You're a Bunch of Factors

Some of you may have seen my status on FB about female umpires in the AFL. In last night's Essendon v Carlton game, towards the end of the third quarter, Jay Neagle kicked a goal but the female goal umpire instead signaled a point. I thought this was a turning point in the game as Essendon would have gone into the final quarter only 16 points down and with momentum.

The umpiring all night was horrible but some mistakes from umpires are inevitable and really unavoidable in such a fast-paced game. What really got to me about the Neagle goal was the fact that it was an elementary mistake by the goal umpire and I think when the AFL brought in female umpires something like this was bound to happen.

My FB status last night said, "I am not being sexist in any way but umpiring positions should be judged on merit. It just seems the AFL, armed with some notion of gender equality, are heedlessly pushing inexperienced female umpires into the game and poor decisions are inevitable."

The AFL are trying to demonstrate to the public that they are not sexist but if we look a little closer, the very fact that they are selecting women because they are women, rather than on their merit, is in fact sexist. The same goes for Channel 10 trying to demonstrate the same principle of equality by introducing female AFL commentators and that was by all accounts a failure:

Underwood is labelled ‘boring,’ her voice like ‘nails on a chalk board.’ Some even go so far, even in this increasingly politically correct climate, to say that a woman doesn’t belong in the commentary box.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/29/un ... nder-fire/

This reminds me very much of the South African cricket team's quota policy from a few years ago. When Nelson Mandela was elected and apartheid removed, the SA cricket team tried to show the world it was no longer racist by making a policy that there has to be a certain number of "coloured" players in the team. Just like with female umpires, players were being selected not because they were the best but because of their skin colour, clearly at ends with the goal of the policy of promoting equality.

Recently the AFL was pushing to have female field umpires. I personally feel that this will ultimately lower the quality of umpiring. I think because the sport has been traditionally male-dominated it will be some time before female umpires have the required skill, but more importantly experience, to umpire.

What do people think?

How is a female umpire any different to an inexperienced male umpire also just starting out?

BTW, female AFL leagues do exist so you cannot say that female umpires who have played for years are "inexperienced"

That's the first time I've seen a mistake like that from her, and I think she's being around for at least 2 years.

"...and I think when the AFL brought in female umpires something like this was bound to happen."

That's bull. When you bring the human element into it mistakes like that are bound to happen. I definitely thought you just had a natural distrust of women when I read your FB and jumped on one isolated incident to make point of it. One mistake means women automatically are inferior umpires? Please. Do you even watch AFL?

Chelsea Roffey started umpiring in the AFL in TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR. Clearly the AFL are flooding women into the system to prove something. I guarantee you wouldn't have gotten onto your soapbox if it were Cartlon that were screwed by the decision.

Didn't watch the game last night, but the commentary today mentioned 2 glaring errors at both ends of the ground. Surely this says it's an umpire problem, and not a gender problem.

I didn't see last night's incident, so I cant comment on that, but umpires are making mistakes every week. So, extrapolating your theory, as most umpires are male and these are the ones who make most of the mistakes, then the league is doomed. Generally, I've found that most statements that begin with "I'm not being sexist/racist/biased...etc" are in fact being blatantly sexist/racist/biased..etc, just as comments that being with "no offence intended" generally cause a high level of offense.

As for female commentators, i'm not being sexist, but no offence intended, I really dont like it. I dont think women do it well, nor do I believe they have a full understanding of the game. Likewise, I dont think I would make a good narrator of a childbirthing documentary. I may have seen a few births up close and personal, but I really dont understand it from the 'players' point of view.

LOL Matt.

WP.

trishan, your statements are way off the mark and extremely sexist.

You appear to only want to grizzel about 1 of the errors last night, just to set the record straight there would be a error made by umpires every game and yes some of those decisions may, and I repeat may lead to possibily effecting the actual outcome of the game.

Put yourself in their shoes and make a split second decision and get it right everytime, I think not.

So stop being a sexist pig and retact or delete your origional post.

Gundog, Trishan has asked "What do people think?"

This suggests he is open to debate/criticism of his OP, and if presented with a well formed argument or points to the contrary may be influenced to change his point of view, to grow personally and become a better human being.

Gundog, I find your demand to delete his original post more offensive. (Especially the mis-spelling of retact and origional!)

Opinions are like a-ss holes, we all have one.

Matt Porter wrote:Gundog, Trishan has asked "What do people think?"

This suggests he is open to debate/criticism of his OP, and if presented with a well formed argument or points to the contrary may be influenced to change his point of view, to grow personally and become a better human being.

Gundog, I find your demand to delete his original post more offensive. (Especially the mis-spelling of retact and origional!)

Opinions are like a-ss holes, we all have one.

Mate Trishan asked for opinions, and he got one. I agree completely with gundog here. Trishans's comments were sexist and misinformed. He needs to pull his head in.

And Matt, who are you to judge who has a 'full understanding of the game' or not. Somebody like Kelli Underwood has been involved in football for years as a journalist and in other roles before becoming a commentator. The fact is she would have a much much better understanding of the workings of an AFL football club and the tactics involved to play AFL at the top level compared to you.

I actually studied sport analysis at university and she would have a better understanding of the AFL than me. I might not have used the phrase 'sexist pig' like gundog did, but i certainly agree with his sentiments on this one (and i dont often side with gundog )