# Ugly Parent Syndrome



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

I heard on the news this morning that the NRL is considering banning parents from all junior games after a 12 year old boy was attacked by one of the oppositions parents. 

I have witnessed first hand some ugly incidents involving junior football as I umpire on the weekends. Abuse from the coach, parents, even the kids themselves on the field if they don't like a decision you have handed down. To my surprise even racial villification in an under 10's match from a lovely father who did not like the "treatment" his son was getting.

If this continues to escalate there will be no one left to umpire/coach/play the game. Junior sport is the loser.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I heard on the news this morning that the NRL is considering banning parents from all junior games after a 12 year old boy was attacked by one of the oppositions parents.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand some ugly incidents involving junior football as I umpire on the weekends. Abuse from the coach, parents, even the kids themselves on the field if they don't like a decision you have handed down. To my surprise even racial villification in an under 10's match from a lovely father who did not like the "treatment" his son was getting.
> 
> If this continues to escalate there will be no one left to umpire/coach/play the game. Junior sport is the loser.




In which state do you coach trainspotter? 
I know they are having trouble finding umpires. Maybe you should"walk" from a game one day. There has always been a bit of grumbling but the umpire deserves the utmost respect.

The parents that attacked the 12 year old bot should be charged and sentenced properly. Unbelievable. Rugby is doing its best at present to become unpopular with mums.


----------



## springhill (21 July 2009)

It's not the only crime ugly parents are responsible for


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Western Australia mainly AFL. Have also done the soccer, basketball and tennis circuit. I have umpired/coached AFL for 5 years and am an accreditted AFL umpire/coach. 

"Walking" from a game is not the answer. Keeping a cool head seems to really annoy them even more. Blow the whistle as you see it and flood the back line so the opposition cannot get near the goals is another effective trick. ALso running "blocks" in the forward line slows them down a bit too! No wait .... I wouldn't do that would i? I have the whistle so therefore I have the power !!


----------



## gooner (21 July 2009)

I have played soccer for decades, but started refereeing this year. Expected some crap from the adults, but I 've got a thick skin and if any one gives me any crap, the red card comes out.

But have been surprised by the lack of respect in kids games - have done some under 15 games and surprised how often I have to caution or send off players. And some of the managers for the kids teams are total dickheads - I guess this attitude comes through to the kids that they manage.


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

springhill said:


> It's not the only crime ugly parents are responsible for




Nice one Springhill, good laugh

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Is that Kostya Tszyu lovechild with Jabba the Hut?


----------



## awg (21 July 2009)

My wife absolutely detests other woman screaming out on the sideline at junior Rugby league games.

A lot of the dads at league games are ex-players, and seem more respectful.

At my youngest sons team, there are no less than 4 ex NRL players who are now fathers.

recently, an over the top parent who seemed affected by drugs became involved in a nasty slanging match with one of our mothers.

thing the guy didnt realise is the father was an office bearer of the Nomads 

Luckily the Nomad, just glared at him...I praised him for his restraint.

There was also a bad incident at a local senior match were the female touchie was threatened to be raped, they got the guy on video

thats the key, I reckon

video them, name and shame them, and charge them with criminal offences

there is absolutely no place for that sort of behaviour.

I have never heard the ex-NRL dads ever barrack


----------



## MrBurns (21 July 2009)

Taser the lot


----------



## Ghetto23 (21 July 2009)

Was playing rugby in Kalgoorlie a few years back - in the game after us the ref locked himself in the shed to escape from some players trying to rough him up.

It's not just the parents - some people are always going to be bad sports.


----------



## springhill (21 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Taser the lot




Wait until they are carrying lighter fluid though :evilburn:


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

*Note to self* NEVER umpire a game with Mr Burns or springhill in the crowd.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

I observed on an early morning program that the powers that be (NRL I think) have decided to BAN the child involved in Ugly Parent Syndrome. Thus removing the problem. Hmmmmm ... I thought maybe a bit more education at registration time might have been a solution. When little Johhny joins club XYZ then the parents recieve literature in relation to good sportsmanship etc. Possibly get Mum & Dad to authorise a document agreeing to participate in keeping calm while the umpire makes the wrong decision?


----------



## Knobby22 (22 July 2009)

Nice thoughts trainspotter but realistically if the parents are that bad I can't see them changing their behaiour with a bit of education. 

