Round two was billed as a round of sub-plots in every game, and that’s exactly the way it worked out. All nine matches had headlines of their own and gave us some sort of indication of how ths season will pan out.
Ross Lyon has Fremantle playing the fanatical defensive style of footy that saw St Kilda dominate the 2009 home-and-away season.
In this column last week I wrote that it couldn’t get much worse for Melbourne after a terrible start against Port Adelaide.
Well! The Demons are even lower than the lowest ebb now, if that’s possible, after their second worst defeat in their history, by a margin of 148 points at the hands of Essendon.
There is no way this week that I will write statements saying this is the worst it will get for Melbourne now. But if it does get worse, look out!
The club will certainly have nowhere to hide then.
Hawthorn bounced back in eye-catching fashion after another Geelong heartbreak to belt West Coast in the heat.
Even though they weren’t up against much, Essendon showed no mercy against the Demons, while Carlton and Collingwood lived up to all the pre-match hype with the Magpies eventually prevailing over the arch enemy after trailing for large portions of the day.
The closest match was at the Docklands, with Geelong coming from 41 points behind to beat North Melbourne with a goal in the last minute.
This contest was shrouded in controversy with the roof open all day. The clouds closed in after a bright sunny beginning and eventually produced rain in the second half.
Everyone bar the ground management could see and feel that rain was on its way.
Didn’t North Coach Brad Scott let the ground manager know his feelings in no uncertain terms after the match that the roof had to be shut!
This thriller also saw a number of goals scored by free kicks, with Geelong kicking five, including the clincher by Jimmy Bartel, from a 50 metre penalty.
To me it seems the 50 is far too severe a punishment for many of the offences it’s awarded for.
That penalty was given against Michael Firitto, who kicked the ball away after the free kick had been given to Bartel.
It could be easily argued that with the ball close to goal and near the loud North Melbourne cheer squad Firitto, who is very experienced, didn’t hear the whistle or call.
The error could have cost the Kangaroos 15 metres at the most, but in my opinion the umpires should use more common sense and just let it go.
I understand that generally they are just obeying the laws of the game, and kicking the ball away under the current rules is a 50 metre penalty.
But the umpiring coaching hierarchy should be encouraging their umpires to give the benefit of the doubt to a player who did what Firitto did in the dying stages of that clash.
He has played almost 200 games. I wouldn’t would have thought he deliberately kicked the ball away in frustration at that decision when his team is two points in front, less than a minute remaining with the ball deep in their backline.
There was also the shot at goal in that frantic last quarter, when the rain was at it’s heaviest, and North’s Daniel Wells had a shot at goal and the ball seemed to slip out of his hands as he got ready to kick.
Mitch Duncan of Geelong seemed to think Wells was trying to play on and step around him, so he approached him.
But the umpire deemed he had encroached over the mark and penalised Duncan 50 metres, and Wells kicked the crucial goal late in the last quarter to put his team back in front.
That incident could have decided the match, and the replay showed the ball probably did slip from Wells’ hands.
You can understand Duncan thinking otherwise.
I felt a penalty wasn’t required, but if one had to be given, new laws and rules should be in place to make it a maximum of 15 metres.
The 50 metre penalties should only be given for deliberate acts like late spoils when attempting to stop an opponent from marking and crashing into an opponent when arriving late at a contest.
Also for abuse towards an umpire. That act is unforgiveable.
Everything else, particularly just touching an opponent to stop them from playing on, or accidentally going over the mark should be like the good old days; 15 metres.
I even think there should be warnings given.
For example, if a player commits a minor offence for the first time in a game, and again I emphasise that it’s more than likely not going to be deliberate, there should be a warning.
Under the current arrangement it’s just too costly.
Yes, the free kick to Bartel was there and he may have still kicked the goal, but it wasn’t going to be the certain outcome it ended up being courtesy of the 50 metre penalty.
This interpretation and law is one the AFL’S Laws of the Game Committee should consider changing, but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be a priority. It needs to be.
These decisions and subsequent penalties are influencing the outcome of too many games, and that’s not good for footy!
