AFL rules and their implementation and interpretation have long threatened to make the competition a national joke, and we may have reached a tipping point.
Four prime-time Friday and Saturday night matches in a row have been decided by a single figure margin.
All of them involved big, finals-bound clubs.
All of them were epic encounters.
Yet, all of the water-cooler talk after three of them has been the umpiring, especially the ever-changing interpretations.
The rot started with Hawthorn vs Geelong, one of the matches of the decade.
Legitimate questions should have been asked about Hawthorn’s mental weakness, whether Geelong were indeed ‘back’, and if Hawkins was the best power forward in the league.
But Twitter and talkback radio only had one topic in mind – should Cyril Rioli have been awarded a free kick for holding the ball after his tackle on Mitch Duncan deep in the last quarter?
This of course led to various debates about the rule between seasoned, educated observers, with most conversations going in circles.
No one was right, and no one was wrong, because whether or not that particular incident was worthy of a free changes from year to year, match to match, minute to minute.
There were ten different points of view, all of them legitimate.
Umpires boss Jeff Gieschen weighed in with his usual nonsense. This time it was something about Mitch Duncan being ‘blindsided’, and not being in a ‘natural state’.
Well, AFL is a 360 degree game, so lack of awareness isn’t an excuse. Perhaps Duncan needs to wear a ‘preservatives added’ label.
The following night was Collingwood defeating St Kilda by a goal.
It basically ended the Saints finals chances, and a largely unimpressive Pies outfit were struggling to produce football worthy of their top four position. Could they still finish top two and secure a home final?
None of this was being discussed though, because all focus was on a free kick awarded to Harry O’Brien against Stephen Milne for an alleged front-on push in the dying seconds.
It was hard enough to tell whether Milne had actually infringed after watching it many times from a friendly camera angle, but this time it was the umpire that was blindsided.
Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to ‘play on’, he made an educated guess. An incorrect one, as Gieschen later observed. Most thought the moon would be blue that night after such an admission from the most irrelevant voice in football (apologies to Kevin Bartlett who continues to fight hard for the title).
Guesswork is much of what the umpires are forced to do these days. With the game played at such a hectic pace, they’re often caught in a position where they can’t see everything, and there are a thousand things to administer. It is easy to sympathise with their lot.
West Coast and Geelong was the next encounter to draw the wrath of observers, and I’m not just talking about the 35,000 Eagles fans at the ground gutter-crawling beneath the lowest common denominator. Their complaints and objections have as much relevance as a grass-green golf ball.
There was the courage of a depleted Cats outfit fighting every inch of the way in a hostile environment, the magnificence of Dean Cox and magnetism of Nic Naitanui, plus the genius and will-power of Steve Johnson on display.
Yet the poor standard of over-umpiring and incredibly strict interpretation of deliberate out-of-bounds were the key topics being discussed after there was more of that decision in one game than is usual over the course of an entire round.
64 free kicks paid, against a season average of 37 going into the game, is more than just an anomaly. Was this officiousness at its worst, the egos of the men controlling the game running wild? Or was it simply the direction of their bosses being enforced?
This was the fifth prime-time marquee match in a row where the free kick count was higher than the season average, suggesting a little umpire ego was involved?
Collingwood’s amazing, backs-to-the-wall defeat of the top of the table Sydney on Saturday night was the least controversial from an umpiring perspective, and a welcome relief it was.
The umpiring was largely excellent, and it was no coincidence that the final free kick figures of this match were smaller than the other three by some margin. Less than half the amount paid compared to the night before, for one.
What a joy it was to see two top sides go at each other without fear of being pulled up for every piece of minor contact.
There were more stoppages in this match than most, which meant more ruck contests, and greater bodies around the ball, men throwing themselves in from all angles, collecting each other heavily without fear or favour.
Now if you want to be technical, you won’t find a stoppage that doesn’t involve some degree of infringement. But in the main, no decision is made because the umpires understand that most of it is completely incidental, which only makes it more frustrating when they do decide to pull one out.
