The two coaches on the receiving end of the infringements in the past fortnight certainly think so.
Fremantle coach Mark Harvey, who had Hayden Ballantyne penalised in the narrow loss to Richmond two weeks ago, labelled it “a pretty heavy penalty to pay” while Hawthorn’s Alastair Clarkson added last night, “if it’s an infringement or not, there’s a blade of grass in it.”
The penalty, an automatic free-kick and 50m penalty, hardly fits the crime. It’s too severe.
In Fremantle’s case it offered Richmond a gimme-goal from point-blank range, while for the Hawks it robbed them of Cyril Rioli’s goal which would’ve given them a match-winning 13-point lead with only minutes left to go. The game, of course, then ended a draw!
The obvious counter-argument is simply not to do it, but as both of these recent instances reveal, the crimes weren’t deliberate acts by players trying to cheat but rather minor errors of judgement under the pressure of a tight final term.
While there’s no arguing against the fact these infringements should be punished, the current penalty is far too severe and the AFL needs to review it at the end of the season.
The rule, after all, was introduced in a bit of a rush in mid-2008 after Sydney had fielded 19 players in the final term of a game against North Melbourne which also ended – coincidently – as a draw.
The AFL rarely ever change a rule mid-season so this case was odd, but the problem was the previous ruling required the opposition captain to call for a head count, offering no power to the officials. There’s no doubt the rule needed revising and introducing something mid-season was fine for that reason.
But in hindsight, it seems the AFL overreacted in trying to stamp out the problem. They did, after all, also slap the Swans with a ridiculously hefty $50,000 fine for their 19th man gaffe, which reflected their anger on the issue at the time!
The strictness of the rule change, though, has undoubtedly created awareness in the interchange issue. Fans, coaches, players, commentators, etc, know the rule nowadays.
Nevertheless, I’m of the opinion the strict revising of the rule has served its purpose in making these instances a rare event. Players now know not to do it. And I don’t believe a relaxing of the rule would change that attitude.
In the recent instances, the players haven’t appeared to be trying to bend the rules, but rather have simply made a momentary and minor mistake.
Last night, Hawthorn’s Grant Birchall was at fault. He appeared to be talking with coach Clarkson on the boundary line and got his wires crossed with Brendan Whitecross as he left the ground. As Clarkson said there was a blade of grass in it.
Clarkson also added: “To cop such a severe penalty… [stepping over the interchange line] has no bearing on the outcome. That rule has been introduced to stop blatant 19-men on the field kind of stuff and this is hardly blatant.”
The Hawks coach hit the nail on the head there and the AFL must acknowledge it needs to be changed.
The main problem with the current penalty is it affects the flow of play, rather than where the crime happened, on the boundary line. That’s what makes it so harsh.
So perhaps the AFL could look at a Formula One type rule where the infringing player is punished by being held back off the field for one or two minutes, as to not interrupt play. Maybe the offending team could cop a five minute interchange ban where no players can come on? I’d love to hear suggestions.
Dockers coach Mark Harvey used the old “do you want a final decided like that?” line a fortnight ago, and it’s a fair point.
The current rule of the interchange infringement is harsh and severe, and doesn’t need to affect the field of play. The AFL must review it at the end of the season and come up with a more reasonable penalty.
gazz
Roar Pro
Can't agree with this. I don't see how the old 'head count' rule, which was hardly, if ever, used let alone imposed successfully can be compared to the new rule. They are not relative.
gazz
Roar Pro
Tend to agree, Bayman. It's a crazy rule. Why don't the AFL focus on what's affecting the actual field of play. Seems ludicrous this rule and surely there's a better way to ensure clubs don't do it, without creating confusion, ruining the spectacle and handing out pointless free-kicks with a 50m to boot. It's a joke.
Tom
Guest
'One's clearly affecting play, one clearly isn't'. Thats not really true. If a player gets onto the park quicker then they can get into the game quicker and it reduces the risk of letting an opponent go free. If we didn't have a penalty for it then everyone would try and pinch a few seconds, particularly at the end of close games. In any case, the point I was making is that sometimes the cost of giving away a free kick or a 50 metre penalty is greater than at other times. It doesn't mean the rule is wrong. If you lost the 50m penalty then what would be the incentive not to let a player on early if the opposition already had the ball?
