AFL umpires boss Jeff Geischen must be stood down, as too should the rules committee and all AFL employees responsible for the implementation of the rules in recent years. It’s that simple.
Why you ask? This nonsense has gone too far is why.
Round 7 is full of intriguing match-ups. The season thus far has rarely failed to deliver, and the same could be said for the previous few years.
Here’s the problem – no one’s talking about the footy.
To the detriment of our great game, the primary focus of the public and the media is on the inconsistencies and confusion we all share over what is a mark and what is not.
What’s worse is that this is nothing new. Three weeks ago we were obsessing about some of the nonsensical decisions relating to the sliding rule.
Every year in recent memory the changing of a rule by the AFL, or worse, the unofficial changing of a rule by Geischen’s umpiring department, has resulted in precisely what we’re seeing today – the focus being on the lawmakers and adjudicators instead of the footy itself.
Jeff Geischen must be the first to go. He has consistently taken the liberty of unofficially changing the rules of the game.
The umpiring department’s role is to interpret the rules implemented by the AFL. Once they have set that standard, their primary responsibility is to adjudicate the rule with the highest possible level of consistency.
Under Geischen’s watch they’ve failed badly on both fronts.
Over the last few years we’ve seen the umpires completely change their interpretation of many rules.
Holding the ball against the man diving on the footy is nowhere near as strict as it was a couple of years ago, while deliberate out of bounds is umpired far more strictly.
The ‘hands in the back’ rule was umpired to the letter of the law when first introduced, now days a much more sensible interpretation is being enforced.
The reality is Geischen and the umpiring department made monumental changes to these rules, without having the authority to do so.
This latest marking debacle goes to the heart of the umpiring department’s inability to correctly interpret the rules.
As the rule relating to contact in a marking contest is written, it prohibits:
(Rule 15.4.5)
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;
Yet on Monday night Geischem appeared on On The Couch explaining to Gerard Healy that players are in fact allowed to push in a marking contest, provided they don’t fully extend their arms.
If they push their opponent aside with bent arms, the umpires won’t penalise them.
Where exactly in the rule does it say anything about that?
Once again Gieschem is guilty of over ruling the laws of the AFL and implementing his own version.
All this leads to is frustration and mass confusion. Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley responded to the latest changes.
“Right now, from what I gather, a half push is OK but a full push is not acceptable,” he said.
“I don’t know what an 80 percent push (looks like), how that’s going to be adjudicated? … it makes it very difficult to understand how you can make any contact at all.”
While Geischen insults the intelligence of the fans with his continued insistence that the rule has always been umpired the same, 94 percent of the 1700 fans replying to a Fairfax poll said they believed the marking rule was being umpired differently to last year.
The rules committee and AFL lawmakers are far from blameless in all of this too. Constant chopping and changing of the rules year after year, often with no discernible benefit to the game. Change for the sake of change.
The wording of the prohibited contact in a marking contest rule, among other recent additions, is clearly unsatisfactory.
Thankfully up until this year no one really noticed how bad it was, largely because the umpiring department essentially chose to ignore it and allow varying degrees of pushing anyway.
Now that they’re getting closer to umpiring the law as it’s written, it becomes obvious what a terrible job was done penning it.
As Gold Coast coach Guy McKenna put it, “if the marking rule was implemented as it’s been written, marking would technically become a non-contact part of the game.”
It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of fans, coaches and players alike are frustrated and annoyed with the changing and technical nature of the rules of late.
North Melbourne champion Glen Archer summed up the feelings of many when he recently said, “I don’t know what’s going on. I have to turn the TV off half the time.”
How did it get to the point that the individuals responsible for this mess became completely unaccountable?
The footy world is clearly dissatisfied – at what point do these kinds of results have consequences for the people responsible?
Robert Paslawskyj
Guest
We don't really need a rules committee anymore as there are no rules. Just look at the decisions awarded on the weekend. We're there any? Umpires have been told to let the game flow so rules aren't followed anymore. We don't need a rules committee nor for a matter of fact umpires. Just goal and boundary umpires would suffice. No wonder fans are frustrated.
Jeff
Guest
If a player has a brain freeze and intentionally hits another player, I believe the offender, if convicted and receives a week or two penalty, he should serve those weeks off only in games against the team in which the offence occurred. If for instance, Nic Nat was was smacked out by Sandilands and he got suspended, why should the next team playing the Dockers benefit from the loss of Sandilands. Any support for this?
marcus
Guest
I know your article on rule changing is purposely 'hostile', and because the game is always evolving so should rule interpretations
King Peanut
Guest
For far too long Geischen and his cohorts have applied the rules to suit themselves. When a highly disputed incident is commented on (especially if it makes a point of umpire error) Geischen jumps to their defence and talks so much waffle that no one is able to make any sense out of it.It has now got to the stage whereby in his explanations he is contradicting himself,he is seeing things that nobody else is seeing (how is that possible?). He has proven his incompetence many times over the years and it's time he was moved on.So too with Bartlett and his gang of yesterday's heroes,who are continually messing with the rules just to let us know they are still there. It won't be long before the rule book is larger than the telephone directory.STOP MESSING WITH THE RULES AND MAKE THE GAME LESS COMPLICATED AND THE UMPIRES WILL THEN MAKE LESS DISPUTABLE DECISIONS...OR IS THAT TOO SIMPLE???
scott
Guest
Lee Mathews is the biggest idiot of them all, now he wants goals allowed even when the ball hits the post and moron darcy agrees with him. Millions of people loved the game the way it was 15 years ago and a dozen people think they are so wise that they can change it without the permission of the majority.