How ridiculous it is to see a pack of fierce competitors each look towards the umpire with one third fear, one third expectation and one third confusion when the whistle is blown? Each one remonstrates, trying to prove they’ve done nothing wrong, when in reality, all of them probably have to some degree.
And what about where one player is on the ball with three 90kg members of the opposition on top of him intent on keeping the ball in, and the umpire decides that he wasn’t trying hard enough.
Don’t even get me started on the ‘protected zone’ either. If there’s one rule that could me make me stop watching football, this will be it. What a joke it is.
Why was it introduced? Forgetting that, the enforcement is even worse.
Players encroach on this ‘protected’ area, which is malleable by the way, five hundred times a game, yet only one or two gets paid, presumably when the umpires remember their superiors are watching.
And what about ‘hands in the back’ in a marking contest?
You almost can’t have a marking contest between two stationary players jostling for position without someone’s hands being in someone’s back at some stage.
And how laughable is it that in order to hold your ground from behind, you can do the exact same motion with the exact same power and have the exact same influence on the contest, yet you’re pinged if using hands, but fine if using the forearm.
Again, this is another one that only gets paid from time to time.
It’s just plain embarrassing.
As for those who say they don’t mind what the umpires pay ‘as long as they’re consistent’, then wake up to yourself. This is the biggest cop out in the game. There’s right and there’s wrong, and making the same bad decision for the length of a game is an exercise in stupidity.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not for all of these free kicks being paid. Far from it. I’m just highlighting the ridiculousness of them being rules in the first place.
Andrew Demetriou, Adrian Anderson and co will point to large crowds, huge television numbers and billion-dollar broadcast deals as evidence of the success of these changes.
But it’s reasonable to say that the game continues to grow and capture our rapt attention in spite of these farcical changes, not because of them.
The game will survive and thrive due to the wizardry of Gary Ablett, the genius of Scott Pendlebury, the freakishness of Buddy Franklin and Cyril Rioli, the brilliance of Trent Cotchin, the hands of Jobe Watson, the explosiveness of Patrick Dangerfield.
The game will survive and thrive because people love their clubs and are passionate about them in every way. The clubs have done a superb job in building and catering to their fan-bases.
Improvement to the spectacle will come from stripping back.
Strip back the rules into a simpler form. Don’t create them on the run. Don’t try to prevent and punish accidents. Let the players play.
Strip back the umpires decision-making to the absolute minimum. Let them relax. Let them use their experience to make judgement calls. Don’t let them guess.
Fans and players get more upset with an incorrect decision than the one that is missed. The incorrect decision is dwelled upon as replays are shown and frustration builds. The missed one is easier to handle because the play is the focus, and it continues.
The umpires instinctively know this. It’s why in a big game, we often think they’ve ‘swallowed the whistle’.
Each round brings us a week closer to what should be a memorable finals series of close results.
I can only hope that when September comes around, it is the football we are focussing on, and not some ‘rule of the week’ or the enforcement of a stupid rule.
Please let it be so.
Crowman
Guest
Well said Scott. I agree with you on every point. Unmike the umpires and make them subject to the same level of scrutiny that the players are put under. I don't agree that the games are played at such a fast pace that the umpires have trouble making decisions. The NRL has one referee. They don't seem to have the angst that the AFL umpires have. Get rid of Gieschen and put in place the same penalty system that the players have. The review tribunal has the luxury of endless replays from every angle to determine whether the players have transgressed. Well let it be the same for the umpires. Give them suspensions, warnings and all the appropriate sanctions. Maybe they won't make educated guesses, give excessive 50 metre penalties, pathetic "in the back" calls or calling players over the mark when they go over by a "bee's diaphram" as Rex would say. Maybe then we can go back to watching a great game as it's meant to be played.