Bayman
Guest
Ben, what amazes me about this discussion is the number of accountants in your readership who think the rule, as it is now, is appropriate. The rule should simply be removed from the statute books. It is, no more and no less, just another way for an umpire to infulence a result. I cannot believe anybody would be in favour of a rule which can impact the score but not be part of the actual playing of the game. I know this may surprise the AFL and some umpires but I prefer teams to win or lose based on what they do with the ball. We may as well introduce a rule which provides for a free shot at goal if one of the coaches forgets to put the toilet seat down! The original rule was in place to stop blatant cheating (19 on the field, score annulled) and I'm sure this variation was introduced with the same intent. No surprise, though, that in our politically corect world, the "officials" have found a way to implement the new rule in the most pedantic way possible. Surely, it can only be a matter of time before the umpires introduce an award to be given to that umpire who has had the most profound effect on a game without ever having to actually step onto the field of play. One thing, though. I always thought there was an "interchange official" who managed and controlled this function. Surely a more appropriate punishment is to dock his pay, suspend him from the following week, kick him up the behind (pick one). If the player has stepped onto the ground early surely the interchange steward has "messed up". Just like the umpires - all care and no responsibility.
Ben Somerford
Roar Guru
I don't think you can compare the man on the mark to a man on the boundary line. One's clearly affecting play, one clearly isn't. What would I change it to? I'm not totally sure, I've thrown up a few rough suggestions, but quite simply maybe you could lose the 50m penalty.
HK47
Roar Rookie
In the Afls new "Capped interchanges" plan, the punishment could fit the crime. Perhaps losing 20 interchanges and not alllowed any for that quarter? No immediate impact like that, but tired hawthorn players making mistakes could have cost them the game instead.
BigAl
Guest
I think it makes sense the way it is now - also gives the reserve ump. something to do - i.e. monitoring interchanges. This raises an interesting point - who takes over the monitoring if the reserve Ump. has to take the field ???
Kazama
Roar Guru
I think maybe just the free kick would be enough punishment, but definitely the free + 50m penalty is better than going back to zero points. Agree on Michael C's last point above. With rotations now so crucial, there is a 'loophole' of sorts to be exploited. Even if the player is suspended for several weeks after the match, it is still *after* the match. So in a key game like a Grand Final there would be players who would probably 'take one for the team', and rub out an opposition player at the cost of a suspension at the start of the next season. Or no suspension if they are retiring after the match.
Michael C
Roar Guru
The old rule was that you'd lose your entire score is a player count were conducted and 19 were on the field. New rule isn't as harsh as that!! As a North supporter - - we got dudded in 2008 (we were there that day). the fact that the number of interchanges has risen hugely in recent times makes more critical that something be in place. The punishment presently - - is probably, on the balance of everything, is probably about right. What's more a concern for me - is with rotations all the more critical - - that players such as Trent Cotchin in Rnd16 cleaning up Sam Wright who was then unable to return - - that we perhaps need a 'blood bin' whereby the infringer can not return until the injured player is able to.
Tom
Guest
I do however think that cameras trained solely on the interchange area are required to enable clarification and explanation of decisions.
Doug
Guest
Slap the player coming on early with half games worth of suspension(?) points. And award a penalty where the offence took place - if it is to the advantage to the opposing team.
Tom C
Guest
The penalty is not too harsh. Its just that in the Saints-Hawks game the Hawthorn players lost the plot after the free kick. The biggest problem was the awful defending from the ball-up that allowed McEvoy to kick the levelling goal. If the defenders had been competent enough to put someone on the goal-line then the earlier free kick and 50 metre penalty wouldn't have been an issue. A player who accidentally wanders across the mark gives away a 50 metre penalty which could give the other team a crack at a goal. This too is a 'momentary and minor mistake'. And at the end of a close game it might also be crucial. Remember Jim Stynes against Hawthorn years ago? It doesn't mean the punishment is too harsh. It just means that in pressure situations professional footballers shouldn't make stupid mistakes, because the consequences are that much higher. In any case, what would you change it to?
Ben Somerford
Roar Guru
Hi Tom, Yeh mate, it's the obvious response and I alluded to that point in the article. I think the important question to ask is would you say the penalty fits the crime? I believe the penalty is there for a different crime (when a team actually has an extra man on the field, rather than a player jumping the gun on the boundary). As a result, in my view, it's a farcical and petulant rule which hurts the game.
HK47
Roar Rookie
Massively agreed. Or we could go back to the count where the teams entire score is eliminated. I think that would be much more exciting!
Tom
Guest
Simple solution. Don't break the rules.