AFL admits interchange error in SCG clash

Balthazar, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Gieschen's comments if only I had more faith in Gieschen. Having watched it a couple of times a few things are reasonably clear to me. The first is that from where the umpire was standing - near the boundary line - it looked like a clear case of play on. Gieschen says the grab was nothing (it was, incidentally, the only area where I might have paid a free) and the real problem was "Mattner landing on Mzungu's back and making clear high contact with his head". From the umpires's position - the original footage shown was more from this angle - it doesn't look like the Freo player was particularly held, it certainly doesn't look like Mattner landed on his back and it clearly doesn't look like head high contact. At this point then the umpire is in the clear - no free kick. From the second angle - more on Mattner's side of the contest - the attempted holding looks a bit more obvious and it looks like the Freo player goes to ground not because he was pushed but because he wanted to. Milking the free, perhaps? He then falls in front of Mattner who is (for want of a better word) tripped and who then lands on Mzugu's back and prompltly slides off to knock the ball away - pretty much in one movement. At no stage did it look to me like any contact was made with the head (and any that might have been was very slight indeed). Remembering from the umpire's position it absolutely looked like no high contact - which I think was actually the case. Look again at the "landing on the back" aspect from the umpire's spot. Mzungu looks to be more on his side than flat on his belly so Mattner's fall looks to have completely missed him. Given the evidence of the video - and knowing now where the umpire really was - I can only confirm my view that the umpire paid what he saw - which was nothing. Knowing what I now know, and having seen it from the two angles, I can only confirm what I originally said. I might have paid the "holding", I would not have paid the "in the back" (I'm afraid two players falling when one has caused the other to fall on him is not a free kick for mine - no matter what Giesch might say) and I definitely would not have paid a free for any high contact (because I don't think there was any). I can see why the a free kick was not paid. If "in the back" frees are being paid for that sort of incident it's time we removed physical contact altogether. I definitely consider that example to be in the "soft" category - especially since I believe Mzungu chose to go to ground rather than being pushed to the ground. Having said that, I fully appreciate that the AFL these days tends to err on the side of "political correctness" so the umpires invariably pay any number of "soft" frees where they think high contact is involved. As for "in the back" it has long been noticable that the AFL has chosen not to try and understand motive and simply pays many such frees where I would not. Players diving forward has become an art form of almost Olympic standard. In both scenarios, high contact and in the back, we now have a long established tradition of players conning umpires and milking free kicks. They do it because they can and because the umpires pay them often enough to make it worthwhile. I still believe - even more so having watched it again - that Mzungu was more interested in playing for a free than trying to get the ball. The fact that Mattner landed on him was more accident than design brought about by Mzungu taking his line when he fell. Mzungu, I believe was trying to play up the holding aspect of the situation which, ironically, Gieschen says was a non-event. Given Gieschen stated the AFL does not want umpires to be in the corridor (where the players want to go) I'm not sure how he can be too critical of his umpire (who presumably was where the AFL wanted him to be - as instructed). One thing I can agree on - that same free kick will be paid before the season has gone too long and probably paid many times over. Who'd be an umpire?

Bayman, you can think that it is not a free kick if you like. Have a look at "It's your call" on afl.com. Gieschen says at least a couple of times that it was a clear free kick. He also notes that it was not an AFL standard umpiring decision. It was made 5 minutes from the end and there is every chance the result would have been different had an AFL standard umpiring decision been made. Consistency of umpiring is pretty important when it is a game changing result. In fairness, he was pretty unhappy with the interchange decision too

Balthazar, If you're waiting for consistency in umpiring - good luck, but don't hold your breath. I am less of the view that umpires make "home town" decisions than I am that they make "good team/bad team" decisions. Or, more particularly, "good player/lesser player" decisions. I'm sure some players are better treated than others and some teams likewise. For example, in a game played at the MCG, Melbourne will have more trouble getting a line ball decision than Collingwood or Geelong. The other issue, of course, is timing. What might be a free kick in the first ten minutes of a game is no longer a free kick in the last ten minutes. Perhaps umpires are scared of "influencing" the result - especially if it's tight. Mzunga, I'm sure, was a victim of the timing issue (but I still don't think he was pushed in the back - and he's allowed to be pushed in the side). As for being "landed upon" I don't think that should be an automatic free kick and am happy enough that the umpire thought likewise. I happily admit he was grabbed without the ball.

not only was it a goal, 3 or 4 goals followed as a result and thus momentum shifted. but i do agree with you. admitting it was an error isnt good enough, the goal should be deducted and fremantle should recieve a point, because they kicked a point which was then taken off their score and a set shot from point blank range was rewarded.