fitzroyboy
Guest
Yes Sam you are spot on. I gave up watching AFL for tht very reason. As a NRL member I had to watch the Feo v Noth Mellb game at a friends house and to watch Mc Phee slide head first into a player standing up then stay down staging for a free Im of the opinion that the game has become a game of umpires being the central figure. They should have three umpires making three different interpretations of the rules which have become a joke
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
I recently penned the following as part of an article for The Roar. May have been a little too controversial for them, because it didn't get a run. But, it backs up your sentiments, fairly accurately, Cameron. Umpiring – this is one where I think we should look at the sin and not the sinner. The umpires are given instruction on what to police. We’ve got a “Rules Committee” that is out of control. These guys do nothing more than sit around and make the umpires job, harder and harder, every year. When I was a kid, the umpire used to come along and say “if you make the ball your object, I’ll look after you”. Very simple policy – if you’re making the play, you will get the benefit of the doubt in most situations. This stops blokes sweating on others to pick up the pill and “try to do something with it”, just so they can hammer the poor bugger with a “negative” force. Don’t get me wrong here – on the other side of the argument, you have to have the tackle and I reckon if you can tackle someone “perfectly” and prevent them from disposing of the pill, legally, you should be rewarded. This reduces the thought process the umpire currently goes through – OK, did he have prior opportunity, was the tackle too high, or too low, did he actually make an attempt to get rid of it, once he was tackled and if so, did he effect a legitimate handball or kick, did the tackling player fall on his back or roll the tackle, how close to goal are we and will my decision effect the scoreboard and the crowds attitude towards me, if I pay the free kick? You remove the prior opportunity and then you can revert to the first rule – protect the player making the play, for the rest of the decision. We really should be trying to simplify the umpire’s job, not make it harder. I want umpires to pay free kicks and if they’re there, blow the whistle. You want to stop somebody scragging, be it a midfield tag, or a close checking defender, constantly holding and whacking a forward – then blow the whistle a few times and see how quickly they stop doing it. Presently they keep doing it, because the umpires only blow the whistle on the ones that look really obvious. How can ruckmen hold and belt each other all day and get nothing, but when a midfielder gets a little half bump to the head, it becomes a free kick? You want to get the ball moving, then stop the 2 ruckmen from wrestling and make them run and jump at the ball, to get it clear of the congestion would work a treat. Presently they wrestle and sometimes they don’t even get a hand up to effect a tap to advantage and the ball falls at their feet and everybody piles on – another bounce – ugly football! Additionally, wasn't the idea of a third central umpire to purely stamp out the holdign and scraagging of forwards, by defenders? I remember that was the big argument put forward at the time. If that's the case, I don't think it's been what you would call a huge success. And now we have to get consitency out of three blokes in green, or yellow, or whatever - it was hard enough with one bloke on his own! With regards to recent events, I think we need to also consider the impact of these decisions at their full extent. Collingwood v St. Kilda and the Stephen Milne, Harry O'Brien decision. We know what did happen - what if it went the other way. I think Armitage runs into an open goal and the scores are level. Perhaps St. Kilda scramble a point and win, in the dying seconds (certainly had the Pies holding on for dear life - aka: 2010 GF) and with their superior percentage, they grab 8th spot from Freo. Scott Watters gets a pass mark in his first year and perhaps Freo starts to think did we do the right thing with Mark Harvey & Ross Lyon. The gate receipts then go to St. Kilda for their final(s) appearances, sponsorship and membership get a bit of a boost and the season is considered a success. All this on the back of one umpiring decision, which was wrong! Then as Bayman noted above, their was the Goodes kick in the Swans v Collingwood game - yes, 8 very handy premiership points for them. Bet you that helps them out with sponsorship & membership - not that they need it. And what if Sydney end up finishing third on the ladder and miss out on a home final in week 1? Collingwood grab 2nd and play a home final and rake in more money! The Tribunal & MRP – we’re always a little miffed with this process, when an incident like Jack Ziebell’s recent misdemeanor sees him rubbed out for 4 weeks and then Scott Thompson gets off without even a reprimand a week later, because he was “touched” by a Geelong player, before he cannoned into Stevie Johnson. Personally, I reckon the Thompson decision was OK, but borderline. The decision to rub out Ziebell for 4 weeks was absolutely deplorable. I still remember Nick Maxwell running past the ball to shepherd and break Pat McGinnity’s jaw in 4 places, during a NAB Cup game and Collingwood taking it to the Supreme Court - the incident is still on YouTube if you want to have a look and a bit of a reminder and then compare to Zeibell's 4 week incident. That was a dark day for the game of Australian Rules football. The actions of the Collingwood Football Club in refusing to accept and abide by the judiciaries finding, resulted in the whole “head is sacrosanct” policy and since then we have had one baffling decision after another by the MRP / Tribunal. If Maxwell had just served his 4 weeks, I think the MRP / Tribunal would not have this situation, whereby, they and every player who makes contact with another players head, accidentally or not, is instantly under the microscope. I keep seeing Benny Cousins spinning out of a pack and running into Buddy Franklin, as he was spinning and then Buddy gets 2 weeks, pretty much for standing still? I think it's time a few of these guys who think they're helping improve the game took a good long look at themselves and asked the question - are we really helping? My Dad used to say, "if it aint broke, it doesn't need fixing." Problem we have now is that too many "well intentioned" people have made a bloody mess and how can we get back to what was working well?
