Match Review gets Trengrove case wrong

bam, The original rule of "holding the ball" was only applied once the tackle had been made. A player could hold the ball for ten minutes if nobody laid a hand on him. Once he was tackled, however, he then had to make an attempt to dispose of the ball. The key word here was attempt and he was to be given a "reasonable amount of time". If he tried to kick it and missed because of the tackle the ball was allowed to fall free and it was play on. Of course, if he simply dropped the ball he was penalised although the rule was "holding the ball". Despite crowd cries of "Dropping the ball" no such rule ever existed. If there was a delay in releasing the ball then he was in danger of being penalised. The idea in the original rule was to allow the player with the ball a "reasonable amount" of time to dispose of it once tackled. Prior opportunity, as a concept, did not exist until it was written into the rules as they now stand. Any player taken to ground with one arm pinned and the other free to hold the ball was penalised - as they should be now, but are not. The rule never said anything about disposing of the ball to your team's advantage - it simply had to be disposed of. Players today, in these circumstances, just take the ball to ground with impunity. Prior opportunity now protects players from having to dispose of the ball - or at least make the attempt. If one arm is free to hold the ball why can't the player try to kick it? They simply don't bother and know they'll be safe from the umpire. The other side of the coin is the ridiculous situation of players being pulled off their kick and being penalised. They are attempting to dispose of the ball - in my view it should simply be play on. A ball forced out by the tackle was always play on and I believe this is more in line with the original intention of the game - keep the ball moving. As for "high tackles", I have no problem with the rule and YES, I am complaining about the umpires. High is high. Either you have the rule or you don't but let's suppose we do and I admit it can get tricky. I do NOT believe players who duck and dive to induce a high tackle should be protected. The tackler should not have to guess what the opposition player will do and react accordingly. How can he - and why should he. The problem with your possible reason is determining what is a "genuine infringement". If we allow players to tackle others with an arm around the neck/over the shoulder when, and under what circumstances, is it penalised. These are the genuine tackles I'm talking about - I'm ignoring the divers here trying to milk a free. Count the number of times a tackle is completed with an arm wrapped around the neck/shoulders and no free is awarded. Once you allow some it is inevitable you will allow more until the rule becomes virtually extinct. Then the fans will really get upset because one is given after ten are ignored. The umpires are creating a rod for their own back be selectively applying this free. This is when it becomes game changing. Ignored for a quarter then applied in the last minute thirty metres out straight in front. So yes, in this instance I'm complaining about umpires. Their job is not really to interpret intent but they do it all the time - as if they actually knew! As for chopping the arms I'm ambivalent. Fine when it's my forward, terrible when it's theirs. However, plenty of the old sayings can cover this one; Give them and inch...., A privilege granted becomes a right, etc. And this is my real concern here. Originally, the rule was intended to prevent a defender actually chopping away the arm of the attacker in the marking contest. It has now morphed into any slight contact with the arm(s) being penalised. If two guys fly for the ball then it's likely that contact will be made. I'm not sure it's in anyone's interest to start pulling free kicks out of the hat for a genuine contest. Two guys running in opposite directions in a marking contest. Which one chopped whose arm? But I've seen frees paid for this and usually to the forward - presumably on the basis that, as a potential goalkicker, he was probably the one infringed upon. I'm sure the rule was intended for the blatant arm chop but, of course, now its applied to almost any contact however slight. I'm not sure this is what we want as football fans or what the rule-makers actually intended. Umpires, however, have always loved the opportunity to impose themselves on the guys who can actually play football. It'll never change. As for the reason why rule application changes from the beginning to the end of a game I'd like the AFL to pay me the fee. An exhaustive study indeed. Given the rules are, let me say, "static" then it's not the rules which cause the change - no argument there. Fatigue is a possible explanation. Fatigued players can, and will, make mistakes at the end they may not have made at the start. The real reason, though, is the umpires. With two hours to go and nothing on the line just yet an umpire can be fearless in his pedantic, or otherwise, application of the rules. Come the last quarter and one team is miles in front then it's the status quo. Come the last quarter, or the last fifteen minutes, of an epic like last year's drawn grand final and things are suddenly "let go". Fewer frees, only the really obvious ones paid, players allowed more leeway. Most umpires don't really want to be the reason a team won or lost a premiership though I'm sure there are some who would love the opportunity. The change to the application of the rules is merely the umpire's choice. There are three of them. They are, presumably, considered to be the three best umpires - perhaps even the fittest - so fatigue is not really their problem (though it may be the players problem). They simply put the whistle away by choice - not wanting to be blamed. Ironically, as often as not, this period produces the best umpiring of the game. Finally, the game is being played the way it was intended. Technical goes out the window and common sense comes in. When you talk about umpires who could possibly anticipate common sense but there you are - last fifteen minutes of a close grand final and finally you get it. Truly a miracle! As for the MRP we surely agree. Consistency would be nice. However, it perhaps needs to be made more clear what the AFL's intentions are in this area. Clear and unambiguous. Guys like Wayne Henwood played for my old club. Rough and tough it's difficult to imagine him going soft on much at all. So there clearly is an agenda but the AFL need to separate blatant savagery from accidents and rule accordingly. The confusion arises when you get a result like Trengove. Criticised by some for saying he''ll continue to tackle the same way these critics blithely ignore the fact that nine times out of ten THAT tackle will NOT result in head injury. And those same critics will be saying the next nine tackles are ok. What if Dangerfield broke his leg in that tackle? Any penalty to Trengove? No! Trengove, or any other player, cannot predict the outcome of a tackle like that. They should not have to. It is a contact sport played on grass. Sometimes that contact is with the ground. I'm shocked! Personally, I reckon the MCG groundsman should have got a couple of weeks for making that particular spot too hard. Where was his duty of care? I love living in the 21st century - nothing's my fault.

