When we wonder what is ruining AFL football, we often ask whether it’s the rules or the umpires. But this is no chicken and egg situation, for the rules committee are making a farce of our great game.
For anyone who watches a lot of football, both are factors that combine every round to make the viewing experience an amalgamation of frustration, bewilderment and anger. It’s utterly dispiriting.
The umpires are always the first to feel the wrath of rage-filled fans, operating at ground zero as they are, but they arguably cop the rawest deal of all due to having to implement ever-changing rules.
Of course, this doesn’t compensate for their pompousness, an ego-driven need to insert themselves into the game and the inability to shut up for longer than a few seconds.
Why are they constantly talking to the players after every decision, despite rarely being asked for clarification?
Any player lining up for goal also has them chattering in their ear about how long is left for what seems like the entire time.
Just shut up!
Whenever there’s a hint of a wrestle or some one-on-one push and shove, there’s the ump in the middle of it. “Don’t go high”, “Keep it down”, “Your team has the ball, don’t give away a free.”
Please.
Simply pay a free kick if you think there’s one there (preferably only in the case of a broken jaw), or better yet, leave them alone to sort it out, and let the video review panel make any reports they deem necessary on Monday.
In the Carlton v Melbourne game at the MCG yesterday, Eddie Betts marked the ball about 40 metres out, with the final siren going seconds later to the notice of everyone on and at the ground.
Yet, while Betts was lining up, the umpire in control felt compelled to twice tell him that he couldn’t play on.
Firstly, did he think Betts was going to baulk the man on the mark, take three bounces and roost home a torpedo from the goal-square while everyone around him was shaking hands?
Secondly, just shut up!
And why, match after match, round after round, year after year, do umpires continue to get sucked in and pay soft free kicks for off-the-ball incidents when two players barely touch each other, but one drops to the ground as if shot?
Here’s a clue umps – if Hayden Ballantye, Alex Fasolo, Stephen Milne, Alwyn Davey, Steve Johnson, Michael Osborne, Lindsay Thomas, Jake King, Ashton Hams or anyone of their ilk are involved, regardless if they’re lying on the ground or not, it’s 95% certain they started it, and did worse than was done to them.
If you never pay a free kick to any of those players, they’ll stop doing it, and you’ll end up on the right side of fair. Win-win.
After each round of matches, we then have to endure the ludicrousness of Jeff Gieschen being unleashed on a suspecting public to vindicate the obvious wrongs the rest of us have clearly identified. While he’s nothing more than a caricature now, doubtless his job is made harder by the rules committee.
I don’t even know where to start with those that have shaped the rules of our national game.
Many rules and interpretations make me want to throw things through the nearest window. But the most infuriating is seeing a perfectly legitimate tackle get penalised because the tackler ends up in-the-back.
Often the contact is incidental, more often than that it’s unavoidable, and almost always the player with the ball throws themselves forward to ensure the free.
If I had my way, a player would need his spine snapped in three places before getting a free kick under those circumstances, and even then I’d expect the ump to think twice about it.
The latest rule drawing the ire of lifelong fans is pushing in a marking contest, which was brought to the fore after Ben Reid’s disallowed mark on ANZAC Day.
You could pick out one hundred similar marking contests over any given weekend where nothing is paid, which only makes it more infuriating when one is plucked out.
Every footy fan who saw the free kick paid against Scott Thompson for his fingernail on David Hale in the Adelaide v Hawthorn game on Saturday wept on the inside. No doubt some Crows fans were also crying on the outside, as the decision was at a crucial stage of the last quarter when Adelaide was gathering momentum.
It was a disgraceful decision that surely even the vaudevillian Gieschen couldn’t agree with. But what does it say about our rules that the umpire felt the decision was the right one?
How have we let football come to this?
We’ve also got the sliding rule which prevents players from going in hard and low with their bodies on the line, simply because someone broke an ankle under those circumstances once.
Richmond’s Steve Morris got rubbed out for a week for rough conduct on Collingwood’s Jamie Elliot in Round 4. Rough conduct! Fair enough, a bit of Morris’ shoulder found a minor piece of Elliot’s chin because the Pie wasn’t aware of his surroundings, but how should this be anything other than a free kick for high contact?
The AFL seems to want to remove any hint of danger out of the game, even though it is the very aspect that players and spectators love the most.
To finish off the weekend, we had Luke Tapscott reported, presumably because of a reckless and high bump on Kade Simpson when both were attacking the ball. The only problem was that Tapscott was neither reckless, nor got Simpson high. Replays clearly show the bump to be in the side.
What this means is that the umpire not only paid a free kick, but also reported a player for something that he did not see. Like a funny movie involving the Wayans brothers, you can’t see something that doesn’t exist.