T
Guest
You've reinforced nothing. Geez, watch any game of footy, whether it be live or on the telly and the instant someone gets tackled everyone yells "BAAAAALLLLLL!" Happens everywhere Cameron. Games in Melbourne usually means that there are two sets of fans displaying two sets of 'educated' responses, you perceive things to not be one-eyed. I went to an Essendon-Eagles game at Docklands back in 2001 and it was the same, I was getting frustrated by the 'uneducated' comments. Troy Wilson got clothes-lined and someone yelled that the game had gone soft. Another incident I remember was an Eagles player kicked the ball and THEN got tackled and they all yelled "BAAAALLLL!". Your perception of things is totally askew and extremely biased. Uneducated ... that is so damn funny.
Bayman
Guest
Roger, There never was a rule called, "Dropping the ball". The circumstances and penalty for "dropping" it came under the "Holding the ball" rule. The old rule did allow for "play on" if, in the umpire's opinion, the ball was forced loose by the tackle. If, however, the player dropped it cold without attempting a legitimate release he was pinged "Holding the ball".
Brett-o
Guest
And while we're talking about things ruining the game, how about we start an effort to get Brian Taylor banned from commentating. The constant screaming and carry on in simply embarrassing.
Brett-o
Guest
The uneducated masses, who lap it up? Nice one - I think I know with the D stands for - and the second part of the word is head. The biggest change to the game is the fact there are often over 20 players within 10 metres of every stoppage. The coaches who introduced several types of flooding - simply because the players are now physically capable of running much greater distances. They obviously need to do this as they'd get killed by the other team if they didn't. So there are many things that are changing the way the game is played a great deal more than a few umpiring interpretations. I don't agree with them either, but all this gnashing of teeth is a bit of an over reaction. The AFL's aim is to get the game flowing and have less over populated stoppages - seems like a good idea to me. What sort of footy would you like to watch. Rugby?
Cameron Rose
Expert
Great call Doss. Pretty simple summary i'd say - strip back the rules, let the players play, and let the umpires pay only what is fair, not technical!
Cameron Rose
Expert
Ben and T, I have watched plenty of West Coast and Fremantle matches at Subi on TV, and have never felt as strongly about a crowd ruining the spectacle. No problem with booing, no problem with hissing, no problem with people going savage and screaming bloody murder. What I do have a problem with, and I hate it wherever it happens, is the crowd baying as one for free kick after free kick after free kick any time there is contact. There wasn't a contest which wasn't followed by the crowd demanding a free kick, and then cutting sick when one wasn't paid or, heaven forbid, Geelong received one. It was the worst example of an uneducated crowd i've ever seen. Thinking about it now, i'm not sure that the incredibly high number of free kicks paid throughout the night wasn't to blame for it. Which only reinforces the point of the entire article.