Nathan Elsworthy fromn the killarney vale bombers, who is an exceptional umpire and this year became a rookie, made the call, but it was believed to be a communication error and it was a minor paperwork error, but was made a major error.

I want to know when the AFL will appologise for the current interchage rule, I have lost track of how many stuffups there has been and how many games have been influences by very minor infractions. The old system was so much simpiler and fairer.

Not so sure Johno that Umps play favourites to home teams. Do you remember last year's Freo v Swans game at the SCG? That was the first time in the history of the Swans that I have ever seen Swan supporters run up to the umpires race at the end of the match and basically impersonate Collingwood supporters by absolutely abusing the living crap out of the Umps. It was unbelieeeevable. As far as this gimme goal to Freo goes, its just not good enough. Last year's OK, but again this year. Bloody Nora.

Balthazar The AFL has a problem in that the home team always gets the benefit of decisions because of the "roar" factor for the home team. One disadvantage of big crowds. I for one am having trouble watching my team interstate on TV because of "home" umpiring just as I am embarrassed when they get all the decisions when they play at home...The NRL has a different problem with referees but also has a minor roar factor for offside for the visiting team.

Bayman, I was broadening the discussion to one of fairness generally in this particular game so I don't think I missed the point. I agree the infringement decision should not have been paid but was commenting that the Mzungu decision was far more crucial in the overall scheme of things. You say you can live with on the field decisions influencing the game's outcome but then you admit that you are a "neutral" observer. Freo fans are deservedly bitterly disappointed by the umpiring display. The Mzungu example is only an example. I completely disagree, by the way, with your assessment of what was going on in the centre square. And there were plenty of soft frees in one direction and at least three that I counted where Freo was HTB with no prior opportunity. Lack of consistency ruins any game of football. I don't think your review of the Mzungu decision imakes it look any better by deconstructing it to its individual elements. He was held (when he was running into a reasonably open goal, no less). Then he was pushed (and Freo lost control of the ball. Again the push and M being further impeded by the opposition player landing on him , prevented him from regaining his footing and hence recovering the ball. This also happened in the goal square). They are both clear infringements. I am not really interested in old school views. I am more interested in consistency of umpiring and I maintain that a free kick would have been paid to the home team.

Balthy, By the way, I'm a bit "old school" too so half the "in the back" frees today would not be paid if I was umpiring. A player being hit is the side and then going/falling forward is not in the back as far as I am concerned. Given then the tangle of the two bodies - in the Mzunga case - where both hit the ground, one first obviously, and the other "sitting on his head", is also to me just part of the play. There was no intent to make high contact and any that was made was accidental. I can see why the umpire just called play on (even assuming he saw high contact - which he may not have done). The trouble is that today we are so used to seeing even minor contact penalised that we've come to expect that any and all contact should be penalised. I don't necessarily share that view so I'm also comfortable with the "non-decision" - while accepting that another umpire may well have paid it. To me, the most obvious infringement was the arm around the waist but, again, the umpire may not have seen it that way because of the angle. I certainly would not have paid "in the back" and I doubt whether I'd have paid high contact for that incident so holding the man is the best you'd get from me - and that was fleeting. So, as I said, I can see why nothing was paid in this instance.

Balthazar, With respect, I suspect you're missing the point entirely. The complaint about the "interchange" free is not to do with the Swans being stitched up. It is to do with the fact that any team should be penalised in that manner. It is not an "anti-Freo" comment so much as an "anti-AFL" comment. The issue of discrepancies in the free kick count is another topic altogether. Mind you, given the Swans total domination of the first half I'm not surprised the count was heavily in their favour. The question then becomes "Should Freo's second half dominance have evened up the count?" Maybe, and maybe not. It all depends on whether the ball was continually contested or whether it was being easily released by Freo. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that, in the second half, the contested ball incurred relatively few free kicks. I don't know, incidentally. I watched the game but given I support neither team I didn't take much notice of those line-ball decisions - or even the outrageous umpiring errors. I do concede Mzunga was a bit stiff given the modern interpretation of events but that's footy. I can live with on-field events during a game influencing the result - even if it is because of an umpiring mistake - but I have a huge problem with games being decided by Mickey Mouse off-field decisions like the so-called interchange infringement. As for the scragging of Hill, Fyfe and co it all depends on who you support. I'm sure if you look closely Masters Hill and Fyfe were also hanging on to their opponents. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Maggie is right. One decision is simply down to an umpire's judgement. The other is a blight on the game.