At least their child will learn a lesson.


----------



## awg (22 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I observed on an early morning program that the powers that be (NRL I think) have decided to BAN the child involved in Ugly Parent Syndrome. Thus removing the problem. Hmmmmm ... I thought maybe a bit more education at registration time might have been a solution. When little Johhny joins club XYZ then the parents recieve literature in relation to good sportsmanship etc. Possibly get Mum & Dad to authorise a document agreeing to participate in keeping calm while the umpire makes the wrong decision?




they already do this, it doesnt seem to be working

i reckon they should take a pic of the parents and if they are too ugly looking, just say "you are banned"


----------



## jonnohowe (22 July 2009)

Funniest forum I've been on yet!


----------



## kincella (22 July 2009)

a few weeks ago there was this amazing screaming coming from the front of my place....one big fat mumma was doing road rage on a taxi driver.....geez...did she let fly with the language, swearing, etc.....oh and the traffic jams she created.....it was bedlam....the police came and took her away for awhile....
I would hate to see what she would do at a kids game....
boy did she go off......no holds barred...she sounded insane...to put it mildly


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

LMAO @ awg ... ugliness in appearance "probably" does not mean they will turn into tyrannical monsters when little Johhnny is flattened in the forward line from behind and I don't blow me whistle and award him a free kick. (If the kid is a sh!thead and gets poleaxed then I might call PLAY ON) Usually it is the higher socio economic people who make a bit of a fuss when NANA and POPPY turn up to watch little Johnny be a loser. 

In 5 years of running onto the hallowed ground of "sport" I can honestly say there was this one guy with a tattoo of a scorpion on his neck and wearing the BOVVA clothes that he had a bit to say about his son getting a bit of rough treament behind play. I calmed him down and gave his kid a free kick to satisfy the end result. The "chosen one" immediatley kicked the ball into the man on the mark who promptly grabbed the ball and snapped a goal from 15 metres out from the posts.

OH DEAR !!


----------



## Julia (22 July 2009)

I haven't read all this thread, so apologise if this has come up before.

Heard a umpire on the radio today saying if he gets any of this ugly parent crap he simply sends the child off the field.  Finish.  Tough on the kid, at the time, but he reckoned the parents never did it again because they lose so much face in the kid's eyes.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

Thanks Julia, nope it has not come up before. I believe the NRL are trying to introduce this law. Parents act up it is the kid who is disqualified from the game (including the parents) BANNED FOR LIFE apparently.

I have implemented this previously and it only seems to anger the parents even further (poor lost souls) Sending little Johnny off immediately means that Daddy can vent his spleen because his son IS THE WHOLE TEAM. I prefer to get the child in question and put him in the front line of attack. Ruck, mauls, bouncedowns, backline, wherever the most ball getters are and see how "Little Johnny" handles a little bit of pressure. The other kids on the field soon make him look silly. 

Quietly at 1/4 time or halftime or whenever, I go over to the parent (or coach) and ask if their son has had enough of the front line. NOW this has backfired on me before because little bloody Johnny is a superstar and can kick 6 goals in a quarter and win the game off his own boot. Fair enough. The kid has talent. Compliment the parents on a job well done and then get the best kid on the opposing tem to "manup" on him to try and slow him down.

Usually works.


----------



## dalek (23 July 2009)

Congratulate the parents !?!?
Unacceptable behaviour in company with talent is still unacceptable behaviour. 
This fact also gets a bit lost on the AFL from time to time.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

Well it has happened yet again. Ugly Parent Syndrome is alive and well. Junior AFL and I was the umpire. The game was a draw at 3/4 time and everybody was happy, even to the point whereby some of the parents of the opposing team came up and congratulated me on the performance. In the last quarter the game is up for grabs and the opposing team starts to flood the forward line. The game gets scrappy. Several of their best players are starting to go hard at the ball. One of them kicks the ball ... HARD ... and it slams into his team mates face. The kid goes down. I give him a free kick. He spears the ball to another team mate who cops it in the guts and winds himself. He goes down. I give him a kick on goals. The opposition parents jump up from the sidelines and demand I call off the game because it is getting too rough. I look at my watch. 36 seconds to go. Why not I think to myself? Blow the whistle and cross the arms calling full time. Same parent leaps up and abuses me for calling off the game as "Little Johnny" is having a shot on goals. Never mind that it is irrelevant as the other team is more than 2 goals in front? LMAO. Same parent screams at me (with a few others joining in now) that the game is too rough. I explain that of the 7 incidents during the whole game that 4 of them were caused by their own team mates. Oh Dear. The other 3 clashes the whistle was immediately blown and a free kick paid. (even though 2 of them were accidental) The guilty party chastised and threatened to be sent off it happens again. Now this is under 10's right? No points, no ladder, no sheep stations to be won or lost! *giggle*