Bayman
Guest
Nathan, I'm not surprised. Only you could have interpreted a comment on the umpires as an attack on the West Coast Eagles. So WCE had six of those nine decisions go against them. So bloody what. It's not really the point. If Steve Johnson had not been so, well, Steve Johnson, and just slotted the goal from thirty-five metres straight in front instead of kicking around his body and having the ball marked on the line, WCE might have lost. And then those six frees might have been critical to your team in such an important game. That's the point, Nathan. The average number of deliberate out of bounds frees before Friday night was apparently 0.6 a game. Still, as long as West Coast got up, eh, Nat. As for making position - it is that easy. As for the "17th team", or the "19th team", I don't really care what soccer referees do or say. Umpires are the - pick your own colour - maggots and nothing will change it. Your comment about three umpires meaning different decisions are made was for what purpose, I ask? If you agree with me then I'm not sure why you would bother to highlight the comment. Maybe it's a Perth thing! As for one umpire, well, we used to have just one umpire. I presume he ran a bit too. The truth is I don't care how far they run - just as long as they get the decision right more often than not. Seriously, though, we're stuck with three and I don't really care except when the interpretations are so different. I was, however, being a bit facetious in my comment about the number of umpires. My mistake was assuming people might get that. Of course, I was probably thinking east coast people. I forgot about the west.
Bayman
Guest
Tim, While I've been living in Sydney for the last 26 years or so I have made my way back to Adelaide, from time to time, and caught up with footy at the SANFL level. There too the thinking appears to be, "Let it flow". Perhaps it's a state league thing. I'd be interested if the WAFL boys share this umpiring philosophy. The result is a lot more common sense in the rules and the interpretations as applied in the SANFL (and obviously, in Queensland). I suspect the real problem may be the professional nature of the AFL (and I mean "money" when I say professional) and the fear of ultimately being sued by a player whose career is ended by an "incident" and who just happens to be getting paid a truckload. We all love the modern word "accountability" but with that comes fear. Fear of a mistake. Fear of serious injury. Fear that whatever happens blame must, by definition, be found and applied. Of course, with all the scrutiny of television we now have the scenario where umpires are not reporting players but sitting back and waiting for the MRP to pick it up and act accordingly. Fear again. Fear of missing something. Fear of retribution from the appropriate umpiring authority. Slowly it has morphed into the situation where virtually no reports are laid by umpires but still, every week, someone has a case to answer even if no free kick was awarded at the time. This week the ludicrous, almost laughable, case of Joel Selwood being guilty of.....wait for it....pushing his brother. If it wasn't so bloody pathetic it would be funny. Personally, I think Damien Hardwick summed it up best when he said perhaps the incident was something that should be left to Mrs. Selwood to sort out. Not surprisingly, of course, Adrian Anderson has leapt to the defence of the MRP. Players must leave each other alone in that situation. Of course, it didn't stop those Brisbane players from running into Riewoldt's shoulder a few years ago, or similar incidents a hundred times since. But no, this one was particularly dangerous.....apparently! As of now I expect any player who enters a game and tests out an opponents known injury to be cited. Every single one of them. This is the rod the MRP creates for its own back when it gets as politically correct as it has on this occasion. Political correctness is for the sheep among us. It promotes censorship, it promotes mediocrity, it relegates democracy, it creates and thrives on fear. I better not do that, I better not say that, I better not agree with that. Somebody may take offence - and sue me.......or suspend me. Fear! I'm sure in the SANFL, and in Queensland, the umpires and the equivalent MRP would have just laughed this incident off as playful nonsense. They, of course, have yet to develop the fear that the AFL has encouraged and perpetuated. Personally, I don't know which was funnier - little Selwood pushing over big Selwood or a pious, po-faced Adrian Anderson justifying the citing by explaining it was not only correct but necessary. I do know which was sadder. From memory, the motto of the old Australian National Football Council was something like "The game of the people, for the people, by the people". I might have my "of", "for" and "by" in the wrong sequence, but you get the idea. This body administered football Australia wide with all state leagues, including the VFL, effectively being subservient. It was largely a figurehead organisation but at least the states basically played the game to the same set of rules. These days the AFL controls everything from the rule book to whether you can look sideways at your brother. Adrian, could you please just give us our game back - and piss off.