaper, the insinuation is evident within the article that the phos umpire favoured his team ie cheated - this goes very close to character defamation as the umpire can be very easily identified. the other problem i find is that its just a vent, a very easy thing to do - there's no solutions or theories given which is harder to do.

we've all wanted to vent our frustrations but this wasn't the forum in which to do so.

Now there's a rational and well put comment on this issue - two highlighted comments are absolutely spot on.

[boozehound]

Big Ezy, you are clearly part of the umpiring shamozzle in the amatuers so i wouldn't suggest your point of view is completely without bias.

Mate if someone thinks they are being defamed stop F*cking whinging and do something about it.....

[oldslow]

firstly, there are good and bad umpires and in club umpires this difference is exacerbated by the very fact that they are club umpires and hence, instead of them being considered mistake prone they are considered favouring the club they emanate from. usually club umpires try to do the right thing and are fair - usually they do not receive umpire training which perhaps the saafl should look into and they do make mistakes just like players do.

the major problem for is the very public airing of booze's completely subjective opinion in a widely disseminated publication that also acts as the unofficial budget for the saafl in that it can be downloaded and given out at games - yes, i know it has a header stating its independence on pge 1 but it can be easily overlooked. this airing came after one playing exposure to b grade umpires and one exposure to the phos umpire. as an old editor of a newspaper, the insinuation is evident within the article that the phos umpire favoured his team ie cheated - this goes very close to character defamation as the umpire can be very easily identified. the other problem i find is that its just a vent, a very easy thing to do - there's no solutions or theories given which is harder to do.

we've all wanted to vent our frustrations but this wasn't the forum in which to do so.

Now there's a rational and well put comment on this issue - two highlighted comments are absolutely spot on.

Rubbish