This was not the biggest umpiring stuff up of the game - check out the Pearce in the back not paid and the Mzungu in the back not paid. Both resulted in either a goal to Goodes or a certain goal for Mzungu denied. When two teams are so close a 2:1 free kick ratio is hard to swallow. Of course this game was not the only one the umpires played favourites - just check out the West Coast v Melbourne affair - almost 3:1 in that match up (32 to 12). People will say that the umpires just umpire the game and don't play favourites but everyone know that they respond to the crowd and are made aware of infringements or non-infringements by the braying of the pack. How you can ever possibly change this is beyond me, or how you can "square up" stuff ups during a match is also an impossible task. But there are definately some umpires out there who do appear to have teams they favour or at least penalise more harshly than others.

My point, from my original post, was not the ones paid. it was the ones not paid and hence there remained a discrepancy i.e. Freo should have received more than 14 (not counting the interchange issue as it wasn't paid for an on-the-field issue)

Free Kick count means NOTHING. Individual examples matter but a free kick count discrepancy means NOTHING and it is a bizarre conceit unique to AFL supporters that this count should somehow be even. That said, yeah, looked like Freo was copping it bloody rough out there. The Glory supporters group I was with was watching it at the pre-game pub and there were howls of outrage throughout the game.

When there is an overwhelming discrepancy in free kicks and a blatanly obvious one not granted at a critical point in time it cannot be brushed off as a subjective opinion. It was a farce and the Mzungu example is in fact indisputable, that is, if the umpires are applying the rules fairly. When the umpires gave the Swans such a free ride with decisions it is galling to hear the widespread complaints about one error in Freo's favour without acknowledging the very many that went the other way. And I'm not even touching upon the illegal and constant scragging of Hill, Fyfe and co at the centre bounces.

Disagreeing with the umpire's judgement is a subjective matter. But the interchange penalty goal is an indisputable factual error.

If anything, the AFL needs to explain the ridiculous free kick count in favour of Sydney. 27 to 15. Not an issue with the ones paid to Sydney but the ones not paid to Freo and the worst was the free kick not paid to Mzungu about 6 minutes from the end when Freo was about 2 goals behind. How is holding the man, pushing him in the back and then sitting on his head not a free kick? He would have slotted that and there is every chance that Freo would have won the game. Not heard much about that from the East Coast media... Would never hear the end of it if it had happened to Sydney or a Victorian team

The AFL should deduct the goal that was gifted to Fremantle as a result of this error from the score. It makes a difference to the Swans' percentage and that could be critical at finals time.

I don't think it's overstating the case to say that I, for one, am sick and tired of the AFL apologising for its incompetence. How about just getting it right! The Swans have now been on the end of two "clerical" errors whereby the results of games are potentially compromised by interfering nobodies in an AFL jacket. No doubt I have raised the issue before, no doubt I will raise the issue again, but could somebody at the AFL please explain to me how they came up with the idea that it would be a good thing for the result to be determined by an off-field "clerk". It should be no surprise to anyone, even those at the AFL, that if they keep adding new rules, new sub-rules, additional criteria to consider and complete every time a coach wishes to scratch his backside then mistakes will happen. More and more legislation loads in more and more complexity which inevitably will result in what we saw the other day. "Ooh, look, there's and infringement - got ya - cop that! Hang on a minute, is this infringement covered by 21.a or 21.b? Oh well, he's kicked the goal now. Er, sorry 'bout that! No, really, I'm sorry. Hopefully it won't make any difference!" Unfortunately, we all know that one day it will make a difference and, for that, we can be comforted by the AFL's heartfelt apology. Bad luck about missing the eight and losing that additional sponsorship incentive but, hopefully, the AFL will apologise to us again! The problem, of course, is that the rules regarding interchange have been complicated way beyond the necessary. A player comes off, a player goes on. How f***ing hard is that? If the player going on crosses the line a second or two before the departing player leaves the scene, frankly, so bloody what? We have the "gate", surely that's all that is required. The old interpretation of this rule was simple enough. If a player goes onto the ground, and is there long enough for the opposition to notice they're playing nineteen men, then there will be some ramifications. Fair enough. But a split-second here and there is simply being pedantic to a degree which only the AFL, it seems, actually enjoys. Even allowing for the new world order of pedants, clerks and small minds the interchange rules should incur a fine only unless the "nineteenth" man has clearly influenced play. As for fines being incurred because of - I can hardly believe it - "incorrect paperwork" I am unsure whether to laugh or cry. Why can't a coach change his mind at the last second. It's an intuitive game, it ebbs and flows and changes constantly. Why must a coach, or his staff, be made to write the name of the interchanging players anywhere - and then be made to produce a new form if he does have the gall to change his mind. I can only assume this current process is to make the interchange official feel important and worthy of his/her AFL jacket. Yet another message from the AFL to the clubs - "You may think you're critical to the AFL process but, trust us, it's really all about us!"