Jakus
Guest
There are anomolies with the AFL game which many wave away as being a unique part of why our game is so good. I understand you frustration as per my post previous to yours in relation to the rules and whether these are being applied consistently. I can't answer why the AFL Rules Committee doesn't focus on ruckmen wresting at ruck contests - easy to eliminate - first person who holds is free-kicked! Leave body contact as has been the case for years. The in the back rule is another story. You can do more forceful contact in basketball and not be fouled. The job of a backman is very difficult these days as inadvertent contact with a forwards arms or neck or shoulders is free kicked. But in the end although we have rules these are interpretations just like soccer where you can't fathom who tripped who etc. The referee makes a decision or interpretation. The added layer with AFL is the bloody AFL interference by telling umpires how to interpret!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope you can continue to enjoy the good bits, continuity which I agree is exciting and unique.
johnb747b
Guest
I'm new to Victoria and AFL, having transferred my allegiance from the Swans to the Cats upon moving from Sydney, in order to get served in local stores (only joking, I have seen a Collingwood jersey in Portarlington and I am aware of a couple who never miss a Hawks game). They have not been ostracised by the local community. Interpretation of the 'rules' by umpires leaves me cold, as one who has played soccer, league and rugby union in past years. I have been unable to see rhyme or reason in the application of the 'push in the back' rule. I've tried, I've tried, I've tried but with no resolution. I've seen inconsequential contact getting penalised, I've seen blatant contact going unnoticed. Is it just me who thinks that the application of the rules is a lottery? The great virtue of the game is its continuity. I've watched a Patriots game at Gillette Field out of Boston and have been bored witless at the lack of continuity, indeed the dictation of the game by prime Fox tv. And to enlighten me further, can someone explain why arm wrestling is necessary when a ball is thrown in from the sideline? Why should there be any contact at all?
Jakus
Guest
Is it the umpire's fault or not? At the risk of this appearing as 'umpire bashing' the whole subject of umpiring needs to be put into perspective. I have no doubt that the current umpires know the rules and can act so why are we so aggravated by many decisions and interpretations? It does appear that someone is whispering into their ears on how to adjudicate a match. We no longer can be certain when we watch a game that we know what the umpires decision will be - next we will hold up play like the NRL and talk to each other and the umpire will have a long conversation with a third umpire. The 50 metre penalty? Of course it's over the top and of course it can change the momentum of a game. There are cases where players have inadvertently made a mistake but the umpires are directed to show no leniency and take the 'no benefit of the doubt' policy. Don't blame the umpires - the issue lies fairly and squarely with the AFL and the Umpires Director both of whom are contriving the interpretations to produce a desired outcome. If you ask a retired player about the game they will universally agree that it's not as good and we can list a whole range of reasons. The biggest frustration for players is when the umpires apply a different interpretation over the course of a few weeks. If you go to a local footy game it's a beautiful thing watching the umpires make a clear decision just like it's been for ages. You watch the AFL games and it appears to be a different book of rules to an extent. Leave the game alone stop changing the rules and applying different interpretations all in the name of progress.
Bayman
Guest
Nathan, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But for clarification - I do not believe the game is enhanced by pedantic application of the rule book. That would get my blood pressure up. It would indicate to me an umpire who knows the rules backwards but has absolutely zero feel for the game. In other words - an idiot. If, however, he paid the obvious frees and didn't get conned by the divers and duckers and didn't think a guy falling over means he was infringed then my blood pressure would be fine. Likewise if he forgot there was such a thing as a fifty metre penalty except in the most blatant circumstances - and not use it a means to remind the players who's in charge. A bit of common sense is a priceless commodity. Two ruckmen at a boundary throw-in, both pushing and grabbing. Why ping one when the other is doing exactly the same thing but maybe not as well. The problem with pedantic interpretations is, you're going to miss some - or a lot. Far better to ignore the Mickey Mouse stuff and just worry about the blatant, the obvious and the dangerous. For example, I give the "slide". Two games old and most umpires are getting it wrong most of the time. Pedantic nonsense fed by an hysterical administrative body resulting in umpires too frightened to make a proper judgement and erring on the side of pleasing their masters in the grandstand. The game is over-umpired and the umpires themselves are over-officious. As for treating the rule book as a guide not as gospel I would remind you of an old saying (which I blatantly stole): "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools". Why would you think this somehow does not apply to football umpires?