Kev
Guest
To add to your point about KB, it's made worse by the fact that he carries on like the proverbial ostrich that shoves its head into the sand. It's always everyone's problem but his. Even if there are enough fans, players and coaches complaining about the conflicting nature of rules and the myriad of interpretations, his attitude is that everyone else is too stupid to understand it or they are simply choosing not to understand it. This latest rule of cracking down on forceful contact below the knees is silly because you now have umpires who have to decide if a player headbutted his opponent below the knees or whether that other player made contact with his opponent's head using his legs. Does this mean either player is going to be penalized if they arrive just a fraction of a second late to a contest? On one hand you have the AFL saying that the head is sacrosanct but now they are also saying that diving in head first no longer means you will be guaranteed protection all the time.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
Thought you would be more inclined to be amongst the throngs at that big parade they have through King's Cross wearing your lycra, mascara and feather boas.
@jsinc_
Roar Rookie
You'd think so, wouldn't you? I'm still waiting though.....
@jsinc_
Roar Rookie
You are an insightful individual - I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your magazine! - but spot on PH, it IS beyond a joke. To think a goal umpire make one error and is sent back to the bush, yet these guys are all over the shop and never answer to anyone.
@jsinc_
Roar Rookie
Haha, I love it, and will endeavor to use it in a sentence this week.
@jsinc_
Roar Rookie
Nup, they have been getting such poor results consistently over such a long time, that they need to be moved on - replace them with people that can clean this mess up and get the focus back on the game we love.
Richard
Guest
Totally agree that the afl rules committe needs personnel changes, kb takes it all so personally and that is not his role,geisch has a tough job but time for a change there.hopefullt mark Evans will enact change.
oikee
Guest
AFL has turned into nothing but a fluff competition run by a dictator and played by a bunch of pimply faced kids. The main action is stopping to kick the ball between 4 big sticks and then the most exciting part is the pumping of the fist.(if he kicks it, which is not often) City to surf Marathons are becoming more exciting. Honest truth.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
How do these type of jokers always get into positions of influence? Always do a sociopath test on applicants for positions with any power involved. (That would exclude most politicians straight away) KB is loathed by his colleagues at SEN. They are constantly sticking the boot into him because he just cuts you off or disagrees with any voice that does not have the same opinion as him. Interestingly when he was a player he was hated by everyone too. We used to hang the nickname "Hungry" on our mates at school that were selfish like he was on the field.
Franko
Guest
Perhaps the handball will be outlawed next, KB'd love it.
Ash of Geelong
Guest
Got a feeling KB is running the AFL.
vocans
Guest
1. The AFL decided the game was not fast and flowing enough and blamed the rules for this. Other diagnoses were neglected. 2. For the same reason pressure was put on interpretations to speed up the game and keep it moving: interpretations became de facto rules. 3. Things became messy so they introduced new rules, especially where interpretations had cancelled out old rules. 4. Ironically, some of the new rules and interpretations actually slow down and disrupt the flow of the game. Meanwhile other developments in the game around fitness and tactics have helped counteract some of the deadening effects of the new rules and de facto rules. 5. A number of skills have been 'ruled' out of the game over the years by interpretations based on misreadings of the rules - especially, holding the man and ball, and in the back, the combined neglect of which has led to protracted mauls and melees. '(Rule 15.4.5) (d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football; (e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;' (d) & (e) do not rule contact out of the marking contest as long as we add the words 'providing the player is deemed to be going for the ball, and does not infringe any other rule', specifically arms around the neck, hands in the face, & push in the back. (e) is crucial for the game's spectacle and flow, and means contests before the ball is within 5m are restricted to body on body with no use of the arms, and to protect the drop of the ball which is the prime focus of the players. We had a simple set of rules that worked well and could still work well. The game evolves best when that evolution works within a solid framework of rules, just as the game would be a farce without the boundary line marking out the field. Skills and tactics need to meet the demands of an evolving game, but that can be, and was, put into the too hard basket, and the rules fiddled with instead. Finally, the idea that any kind of push in the back in marking should be OK is dangerous: there's no skill in it, and players with the skill to read the drop of the ball and get themselves there before another, could easily be robbed of the reward for good play by a lazy push. How boring it would be to watch almost every contest ended by a push in the back. You can use your body to hold player backing into you to the drop and don't need to use your hands anyway. Royce Hart would often stand back from or to the side of the drop, thus avoiding contact issues, and then leap at the ball. One of the great sights of football! It is crucial the AFL does something about all this, and soon.
Redb
Roar Guru
When players don't understand, umpires don't understand and the fans don't understand - change must be demanded!
Nathan of Perth
Guest
The rulebook has to the simplified, the interpretations streamlined. The current document reads like an Act of Parliament and its just not good enough.
PH
Guest
Great Article! Very well put! Its beyond a Joke! The AFL Treats the fans as fools, they dont listen to the coaches they dont listen to the players they dont listen to the fans, instead they sit back and point to the number of viewers and say numbers up again told you we were right all along! Its a joke!