Bayman, Prior opportunity has been in for a long long time. The term is new. I've heard, " he had plenty of time", or, "he never had a chance", since I was in under 7s, (Early 70s). Both terms refer to prior opportunity. It is simple, if a player has the chance to kick or handball, then he must or he is penalised, (providing the tackle is legal). If he dosen't have the time to do so when a tackle is applied, then the situation dictates he must make an attempt to dispose of the ball corrctly, successfully or not. I dont know what you mean when you say umpires hide behind "prior opportunity". As far as your spat with the AFLs protect the head stance, I'm not sure what part of the rules your questioning. It seems your more complaining about the umpires themselves. Possibly they are doing what I think you are wanting and only paying the "high contact" frees when it's a genuuine infringmement and a player deserves to be penalised. Possibly they apply the "spirit of the game" process wich would be very much up to individual interpretation. Once again I feel it's the umps you complain about more than the rule, in relation to "chopping the arms". Don't forget that the ball is the soul objective in a marking contest and if a player is denied opportunity to contest the ball through chopping the arms then the offender will be penalised. It certainly isn't intended to be enforced due to contact that is not restricting to an opponents attempts at the contest. I dont believe that rules are selectively applied. I am not sure what process you believe is used in the "selective adjudication" you mention. The AFL is in the process of an exhausting study to see if there is in fact a reason from the umpires or the teams in regards to frees being paid,(or not paid) at different stages of a match. On either part fatigue both mentally and physically is the most likely reason. There seems to be no suggestion that the rules have any influence on what free kicks are paid in the early or later parts of a match. A word on the MRP again....they need to start over and get real. If they can be consisteant, I think we can live with it. What you think?