Bayman
Guest
langou, That was the reason the fifty was introduced in the first place - deliberately slowing the game down (thank you, Kevin Sheedy). Now, however, the umpires hand them out like confetti at a wedding. An inch over the mark and even if the kicker is yet to get the ball in hand the umpire is pulling the guy on the mark back fifty. Hardly for wasting time. I can remember whole games going by without a fifty metre penalty. Today there's ten a game - and it's got very little to do with "slowing the game down". It does, however, have a bit to do with having a bit of power and a whistle - and, I suspect, the modern, politically correct sense of fear that comes with trying to please the observer sitting in the crowd taking notes. Read johnb747b below. The umpires and their administrative cretins today may not think so but the guy in johnb's comment is a good umpire - hell, today he'd be a great umpire. Common sense, the only rule that's not in the book and it's a great pity.
Hoffa
Guest
Sour grapes?
johnb747b
Guest
Arthur Tierney, a legendary rugby ref in the 60s, used to do a lot of reffing on the run, earning the respect of players for doing so. 'I s-s-saw that, son. D-do it again and you're in trouble', he'd say to a player for a minor offence while letting the game flow. Arthur had a stutter. There was a story, perhaps only folk lore, about the time he blew the whistle, raised his arm and announced: 'We'll have a p-p-p (trying to say 'penalty'). When the word wouldn't come out he is alleged to have said: 'Oh fuck it, we'll have a scrum'. I played an intercollegiate game at SU under Arthur. Best ref I ever had. Balding little bugger, very lovable. Didn't take himself too seriously. Liked being invisible, the way refs should be. Great bloke.
Brendan
Guest
Could Wells have kicked a goal without his dubious 50 and the answer is no.Could Bartel have kicked a goal without his 50 (which was more like thirty because of how far out it was) and the answer is probable.
Ash of Geelong
Guest
7 goals from free kicks A JOKE.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Not that Chapman isn't a 100% suck
Nathan of Perth
Roar Rookie
Not that Chapman wasn't 90% certain to hit the goal given the range and angle as it was.
Nathan of Perth
Roar Rookie
"treat the rule book as a guide not as gospel" You think you're cheesed off now, just wait till you see what your blood pressure would be if this idea ever held sway.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The Mitch Duncan one was silly. In the olden days if you buggered your kick it was play on. I'm annoyed North gave up a 41 pt lead but a reliable source tells me North got caned in the free kicks and free kicks on goal. That's extra annoying. The Roars own Geoff Lemon describes Chapman talking the ump into a free.
Nathan of Perth
Roar Rookie
Don't like the proposed replacement!
langou
Roar Guru
'I suspect the umpires are giving fifty as often as not just because they like the idea of “being in charge”,' Interesting theory but it is more likely that there are more 50s as a result of a direction from the AFL to clamp down on tactics that are designed to slow down the game.
Bayman
Guest
The problem I have with the fifty metre penalty is the enthusiasm with which the umpires apply it. Originally, it was essentially given for wasting time (throwing the ball back along the ground, not getting off a player after a free has been given, holding on to a player after free or mark to prevent him playing on, not coming back to the mark, etc.). Now it's given if a player steps over the mark an inch even if the kicker is yet to actually get possession of the ball. In other words, I suspect the umpires are giving fifty as often as not just because they like the idea of "being in charge", "asserting their authority" and not because the game and the situation actually demands a fifty metre penalty. The game is not being advanced by becoming a minefield of technicalities, controlled by an egomaniac who thrives on producing an obscure decision just because he can. Oddly enough, mothers aside, nobody pays to watch football just to see the umpires perform. This should be a key component of an umpire's attitude to the game. Pay what you see, don't try to invent stuff, don't get too technical, treat the rule book as a guide not as gospel and be happy if your decisions did NOT influence the result. Now, if only the umpiring hierarchy could take the same attitude. I'd much rather see some common sense than a pedantic idiot intent on "being in charge".
me, I like football
Guest
I hate them, I hate them, I hate them! And umpire abuse is the worse. should be a fine. My alternative is replace it with the out of play netball rule. The offender has to stand on the mark but can not interupt the passge of play allowing the player with the ball to run past them which at that time the umpire can call 'play on I also don't mind the 50% idea where instead of it being 50m it's 50% closer to goal. The rule favours the forwards too much. have I mentioned I hate it.
TomC
Roar Guru
Sounds like we'll wind up at 40.12m penalty. Rolls off the tongue.
langou
Roar Guru
I think 25m is too lenient so maybe split the difference and make it a 37.5m penalty, if that doesn't work we may need to split the difference again and make it a 43.75m penalty
Bill
Guest
25 and 50. Sometimes 50 is applied for a minor or even accidental indiscretion and sets a side up for a goal in a really tight contest. Potential game deciding penalty that is often unwarranted.