I advise them to put a complaint into the governing body. Which they are happy to oblige my request. I have to sign the match report. They actually had written ... get this ... "GREAT UMPIRING" and then scribbled it out (still quite legible I must add) With a footnote atached "Digusted that the umpiring was against us" PMSL.

Now this did make me feel better but I really have to wonder will I umpire next year? Will I bother to go to the coaching clinics to keep up my accreditaion with the AFL? (at my cost) *Do it for the kids* a little voice bellows inside my head. Hmmmmmmmmmm .. NUP !


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2009)

Did the resultant arguments with assorted parents take longer than 36 seconds ?


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

drsmith said:


> Did the resultant arguments with assorted parents take longer than 36 seconds ?




LOLOL ... they sure did Dr Smith !  I even reversed my decision and gave "Litte Johnny" a shot on goal. He kicked a point. Oh Dear?


----------



## Prospector (16 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> One of them kicks the ball ... HARD ... and it slams into his team mates face. The kid goes down. I give him a free kick. He spears the ball to another team mate who cops it in the guts and winds himself. He goes down. I give him a kick on goals. !




So, can I just check.  You gave 2 free kicks to players who had been 'injured' by their own team mates?  Why?  

Maybe it could even be used as a tactic to get a free.  I think I might be a little antsy myself.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

Well Prospector ... I am one of those "biased" umpires who pay a free kick or "mark" to the opposition so that they cannot accuse me of being "biased" against them. I might have to change my tactics on this one. The "home game" team should have been the ones getting "antsy" but as I have been with them for 5 years and they recognise my style of umpiring and they acknowledge that I am trying to be fair both ways they do not complain. Remembering this is UNDER 10's. It is about teaching the kids skill and the disciplines of the game. About having a go and playing in the spirit of the game and holding positions and not "flooding" etc etc.

I actually pay more free kicks against my home team then I do the other way. I believe this was the first time that the "away team" had been challenged enough for them to actually have to play at their very best. My understanding of it is that they normally wipe the floor with the opposing team. (which apparently is OK in their rules) So summarising I am thinking that the Mummy & Daddys were expecting an easy win and when this did not come about they decided to vent their spleen at the umpire and complain that it is too "rough" for the little darlings. ????


----------



## Prospector (16 August 2009)

Hey trainspotter, ignoring who was home team or visitors, can you just confirm that you gave two free kicks to players who had been 'injured' by their own team mates?  That was my query, that such tactics could be used to gain free kicks for your own team.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

YES ... Prospector, I can confirm thet the "free kicks" which are to be interpreted as "marks" (whereby they have made an attempt to mark the ball and I have blown the whistle even though the ball has hurt them) I do this to allow the "away" team an escape route that they cannot make a formal complaint to the governing body in regards to the umpiring on the day. I have not blown the whistle for "my" team when it comes to these kind of "tactics" ... I always wave my hands in the air and call "PLAY ON" and "NO EYES FOR THE BALL". This is discrimination against my team I know but the parents on "my" team and myself have an understanding in regards to these stages of play. They constantly chide me on my whistle blowing in regards to this matter and the governing body has recognised that I am the leading umpire on "fairness" when it comes to a result. Match reports concur with this statement.

I have witnessed other umpires blow the whistle AGAINST "my" team for no other reason than and I quote "To build the confidence of their team".


----------



## pursuitute (16 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Now this is under 10's right? No points, no ladder, no sheep stations to be won or lost!



Huh?  How long has that been the go?