bam, Let's make a couple of things crystal clear. One, and you can quote me, I won't stop writing on the game. Two, I have no trouble at all keeping up with the changes to the game - I simply disagree with many of them and I definitely disagree with why many of them have occurred. For example, the holding the ball rule has been completely butchered to the point where it is now a different rule. The rule has been completely re-written with different occurrences emphasised to facilitate the decision. The concept of "prior opportunity" is now king. Prior opportunity was brought in purely in an attempt to make the decision easier for umpires. No longer do they have to worry about players disposing of the ball properly. If they've had it for five seconds - ping them. We now get the ridiculous situation of players being pinged in the act of kicking the ball - once upon a time, play on. Players today take the ball to ground with one arm freely holding the ball, make no attempt to dispose of it and the umpire says, "No prior opportunity, I'll bounce it". Prior opportunity rules the umpires lives and they hide behind the rule. Intended to make life easier the situaion is now more confused than ever. Let's take another tack. Protect the head. Now do we protect it on the ground, in the air or in between. Next time, count the number of players who are tackled with an arm around their neck/head/over the shoulder who do NOT get a free kick (and I don't just mean those who duck who in my view are fair game). Count them. Then count the frees which ARE given for high contact. Then, and this is the fun part, try to work out the difference - why was one paid and not another. Footy was never really intended to be pedantic. The original essence was to keep the ball moving and only pay infringements where the infringed player has been impeded in having a fair and reasonable go at the footy. The odd jumper grab, arm contact, body contact allowed if it made no impact on the player's progress to the ball. The ridiculous "chopping the arms" interpretation has already morphed into "contacted the arms" and players are being rewarded when an opposition player simply brushes the arm in a marking contest. Arm contact, od course, is highly likely where one player is attempting to mark and another player attempting to stop him doing so. But it shouldn't be a free kick. Players backs now apparently extend from a spot about three inches from the navel all the way around. How so? The essence today is to have the umpire far more involved than ever intended and far too influentual in the result. Already this year we have Carlton defeating St Kilda on the back of an umpire giving a very technical interpretation of a Saint interfering with a Blues player by talking to him. Then Collingwood perhaps robbed of victory over Geelong by the speed at which an umpire disallowed "advantage" and a goal which may have been scored was not. I'll accept that even in days gone by an umpire could always pull out the last second free and decide a game (Sturt vs Norwood Grand Final in 1978 a case in point). The umpire later admitted his error but by then Norwood were already celebrating their one point win. Too late, she cried! The difference today is the pedantic nature of some decisions coupled with mind-boggling indifference to others which appear outrageously obvious. Personally, I believe much of this occurs because the rules have become too clever, too tricky, too finicky. Rules are more selectively applied, often in a very pedantic manner, so that while the decision may well be "technically" correct it may not be in the spirit of the contest. Why are rules applied in the first ten minutes but not the last ten minutes. Rules, after all, are rules. Of course, my real objection is the rules keep getting more complicated rather than more simple. In so doing the rules are moving further and further away from common sense. It just feeds the umpires love of being pedantic and being in charge. And look, not a word about the match review panel and the tribunal. Grist for another mill entirely.

Bayman, I don't want you to stop writing. Please don't think that I believe the AFL does all that is right. I'm not in favor of many things in regards to rule changes, but I do believe that the game is in a better position, both on and off the field, than ever before. I certainly know what professional means and what it means to act, behave or "be" professional. I sincerely hope you don't give up following the greatest game on earth, even if you have trouble keeping up with the changes of the game. I hope you keep an open mind and welcome more discussion. Hugh M, If the AFL don't explain, or justify, their actions, would that not just incur the wrath of the "broader football community". (what ever that is)? I know I prefer explainations to actions, thus being informed to enable constructive discussion.

Bam, Thanks for your considered opinion bam but if you don't mind I'll continue to write what I damn well feel like and you can decide whether to read it. The game may be more popular than ever in terms of absolute numbers, maybe, but that's largely because the population today is considerably larger than ten, twenty, thirty, forty years ago. I'd venture to say that among those who have watched the game as long as you say you have, and I definitely have, that popularity is waning. That may be simply because as we get older we perhaps lose some of the passion of our youth or it may be because we are sick to death of the constant interference by the AFL in the conduct of the game. The assumption, blithely accepted, that the AFL knows best is open to serious question. The game has certainly NOT evolved because society wants the best, it evolves because ambitious coaches and clubs want to win premierships. The reality is those clubs and coaches do not give a rat's arse about the paying public, let alone "society". Certainly the sport is more professional in that the players, coaches, everyone, makes more money from the game. I doubt, though, that every player is more professional in his approach to the game than many of the stars of yesterday. Do you think Fevola was more professional than Dunstall, or Wade, or Blight. Professional is an easy term to throw around but many don't really know what it means. It is not just about the money - it's also about the preparation and recovery from injuries. It should be better now but having more money available doesn't necessarily make it so. Personally, I do not think the game is more exciting now. Many games are over by half-time, some even before that. For every close game, or great comeback there's ten inevitable results well known by the half. I'm sure you found the Melbourne/Adelaide game rivetting. The changes to the rules, continually, now gives us the situation where as often as not neither the player, the coach, the commentator or the fan has the slightest idea why a free kick has been awarded. If that's professionalism you can have it. The last game I saw on television involved a player getting a free kick and running away because even he did not realise it had been awarded - which probably means he had no idea he had been infringed. I can guarantee I always knew if I was getting a free and so did most players in days gone by. As for whining about the game I don't. I complain about the AFL and the rules committee constantly interfering with and ruining the game. When nobody knows why a free has been awarded, trust me, that's not progress (although it might be change). You seem to have credited yourself with the ability to evolve with the game. I might counter with you just don't question enough. Maybe you're just one of those politically correct folk who accept that all rules exist for a good reason. I'm not one of those and I hope I never am. Enjoy your next game of footy.