So, in summary, we’ve got rules that are taking the hardness out of the game, interpretations that change by the day to reward the soft and weak, topped off by umpires guessing instead of paying only what they 100% see.
I saw the following on Twitter after the Tapscott report: “That wasn’t even a free kick, let alone a reportable act. The game I once loved is dead to me.”
There’s a few of us who may not be far behind him.
Graeme
Guest
Languo. The money they get paid, i think EVERYONE is entitled to his or her opinion.
Graeme
Guest
Agree with all that Cam, but apart from us the supporters who are listening to you, NOT the AFL. While Demetrou is in charge the game is going backwards. Someone has to have the guts to stand up to these radicals who are ruining our game. After playing aussie rules for 40years i don't even watch it much now. Pity really.
Jack Klaver
Guest
I’m a Hawthorn member of many years but haven’t gone to a game this year because basically i can’t stand it any more. The rules and constant changes and umpiring inconsistencies drive me nuts. I can’t watch it any more. Not the umpires fault in the end. Football these days is an insult to my intelligence and i don’t have to go to an AFL match to be insulted, I can do that anywhere else for free. The rules committee, a la Kevin Bartlett who is an octogenrian who never laid a tackle is destroying our great game single handedly. Gieschen his sidekick is insulting everyone by attempting to defend the indefesible with an interpretation that is by any measure seriously flawed. Who is accountable for this debacle, no one it seems. My club sent me an email yesterday saying that I had not attended a game yet this year and would like me to attend Saturday night’s game. I won’t be there, I am seriously over it. Reply
Jack Klaver
Guest
I’m a Hawthorn member of many years but haven’t gone to a game this year because basically i can’t stand it any more. The rules and constant changes and umpiring inconsistencies drive me nuts. I can’t watch it any more. Football these days is an insult to my intelligence and i don’t have to go to an AFL match to be insulted, I can do that anywhere else for free. The rules committee, a la Kevin Bartlett who is an octogenrian who never laid a tackle is destroying our great game single handedly. Gieschen his sidekick is insulting everyone by attempting to defend the indefesible with an interpretation that is by any measure seriously flawed. Who is accountable for this debacle, no one it seems. My club sent me an email yesterday saying that I had not attended a game yet this year and would like me to attend Saturday night’s game. I won’t be there, I am seriously over it.
Me Too
Guest
A lot of replies on here, which shows the level of dissatisfaction with umpiring. Unfortunately the afl and the media put far too much emphasis on the umpires and it appears that some of them think they are part of the entertainment package. Remove the mikes from the umps, tell them to keep chat to a minimum, and do not call 50/50 free kicks. The rules committee should be abandoned because, as already stated, rule changes have become a means to the wrong end - keeping the committee relevant, rather than keeping rules relevant. Grant Thomas spoke on the rising celebrity of umpires many years ago and unfortunately his team and hence the players and fans were punished for it on and off the field. Again as stated, a well umpired game is one where they aren't noticed, either by their absence when required, or by over intervention.
vocans
Guest
The differing weekly interpretations and the differing weekly ‘focusing’ on particular rules is a sign that all is not well in rule land. In the effort to create a fast moving game, the AFL seem to have lost focus on the relatively simple and effective set of rules we always had. The erosion of clear interpretations of such rules as holding the ball or man, in the back, interference when not within the required distance of the ball, and wrestling in the ruck and around the ruck, have made umpiring a nightmare, and watching footy incredibly frustrating. Some of the new rules are there simply because the correct interpretations were no longer applied. For example, sliding is tripping or it’s good body position – the umpire decides which. Arms around a player without the ball, impeding his progress, even if not using the hands, is holding the man. Sitting on a player’s back is in the back – hold him correctly and you’ll get holding the ball. No, we need a new rule – pulling the ball in and not releasing – when, under the existing rules, that player is in control of the ball, and, if correctly tackled, must release it or be pinged for holding it. But, if you prevent him from releasing the ball by holding it in on him, it’s ball up like it always was. Hands in the back always was in the back pure and simple – impede the player coming back on you with your body and not your hands, and all is OK. Simple? It used to be that simple before the AFL started playing with interpretations to speed up the game. How about skill speeds up the game? All the mauls do not speed up the game. I’m not suggesting we could have perfection, but it is getting very bad. Many attractive skills are in the process of being lost, with the winner being those who can biff, scrag, and endure the most. KISS.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Some excellent stuff there Richard. Hopefully Mark Evans can have the impact that a lot of us think he might be able to - if he's allowed to. Love what you're saying about KB too, he loves making it all about him to drive his ratings on SEN.