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> YES ... Prospector, I can confirm thet the "free kicks" which are to be interpreted as "marks" (whereby they have made an attempt to mark the ball and I have blown the whistle even though the ball has hurt them) I do this to allow the "away" team an escape route that they cannot make a formal complaint to the governing body in regards to the umpiring on the day. I have not blown the whistle for "my" team when it comes to these kind of "tactics" ... I always wave my hands in the air and call "PLAY ON" and "NO EYES FOR THE BALL". This is discrimination against my team I know but the parents on "my" team and myself have an understanding in regards to these stages of play. They constantly chide me on my whistle blowing in regards to this matter and the governing body has recognised that I am the leading umpire on "fairness" when it comes to a result. Match reports concur with this statement.
> 
> I have witnessed other umpires blow the whistle AGAINST "my" team for no other reason than and I quote "To build the confidence of their team".




How can you claim to be the leading umpire in "fairness" yet openly admit to discriminating against one team?  And then you hide this discrimination my calling it a "mark" so that it cannot be questioned?  I am not questioning your dedication to the kids, I know you do what you think is right.  But how does this help them?  They may be under 10's, but they are smart and they know who wins and loses and often keep scores themselves.

And just a query on junior football these days (it hasn't even been 8yrs since I played junior football, yet it seems to have changed so much).  At what stage does it go from "no points, no ladder, etc" to following the rules correctly, keeping scores and ladders?  Is it gradually phased out through the different age classes, or does it go straight into sheep stations?


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

YES Gav ... openly discrminate against *MY *team. I umpire *MY* team when it is a home game. The reason being that they are a team that understands and is accepting because they realise it is UNDER 10's. The kids know perfectly well what is going on and I have coached them and trained them and I umpire them. It makes them play better by "marking" the ball cleanly, they do not talk back to the umpire, they do not question my decisions, they do not "take out" their player behind play, I could go on and on as to how well this method works. Just to let you know, these kids have some serious skill and are a cut above most of the teams. It is called talent and has nothing to do with my coaching or umpiring. It requires ALL the parents to be accepting of these terms. So far this team has gone through with 2 losses for the year. Both times I was not the umpire. Not denigrating the other umpires, in both cases the kids were outplayed by a better team on the day. Simple as that. I asked the kids what happened and they said " We like your umpiring better cause we know what we AREN'T allowed to do". Kids will try it on and get away with it if they can. 

Under 10 has always had a no sheep station rule in WA (or as long as I have been inolved, 8 years now) Under 12's keep score but no ladder recorded, Under 14's is when the chequebooks come out and the talent scouts sit in the stands looking for the next "rookie of the year".


----------



## truevalue (17 August 2009)

I have found after many years that there is a distinct correlation between how good the parent was as a sportsman and how "ugly" or vocal they are at the game. 

I have met parents who have been professional players at one stage or another and they are generally very quite, always unconcerned about the game, and usually happy or non commital regardless of the result. The ugly parents are enevitably the ones who didn't have a distingushed athletic career and appear to be making up for their own shortcommings via their children. Just my own observations.


----------



## Prospector (17 August 2009)

> I have met parents who have been professional players at one stage or another and they are generally very quite, always unconcerned about the game, and usually happy or non commital regardless of the result. The ugly parents are enevitably the ones who didn't have a distingushed athletic career and appear to be making up for their own shortcommings via their children. Just my own observations.




Agree totally truevalue.  Hubby was a professional sportperson (seems like a lifetime ago) and we rarely said anything when watching our sons play school sport.  We would clap the opposition, other players, and our own kids when they did something well, but said nothing more than that. But we would sit back and watch with our mouths hanging open at those parents, who were usually overweight and very unco, yell out at their kids to do this, do that, run faster, jump higher etc etc, knowing that the most athletic thing they had ever done in their life was flick on the remote control on the TV.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

We should write a book on this phenomenon. It appears to have a modicum of truth about it.


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> YES Gav ... openly discrminate against *MY *team. I umpire *MY* team when it is a home game.




Whether you discriminate against YOUR team or the opposition is irrelevant, you are still favouring one team.    



trainspotter said:


> The reason being that they are a team that understands and is accepting because they realise it is UNDER 10's. The kids know perfectly well what is going on and I have coached them and trained them and I umpire them. It makes them play better by "marking" the ball cleanly, they do not talk back to the umpire, they do not question my decisions, they do not "take out" their player behind play, I could go on and on as to how well this method works. Just to let you know, these kids have some serious skill and are a cut above most of the teams. It is called talent and has nothing to do with my coaching or umpiring. It requires ALL the parents to be accepting of these terms. So far this team has gone through with 2 losses for the year. Both times I was not the umpire. Not denigrating the other umpires, in both cases the kids were outplayed by a better team on the day. Simple as that. I asked the kids what happened and they said " We like your umpiring better cause we know what we AREN'T allowed to do". Kids will try it on and get away with it if they can.
> 
> Under 10 has always had a no sheep station rule in WA (or as long as I have been inolved, 8 years now) Under 12's keep score but no ladder recorded, Under 14's is when the chequebooks come out and the talent scouts sit in the stands looking for the next "rookie of the year".