Well I agree with Grant and Bayman about Trengove being delt a harsh blow and should not have been penalised at all. The umpires at the time seemed to agree as they didn't penalise him with a free to Dangerfield. I saw Varcoe perform the same tackle on Luke Ball on Friday night without penalty, and I'll bet my left nut he is not called before the tribunal. I did feel Dangerfield contributed greatly to the "sling" as he lifted his left leg off the ground in what seemed to be a clear attempt to kick the ball. That action in effect twists his body slightly with the tackle aiding the 'sling' effect. Now a bake for Bayman. It seems that you are so disenchanted with the game now that it makes me wonder why you watch it. The game is more popular then ever, More successful in anyway you wish to measure its success. I'm one of the guys that has now seen the game change over four decades. it is faster, more exciting, and takes more skill and talent to be successful. The game has evolved due to society evolving into wanting the best. The biggest reason for so many changes in the last 3 decades is due to the sport being a profession now. Before the eighties there were now professional footballers, but now its 100% professional for coaches and players. So Bayman, maybe it's time you give up whining about the game and evolve also.

The arrogance of the AFL administration is unbelievable. They are convinced of the perfection of their own judgement and opinions, and that they alone know what is best for the game. Surely the fact that they are continually having to justify themselves to the broader football community tells you all you need to know about their judgement. The bottom line is that the game is nothing without the support of club members and fans, and every one I speak to has had a gutfull of these clowns. How do we get rid of them?

I might be completely wrong here but when you fall, it's normally towards the ground!

Well said Bayman! Agree 100%.

If I walk into a bank, point a gun and demand money there are those who may think I'm trying to rob the bank. If however, I walk out without any money because the bank staff tell me to piss off then, presumably, I didn't rob the bank and don't deserve any penalty. This is my basic problem with the review panel and the politically correct neuters who currently run the AFL. If Dangerfield had not been hurt then, presumably, the tackle was reasonable, perfect even, and no penalty applied. This leads us to the extraordinary problem, rife today in the AFL, that while the same tackle may be laid by ten players only the one where the tackled player is injured is there a problem....and a penalty. So the question is, was Trengove's tackle legal or not? Government's cannot legislate for idiots, cricket captains cannot set fields for bad bowling but the AFL, apparently, can legislate for unfortunate accidents. They truly are unique. What the AFL seems to have missed in its constant interfering with the game and its rules - and the interpretation of those rules - is that coaches and players make instant adjustments to rort the "new rule". In recent years this has usually resulted in an adjustment by the AFL, by and large because they did not anticipate teams taking advantage and had not thought through the original change thoroughly enough. We now have the ludicrous situaution where a "rushed behind" may result in a free kick to the attacking team. For a century and more this was allowed, without much grief, but then Hawthorn did it ten times in one game and a century's worth of behaviour was suddenly outlawed. The phrase "knee jerk" comes to mind. Deliberate out of bounds, purely an interpretation by the umpire of the player's thought processes, is now so ridiculous that a player was recently penalised when his kick landed forty metres from the boundary line, broke at 45 degrees and finally bounced out after travelling the afore-mentioned distance. No problems, though, the umpire knew exactly what the intention was and awarded the free kick against the kicker. Forty metres for God's sake, having changed direction! Adelaide's Johncock was penalised against the Demons for fisting a ball away from a Melbourne player who would have certainly gained possession without Johncock's action. Unfortunately for Johncock the ball then conspired to travel over the boundary line and the Demon had his free kick courtesy of yet another mind-reading umpire. Curiously, several balls deliberately punched over the line in marking contests went unpenalised although everyone else, apart from the umpire, knew the ball had ended up where intended. Then. again in the last round, we had the famous Gibbs 50 metre penalty after a St. Kilda player sledged him as he was lining up for a shot at goal. The offending player was metres away, at least ten, and at no stage was physically interfering with Gibbs. The result, a possible goal becomes a certainty and the Saints lose by three points. Thank you umpy, where do I send the gift? Head high tackles, arms over the shoulders etc., all now randomly selected for free kicks. I'm still waiting for an umpire, any umpire, to tell me the difference between an arm over the shoulders and, well, an arm over the shoulders. We also now have the extraordinary occurrence of players being tackled from the side, falling forward, and receiving a free for "in the back" when the back has hardly been touched. The divers are rife and all because they know the umpire will fall for it every time - all because the rules have been fiddled so much in recent years that umpires, players, fans and commentators can no longer remember what the rule used to be for the previous hundred years. I won't even begin to complain about the rules now relating to the "interchange gate". Suffice to say, I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that if a player enters the ground a mini-second too early then the fault lies with the interchange steward, an AFL employee, and not with the clubs. Their (the clubs) job is to win games of footy. It is the stewards whose job it is to manage player changeovers. The result of all these rule changes, then adjustments to the rule changes, then adjustments to the interpretation of the adjustments and the rules is that we now have the highly desired effect of umpires, and interchange stewards, and reserve umpires - and their bloody mothers - all impacting on the result of the game. It used to be the actions of players, and perhaps coaches, who decided which team won but now we also have officials directly influencing games. If this is what footy has become then I can only assume it will get worse from here on in. The AFL, surely, must realise eventually that having officials decide the result is not conducive to winning the hearts and minds of the average AFL fan. Yes, there are thousands today who still love the game but none of them, I repeat, NONE of them attend footy matches to watch umpires perform their tricks of imagination and mind-reading. Nor do the fans attend to watch a pedantic interpretation of a rule, any rule, being applied with enthusiasm by the officials. Particularly when it becomes "game changing" as in the farce that is the interchange. The AFL may argue the game has never been safer to play. They may be right. Alternatively, it has never been as sanitised, as frustrating to watch or, largely, as uninteresting as it is today. The good teams are still good, the rubbish still rubbish. The game itself, though, is far more boring to watch than ever before. For that we can blame innovative coaches and their floods, their zones and their obsession with possession at all costs. We can also blame the AFL, the tribunal, the match review panel, the rules committee and the umpires for turning the game into a non-contact sport. Twenty years from now it will be touch footy by another name. Those who grew up with it may like it, even love it but they'll know no better and know no difference. The older supporters will simply shake their head and ask "Why do we bother?" Trengove applies the perfect tackle if Dangerfield is not hurt. No penalty from the umpire at the time. Three weeks from the PC pathetics because Dangerfield was injured. Dangerfield may have tried to protect himself and avoid injury. In this case he did not and suffered. A few minutes later the same tackle was applied to another player who did break his fall without injury. No penalty, no suspension, nothing. So the tackle is legal, only the result is not. I'm not sure this is how society actually works and I don't think it can work in this scenario. Now, where's my gun, I'm off to the bank!