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"One small point. In the Geelong/West Coast game clearly “deliberate out of bounds” was a popular rule. By the end of the weekend it was less so. Geelong, however, lost an important final eight shaping game by a mere five points. Would they still have lost it with Sunday’s interpretation as opposed to that of Friday night? Seriously, I have no idea – but it highlights the danger of umpires, and their idiot bosses, wanting to influence how the game will be played." Given that six DOOBS went against us, and only three against Geelong and we were the only recipients of one that Giesch actually deemed "incorrect" and that even Chris Scott said they got the rub of the umpiring decisions... ... yes. Yes, we would have still won. "I do not buy, on any level, the view that an umpire is unsighted. Make better position." It ain't that easy, skipper. "Several years ago I saw a comment from the umpiring fraternity which stated they saw themselves as the “17th team”." This is a reference, similar to the common motto amongst referees in association football that they represent the Third Team on the field, that referees need to work together and demonstrate teamwork in the performance of their duties. "The problem now is that there are so many “clever” interpretations that it’s very easy for a free to be paid at one end and completely ignored at the other." That's cause there's three of them. "Surely the fellow standing near the mark should be the sole arbiter of when “Play on” should be called. If we are going the have the ludicrous notion of a “senior” umpire with the power to override then let’s just have one umpire and piss the other two off." Three umps have to cover about 16km in a game. Two umps used to have to cover about 22km a game. I don't even want to know how many km a single umpire would run, but I know we'd have to recruit from marathon runners.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
An interchange cap is just another piece of complication and paperwork. Would rather all subs rather than interchange cap juggling.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *breath* BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
T
Guest
Unfortunately nothing will change while the current Umpiring Dept is in charge, 'the Geesh' came out and vehemently backed up the umpiring fiasco of last Friday.
The Doss
Roar Pro
Great piece mate! As many before me have said, you have summed it up beautifully! I found many of the comments well thought out, concise and highly intelligent. Others are just plain hilarious! Can someone please explain 'fussballsAFLteamspreadsheet' or whatever it was as a name? To funny! I also find it ironic many comments have thrown in their own two cents of new rules. Deliberate out of bounds only in certain areas of the ground, slapping side of arms ok and possession changes for out of bounds! What the?!?! I think the point I got out of alll of this was stop over umpired games with ridiculous rules and let the umpires use their experience to umpire correctly and let those soft and ridiculous frees go!
T
Guest
Ben, I already brought the point up with him ... it seems the Channel 7 TV coverage gave him the perception that the entire crowd were out of line and were disgusting. Let us all sit pleasantly in our chairs and sip our cups of tea. Far out.
Ben
Guest
What do you mean by this? "I’m not just talking about the 35,000 Eagles fans at the ground gutter-crawling beneath the lowest common denominator." This is a very negative comment to make and very insulting to all Eagles fans. Were you at the venue? What anecdotal evidence do you have to make such a derogatory claim?
Bayman
Guest
Cameron, My rant wasn't intended to be that long but it is an indication of the absolute frustration I feel with the way the game is headed. My concerns are more with the administration than the umpires who are stuck with the rules they've been given. Having said that, there are a couple who do seem to enjoy the spotlight just a little too much. For them, the more obscure the interpretation the better it seems. The power seems to get to some. However, a good night's sleep and all was expected to be right with the world. Then I awoke to find the MRP had cited the Geelong captain for pushing his brother over after that bump. Spare me! Apparently the one Selwood could have complicated any injury to his sibling. This is what the game has come to. I despair! I think it's about time the AFL developed a sense of humour - then again, they did employ Meatloaf. Now that was funny!
D.Large
Guest
Brett-o, No one has an issue with a few poor umpiring decisions and yes that has ever been thus. I have an issue with AFL HQ manufacturing rules, interpretations and then justifying it to some of the uneducated masses who lap it up. By changing the interpretations you change the way the game is played. It's like releasing cane toads to correct one small problem and creating 6 others as a result... Enjoy the Kool-Aid.