Post by epictetus on Nov 13, 2014 9:15:31 GMT
The first game of Australian Rules football was played in 1858 on the Richmond Paddock between Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar School. The rules for the game were agreed to before the match started, as were any rules for any game before 1859. As you can imagine, there was no umpire for the historic first game. Now we have three field umpires, four boundary umpires and two goal umpires for every AFL matche (plus a video ref as backup), but has the game benefited as a result?
Too often we see an umpire at one part of the ground ruling inconsistently with others at different parts, and sometimes field umpires will overrule goal umpires and vice versa, and now we have the dubious benefit of a video referee who can overrule everyone. How does this help the game?
Do we really need a man in white to bounce the ball at the beginning of a quarter and after a goal has been scored? The rugby codes don't need it. Nor does soccer. Do we need white line boundaries? Who benefits from rules like 'holding the man' and 'push in the back'? Why does an umpire have to decide if a ball has been marked? Why not just play on after each mark? We'll know who's taken the mark because he'll have the ball. How many of the other 'umpireal' decisions about 'kicking in danger', 'overrunning the mark', 'deliberate out of bounds', etc, actually improve the spectacle?
OK, maybe we do need goal umpires.
Imagine a game without holdups and dubious decisions by inconsistent field umpires. We know full well that umpires themselves don't know the rules. This is made very clear by the howls of outrage from spectators and players alike that greet their decisions all through the game. And many umpires, we gather from the same spectators, are recruited from the vision impaired community.
I don't know about the rugby codes. They may be different, but the rationale for a man running up and down and counting the tackles must be questioned. And do referees prevent serious injury from spear tackles and the like? Wouldn't the presence of police on the sidelines be more effective, especially when Paul Gallen's playing?
And soccer, where a bad referee can really destroy a game, can be played without one. I don't recollect referees in schoolyard games as a child, yet we enjoyed ourselves and we knew who'd won. The Socceroos might have won the World Cup in 2006 if there weren't any refs. Seb Blatter virtually admitted it.
So what do you think? Should I start with an email to the AFL suggesting a pre-season trial without umps? It might be more successful than my attempts to shorten the game to 80 minutes from its current marathon 120. Any suggestions are welcome.
Too often we see an umpire at one part of the ground ruling inconsistently with others at different parts, and sometimes field umpires will overrule goal umpires and vice versa, and now we have the dubious benefit of a video referee who can overrule everyone. How does this help the game?
Do we really need a man in white to bounce the ball at the beginning of a quarter and after a goal has been scored? The rugby codes don't need it. Nor does soccer. Do we need white line boundaries? Who benefits from rules like 'holding the man' and 'push in the back'? Why does an umpire have to decide if a ball has been marked? Why not just play on after each mark? We'll know who's taken the mark because he'll have the ball. How many of the other 'umpireal' decisions about 'kicking in danger', 'overrunning the mark', 'deliberate out of bounds', etc, actually improve the spectacle?
OK, maybe we do need goal umpires.
Imagine a game without holdups and dubious decisions by inconsistent field umpires. We know full well that umpires themselves don't know the rules. This is made very clear by the howls of outrage from spectators and players alike that greet their decisions all through the game. And many umpires, we gather from the same spectators, are recruited from the vision impaired community.
I don't know about the rugby codes. They may be different, but the rationale for a man running up and down and counting the tackles must be questioned. And do referees prevent serious injury from spear tackles and the like? Wouldn't the presence of police on the sidelines be more effective, especially when Paul Gallen's playing?
And soccer, where a bad referee can really destroy a game, can be played without one. I don't recollect referees in schoolyard games as a child, yet we enjoyed ourselves and we knew who'd won. The Socceroos might have won the World Cup in 2006 if there weren't any refs. Seb Blatter virtually admitted it.
So what do you think? Should I start with an email to the AFL suggesting a pre-season trial without umps? It might be more successful than my attempts to shorten the game to 80 minutes from its current marathon 120. Any suggestions are welcome.