What does paying "marks" that should not be paid have to do with talking back to the umpire or taking out players behind play? Is this what the kids used to do before you paid these "marks", and these "marks" stopped it from happening?    I'm not having a go at you, I am just trying to understand your reasoning for it.  

What is the difference between you paying "marks" and what other umpires do when they award a free kick "to build the confidence of their team"?  It seems very similar to me - the only difference being is that you try to disguise it as a "mark" (yet you admit that everyone knows that you are doing it).  I just don't see the point...


----------



## Prospector (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> What does paying "marks" that should not be paid have to do with talking back to the umpire or taking out players behind play? ...




Isnt it more about rewarding the effort and skill level for this age group, which may be poorly executed but a good attempt, rather than favouritism.

Having said all that, us parents did have a quiet rumble after the game about the umpires from male Catholic colleges.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> Whether you discriminate against YOUR team or the opposition is irrelevant, you are still favouring one team.
> 
> What does paying "marks" that should not be paid have to do with talking back to the umpire or taking out players behind play? Is this what the kids used to do before you paid these "marks", and these "marks" stopped it from happening?    I'm not having a go at you, I am just trying to understand your reasoning for it.
> 
> What is the difference between you paying "marks" and what other umpires do when they award a free kick "to build the confidence of their team"?  It seems very similar to me - the only difference being is that you try to disguise it as a "mark" (yet you admit that everyone knows that you are doing it).  I just don't see the point...





You not had your pill this morning ... have you Gav?

I discriminate against MY team to teach them to be better at their skills and self discipline and control. Two hands and two eyes for the ball is a mark even if it drops to the ground. When the opposition does it I call it a mark. When my kids do it I call PLAY ON as they did not HOLD the ball. GOT ME NOW GAV? It teaches MY kids to have better skills and have a go rather than just thrusting out one hand and "claiming" a mark.

It has nothing to do with what you are trying to infer ?????

You seem to be making something that is very simple into something ridiculously hard going here Gav.

The difference is when another umpire PAYS FREE KICKS to HIS team for a one handed attempt BUT NOT MINE or that he gives them a KICK DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF GOAL when they do not deserve it BUT NOT MINE is "boosting the confidence of his players" !!!

Are you with me now Gav? It seems something has been lost in the written word here and I am unsure as to how I can explain this any more for the masses to understand???????


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> Isnt it more about rewarding the effort and skill level for this age group, which may be poorly executed but a good attempt, rather than favouritism.
> 
> Having said all that, us parents did have a quiet rumble after the game about the umpires from male Catholic colleges.




*EGGSACKERY !* As I have previously writtten the current team I am coaching/umpiring have got some great skill. Making a half @rsed attempt at marking the ball will not get me to blow the whistle in favour for them. The other team (if they have similar skills) will be treated the same way. 

If "Little Johnny" clearly displays that he is lacking in the football brains Dept. and skill levels required then he will be rewarded for his efforts. EVERY TIME.


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> You not had your pill this morning ... have you Gav?
> 
> I discriminate against MY team to teach them to be better at their skills and self discipline and control. Two hands and two eyes for the ball is a mark even if it drops to the ground. When the opposition does it I call it a mark. When my kids do it I call PLAY ON as they did not HOLD the ball. GOT ME NOW GAV? It teaches MY kids to have better skills and have a go rather than just thrusting out one hand and "claiming" a mark.
> 
> It has nothing to do with what you are trying to infer ?????




If you bothered to read what I wrote, I said that I wasn't having a go at you, I just didn't understand the reasoning behind your decision.  Please, where did I "infer" anything, and what was it that I "inferred"? 



trainspotter said:


> You seem to be making something that is very simple into something ridiculously hard going here Gav.
> 
> The difference is when another umpire PAYS FREE KICKS to HIS team for a one handed attempt BUT NOT MINE or that he gives them a KICK DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF GOAL when they do not deserve it BUT NOT MINE is "boosting the confidence of his players" !!!