Tom, you are right, the motion of the tackle was sideways. However Trengove buckled his knees during the tackle with intent to take Dangerfield to the ground (not maliciously), which of course means that the continued sideways momentum results in Dangerfield heading towards the ground instead of simply being slung away from the contest. Everything abut the tackle was good, except the buckling of the knees to take him to ground.

Chris, to me it looked the motion of the tackle was sideways, rather than downwards. There was no reason for the tackler to think that the head would hit the ground.

Jesus, the tackle was bad, it's the only one this year that has involved slamming the opponents head into the ground with that much force, and therefore, he was rubbed out. Whether he was gone for 1-3 weeks was entirely up to the team who Melbourne hired to represent the case, and they buggered it up. Why people aren't furious with them over the AFL is starting to boggle my mind. Last year Mumford laid a similar tackle, was rubbed out for a few, Sydney challenged and got it lessened to 2 weeks. There was no media, fan or player uproar, was it because he isn't an exciting, young and talented no 2 draft pick? Or did people think the tackle was badly executed and he deserved to go for 2 weeks? Or was it because he is just a player from NSW, who appear to be irrelevant in the eyes of the Melbourne focused media. It's people who are thinking with their hearts over their heads that are unhappy with the decision. Case in point Mark Robinson. A classic case of a footy fan who happens to be a writer, rather than a writer who happens to be a footy fan. He writes what he feels on issues, but doesn't look at the reasons behind the decision, and this was highlighted when Gerard Whately toweled him up on this issue at the start of AFL 360 Wednesday Night providing the reasons why he was suspended using the rules and regulations provided, with Robinsons argument just being "I don't like it".

The Trengrove tackle was a "perfect" tackle! It stopped his opponent from disposing of the ball correctly and Dangerfield felt it which is exactly what you want. If players are going to be penalized for doing what is required the game will turn into "touch football." The Tribunal got it wrong and you know what? It only took them six minutes! (Maybe they should have taken a little more time and considered it properly.)