Cameron Rose
Expert
There's a difference with being frustrated with petty rules and varying interpretations, and yearning for the 'old days' Langou. I'm not one who's looking for a throwback to 80's football or anything like that, as our game is tough, fast and exciting. Let's let it continue to be that way without interference. Play on.
Cameron Rose
Expert
All good questions Deep Thinker, very good questions to which we'd all like to know the answers, and I'm certainly with you on the 50m penalties being far too drastic a measure for minor incidents.
Deep Thinker
Guest
It's all random. Cam you are spot on. Although I think umpires should explain themselves because we are all confused. The problem is there have been so many rule changes that nobody knows what the hell is going on. I've been watching footy for my entire life and about half the free kicks I am left scratching my head. Sometimes a player gets tackled clearly without prior opportunity and get's pinged because a team mate has stuffed around and given him a dodgy handball. Does the rule about dropping the ball still exist? Players get away with dropping the ball these days. Sometimes a player gets tackled and handballs the ball as he's being tackled and it's holding the ball - presumably because he could have got rid of it earlier. Other times player ride the tackle and get spun around and get the handball off and it's play on. How long can you run with the ball before bouncing these days. Chris Yarran ran 50 metres with two bounces over the weekend before kicking a goal from the goal square. why are there so many 50 metre penalties for innocuous things these days? I'm still angry about the 50m against Josh Hunt last year that cost the Cats the game against the Pies. Over nothing - just holding up the Collingwood player after he marked so he doesn't run off after marking the ball. Why are players regularly pinged for holding the ball when the tackling players hold the ball in? What exactly is the difference between a push and good body work in a marking contest? What can a defender do these days to defend without giving away a free kick?
Kasey
Guest
Who decides the 'greater good' CR? At the moment the AFL has obviously declared the bottom line to be "the greater good"and all decisions out from under Docklands should be viewed through the question: "How much is in it for the AFL?" There's nothing wrong with making money, the AFL is proudly a profitable business, but when you start manipulating the competition for financial gain, that's where they lost me.
vocans
Guest
'If we stick to the absolute letter of the law, there could never possibly be a ball-up, because in every single pack situation someone is touching someone else above the shoulders and in the back!' If i understand your point, I have to disagree because footy was played for decades with no problems here. Players knew not to infringe over the shoulder, in the back, or lie on a player (you held them in the tackle even if they were on the ground and avoided infringing by lying on them as that would be in the back). This requires skill and gives good players room to do their in and under stuff, and good tacklers to get holding the ball instead of yet another ball up. Speed and ball skills are up on the past, but many skills have actually been dumbed down to the detriment of the game.
vocans
Guest
Can't agree with push in the side if it means before the ball is within the required distance. After OK, because it takes real skill to have your eye on the ball to mark or spoil while also pushing - the ball comes that fast. Otherwise we'll have pushing players over long before the ball gets there - bit like the ruck wrestle gone ridiculous, and I think it's great to get rid of the wrestle in ruck. The scragging in ruck is boring and ugly - rucks used to do a lot more leaping at the ball: spectacular in comparison. I'd also like a some consultation of fans about rules - we might have something useful to say with no obligation from the AFL. A couple of representatives or survey? And the scragging of gun and other players is mostly covered by existing rules on the 2 A4 pages: holding, or shepherding more than 5m from the ball (which often isn't even in play). The rules are largely there and it's the interpretations, often run by too simplistic views of what makes for interesting footy, that need the real tinkering.
Rudi
Guest
oh dear, is this article not tounge in cheek?
Oracle
Guest
Anything is better than having to endure Brian Taylor.
Oracle
Guest
I agree, but the way the rules are, it is an incredibly difficult game to umpire to the letter of the law.
Steve Bull
Guest
Spot on Cam, I knew it was getting bad a couple of years ago when I was getting the shts with umps while watching a North v Dogs game neither of who I have anytime for, it was so infuriating I switched off the tele & was filthy for days. Also I am with you tell the umps to shut up & never let the Geisch speak in public again. And get rid of the restricted zone rubbish surely a decent ump can read player intent & if they attempt to impede a player from behind or beside the mark pay something not 50 when this currently happens 70 from goal & then is a certain goal for nothing at all complete madness S Bull
Jacques
Guest
lol
Bill C
Guest
Excellent article Cam and most of the comments as well. I can understand some incorrect decisions being made in the mad, frenetic pace of the game, but decisions like the one against Thomson make me wonder where our game is going and if there is a plan or just some adhoc rule changes made because the rules committee deem them necessary. I agree wholeheartedly that "play on" in our game should be the default call, unless absolutely certain that there is an infringement. Sadly that wont happen.
Jax
Guest
it's the people that make up the rules that are the problem langou - the umps are only following orders and I think most people can empathise with them and how difficult the job is