What difference does it make if it is in front of goal?  It's not like you are playing for a spot in the finals as there is no ladder or points system...  And maybe the other umpire did that for his team BUT NOT YOURS because your team has much better skills (as you keep pointing out), just like you do.  You and the other umpire are both doing the same thing, you are both giving the weaker team more of a go. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong)  I was not having a go at you at all, and I think it is great that you are involved in the kids sports.


----------



## drsmith (17 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I discriminate against MY team to teach them to be better at their skills and self discipline and control. Two hands and two eyes for the ball is a mark even if it drops to the ground. When the opposition does it I call it a mark. When my kids do it I call PLAY ON as they did not HOLD the ball. It teaches MY kids to have better skills and have a go rather than just thrusting out one hand and "claiming" a mark.



I've never played or umpired football but as a general observation I wonder whether this overcomplicates what should be a simple matter.

Surely a mark is a mark and if the ball is dropped it is not.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

Gav wrote "What does paying "marks" that should not be paid have to do with talking back to the umpire or taking out players behind play? Is this what the kids used to do before you paid these "marks", and these "marks" stopped it from happening?  I'm not having a go at you, I am just trying to understand your reasoning for it."

It has nothing to do with the point I was making or what I had written Gav. NON inference noted. I understand that you are NOT having a go. I was merely explaining that it teaches my kids discipline and control NOT to do these things.

Consistency is the key to umpiring. I consistently umpire decisions against my team and consistently give the opposing team a "fair go" (in their eyes) It teaches the kids NUFFIN to walk off the field when they have been thrashed. Like I have typed and you have agreed that there is no table, ladder, points etc in UNDER 10's BUT the parents seem to think they are playing for sheep stations. 

_"Fantastic umpiring.  One of the best exhibitions I have seen in 10 & Under's.  Thanks to (trainspotter) for giving us a couple of players"_ is one of the comments from the opposing teams.

If their umpire gives his team kicks in front of goals for soft free kicks (because "Little Johnny" stuck out one hand) but does not pay a genuine mark in front of OUR goals and the reason is to build his players confidence ... how is this "fair"?


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

drsmith said:


> I've never played or umpired football but as a general observation I wonder whether this overcomplicates what should be a simple matter.
> 
> Surely a mark is a mark and if the ball is dropped it is not.




Unfortunately not in UNDER 10's Dr Smith. The general idea is to give ALL the players a go at kicking and the basic skills of the game. I had one team who had a "special needs" child in their team. The look on his face when he was given a "free kick" in front of goal for a one handed attempt and subsequently kicked the goal was priceless. I asked my team not stand on the mark and allow him to run into goals and kick his first goal. His team went wild, he went wild, the crowd went wild. Now this is "fair" umpiring. IMO


----------



## Knobby22 (17 August 2009)

My son had his first AusKick match. Him and the other 5 and 6 year olds had a great time and the crowd was cheering and laughing. At this level, if you go for the mark and drop it you get a kick and umpires will knock the ball on to spread it round. 

Under 10s is a bit more serious and the finals are here so I suppose you want the umpire to be a bit more strict but it is under 10s. 

You want the kids to win and feel the game was not too soft, a fine balance. 

Maybe you should be a bit tougher to them in finals Trainspotter compared to home away games as the kids and obviously some of the parents really care and it is the end of the year and next year will be much tougher for them. You are the ump though and it is tough out there.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

*Thanks Knobby22 for the vote of confidence.*

No finals, ladders, tables in under 10's in WA. This is my point. The parents get radically carried away with the whole exercise. It is supposed to be for fun. The kids take it quite seriously as well. I try and make it a bit more "entertaining" for them all and give them instructions on "flooding", running lines in the forward line", "do not kick across goals" to BOTH teams on the field. I also explain every decision I make. "You had 2 hands clean in his back", "Accidental soccer ... PLAY ON" and "Big pack, you are all in it" and "It is getting too rough, back into your positions"

Next year in under 12's the "rules" change to be more serious. There is a winner and a loser, scores are kept diligently, marks have to be held and not fumbled, you are allowed to tackle. Totally different ball game. 

Will I umpire next year? Not bloody likely.


----------



## drsmith (17 August 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> .....some of the parents really care and it is the end of the year and next year will be much tougher for them. You are the ump though and it is tough out there.



This is perhaps the crux of the matter.

