- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Just when you think you’ve seen it all in football, something you never thought possible makes headlines.
Whether it be umpiring decisions, player behaviour or fan conduct, something controversial is sure to arise from any weekend of football. But yesterday saw controversy come about from the unlikeliest of sources: the humble stretcher.
But after Sydney’s three-point win over Brisbane, Lions coach Justin Lepptisch was fuming (as was social media) about an apparent exploitation of the stretcher rule by the Swans in the crucial late stages.
It all started at Sydney’s end of the ground, with Callum Sinclair falling to the ground near the goal square, clutching his knee. Brisbane took the ball down to the other end of the field while the Swans ruckman lay hobbled in his forward pocket.
With the Lions just three points behind, the contest in their forward pocket between Pearce Hanley and Jarrad McVeigh was a crucial one, but before either player could gather possession the umpires called a stop to play.
Confusion reigned at the Gabba, with few knowing what was happening, and that confusion quickly turned to anger when Sinclair, the man for whom the stretcher had been called for, managed to hobble off the field largely unassisted.
A ball-up was held where play was stopped, and from the stoppage Sydney cleared it, took the ball the other way and kicked the eventual match-sealer.
Leppitsch was sure something untoward had happened, claiming “whether it was an error by the officials or a state of game thing where Sydney took advantage of a rule, I don’t know which one it is.”
It all looks very suspicious, but was Stretchergate a cunning ploy from the Swans, a blunder from the umpires or just a bizarre one-off?
Leppitsch initially accused the umpires of getting it wrong, saying; “maybe I’m wrong, but my understanding is the play has to stop before the stretcher comes out, not the other way around.”
Unfortunately, Leppitsch is wrong on that one. Under AFL law 7.3.2 (a);
“Where a stretcher is required, the following procedure shall apply: upon being advised or noticing that a Player requires a stretcher, the field Umpire shall stop play at the earliest opportunity”
There is no requirement for the player to be within a certain proximity to the football, if the stretcher’s called, play stops.
Additionally, under AFL law 7.3.2 (d) (i);
“Once the injured Player has been removed from the Playing Surface, the field Umpire shall recommence play as follows depending on the circumstances:
(i) Where the football was in dispute at the time play was stopped, by throwing up the football”
Which is exactly what happened. Given it was the Swans, not the umpires as some believe, who called for the stretcher, it looks like the umpires followed the procedure to the letter.
That leaves one suspect; the Sydney Swans.
Leppitsch stopped short of an outright accusation, but did say “I’d be highly disappointed if it [the stretcher] was used as a tactic”, as well as asking “can we use it as a tactic now? Can we?”
@geekOnaught I'll raise you @AFL #stretchergate @sydneyswans #AFLLionsSwans pic.twitter.com/xhbg2kIZTG
— JC (@JoshCooney77) May 1, 2016
Consider AFL laws 7.3.2 (e) and (f). Sub-section (e) states;
“a Player for whom a stretcher was called shall not resume playing for a period of 20 minutes (excluding intervals between quarters) from the time when the Player left the Playing Surface.”
While (f) adds;
“where a stretcher enters the Playing Surface but the Player elects to walk off, all provisions of Law 7.3.2 apply”
To put it in layman’s terms; even though Sinclair didn’t physically leave the field on a stretcher, the fact that a stretcher was called for him made him ineligible to return to the field for the rest of the game.
Which begs a serious question.
What coach in their right mind would sacrifice their primary ruckman, late in the fourth quarter of a tight game, just to get a stoppage in their defensive 50? Longmire would much prefer Sinclair at that ball-up in the back pocket rather than being forced to drag Kurt Tippett away from the goal square.
It just doesn’t make tactical sense, especially when you consider a ball-up was far from guaranteed. Consider AFL law 7.3.2 (d) (iii), it states;
“Once the injured Player has been removed from the Playing Surface, the field Umpire shall recommence play as follows depending on the circumstances:
(iii) where a Player had possession of the football at the time play was stopped, by awarding a Free Kick to the Player.”
Meaning, if the Swans medical staff had called for the stretcher a half second before or after they did, and Hanley happened to be in possession, then Brisbane would have received a free kick and shot at goal.
Which begs the question once more; what coach in their right mind would run the very real risk of gifting their opponent a totally unnecessary free shot at goal, late in the fourth quarter of a tight game, just to get a stoppage in their defensive 50?
The risk of such a move far, far outweighs any potential reward, and if an AFL investigation one day does uncover that Longmire deliberately called for a stretcher for tactical reasons, the Swans should fire him on the spot for being such an idiot.
But while it’s unlikely the AFL will investigate this thoroughly, it seems based on this set of evidence that neither the umpires nor Swans have a case to answer in this stretcher saga. As confusing and suspicious as it seemed at the time, it looks like this was just an odd one-off.
Who knows what controversy football will treat us to next week?