Different expectations between the parents and the umpires.


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Gav wrote "What does paying "marks" that should not be paid have to do with talking back to the umpire or taking out players behind play? Is this what the kids used to do before you paid these "marks", and these "marks" stopped it from happening?  I'm not having a go at you, I am just trying to understand your reasoning for it."
> 
> *It has nothing to do with the point I was making or what I had written Gav. NON inference noted.* I understand that you are NOT having a go. I was merely explaining that it teaches my kids discipline and control NOT to do these things.




Really?  May want to check your own posts... 



trainspotter said:


> The reason being that they are a team that understands and is accepting because they realise it is UNDER 10's. The kids know perfectly well what is going on and I have coached them and trained them and I umpire them. It makes them play better by "marking" the ball cleanly, *they do not talk back to the umpire, they do not question my decisions, they do not "take out" their player behind play, I could go on and on as to how well this method works.*




Anyway, good luck with your umpiring.  But don't go hating on another umpire when he is doing the exact same thing you are (giving the less skilled team more of a go)...


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> Really?  May want to check your own posts...
> 
> Anyway, good luck with your umpiring.  But don't go hating on another umpire when he is doing the exact same thing you are (giving the less skilled team more of a go)...




LOL Gav .. I give up. It seems that what I am writing has not been explained adequately. They are MY kids I am talking about by the way. I am teaching them NOT to do these things. Oh well.

Ummm ... no mention of "hating" other umpires?

Anyways .. thanks Gav, I would love nothing more than to have you "witness" one of my games. Maybe then you will be able to see what I am writing about.


----------



## awg (17 August 2009)

truevalue said:


> I have found after many years that there is a distinct correlation between how good the parent was as a sportsman and how "ugly" or vocal they are at the game.
> 
> I have met parents who have been professional players at one stage or another and they are generally very quite, always unconcerned about the game, and usually happy or non commital regardless of the result. The ugly parents are enevitably the ones who didn't have a distingushed athletic career and appear to be making up for their own shortcommings via their children. Just my own observations.




I agree ( except I was a pisspoor player, but a silent parental observer)

over the years my sons have played Rugby League, and at least 6 of the parents have been NRL players, several played for Australia.

Not once have I ever heard them utter a single shouted barrack.

Even when we lost a Grand Final after the whistle, due to a siren malfunction..the coach and trainer who were both State of Origin players, and although most of our parents abused the officials, these 2 refused to say a word, or even lodge a protest.

(I thought their eyes were going to pop out of their heads though)

Being a game based around hard physical contact, you see plenty of rough stuff, even at at junior level, lots of aggression

whenever i am a sideline or managerial official, I maintain strict neutrality, that is my effort to make.

we could start a whole new thread about "ugly parents behind the scenes" though


----------



## juliasmith (17 August 2009)

springhill said:


> It's not the only crime ugly parents are responsible for




hahahah nice one.....


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2010)

*PARENTS who disrupt junior sporting events will be ejected from grounds under a tough new QLD State Government push to curb sideline abuse and violence. *

The clampdown, which has the backing of Queensland's major sporting bodies, will allow officials to "red card" offenders and halt games until they leave. 

A $200,000 Government campaign to eradicate bad behaviour at junior games will be rolled out to more than 2000 sporting clubs from next month.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/parents-banned-by-refs/story-e6frep2f-1111113714090

Where is my whistle and purple shirt? Might have to move back to QLD.


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2010)

First QLD and now NSW are in on the act !

*Bodyguards to protect junior league refs* 

By Geoff Chambers From: The Daily Telegraph June 25, 2010 12:00AM 

PART-TIME "bodyguards" and undercover cameramen will be deployed to junior rugby league matches to protect referees. 

The radical move comes as it can be revealed dozens of teenage footy players are being sent off across NSW every weekend for abusing referees and fighting.

http://www.news.com.au/national/bob...nior-league-refs/story-e6frfkvr-1225884030935

MEIN GOTT !! Good old regional WA we just take the abuse !


----------



## satanoperca (25 June 2010)

trainspotter said:


> First QLD and now NSW are in on the act !
> 
> *Bodyguards to protect junior league refs*
> 
> ...




What has the world become that this is required at Jnr footy but then again my 4 year old plays soccer on Saturday and every week there is a fight and more often than not, the parents say nothing.

Cheers


----------

