- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Debate over the rules and interpretations in regards to what is and isn’t allowed in marking contests has been raging for over two weeks now, and there is no end in sight.
The problem is there are several issues at hand, and with everyone arguing their own version or amalgam of the issues, everyone is right and ‘everyone else’ is wrong.
We’re left with a cacophony of outrage as passionate pleas are aired. It’s time to break down the debate into distinct categories.
The first issue is the rule itself in relation to marking contests, which we’re constantly being told hasn’t changed in years. In essence the rule says players aren’t allowed to push, bump, block, hold or interfere with the arms of an opponent.
The rule itself, as well as the explanatory video on the AFL website, doesn’t appear to make any allowance for incidental contact.
This is of course a problem when you have 36 fast, strong athletes in a confined area, putting themselves in harm’s way to win at all costs for their team, and thrilling fans of the game while doing so.
They attack the game under the general principles of fair play, and yes, every now and then a stray hand is going to pop over a shoulder, or a tackle is going to slip a little high when an opponent ducks into it. Too often, free kicks are paid for incidental contact, which rips the soul out of our game.
Getting back to the rule wording, it’s hard to think of a marking contest that doesn’t involve one of the aforementioned unlawful acts.
Greg Baum wrote a piece in The Age last week where he yearned for the duels of Van der Haar and Knights.
In the article, he painted a mythical picture of two men jumping at the ball from opposite directions, not a hint of body contact between them except when they paused in mid-air to shake hands at all the fairness.
It invoked visions of all players, officials and fans smiled and nodded in appreciation at such an equal, non-contact contest.
Of course, one of the cries from the people most upset by rules and interpretations is wanting a return to ‘the good old days’, so in a roundabout way, Baum and those he is arguing against are after the same thing.
But we can have the best of both worlds. No one is suggesting removing the high-flying skilful mark, and we see plenty of these week after week.
It can co-exist with battles of power when two players standing under the ball are grappling for best position. Jeremy Howe and Travis Cloke are both fine players and should be encouraged to play to their respective strengths.
In all cases, forwards, defenders, ruckmen and midfielders are in the same boat. Remember, a hallmark of AFL football is it is played by all shapes and sizes.
Let’s not penalize a player for being too strong, and being able to put his opponent off-balance with various parts of his body when the ball is in close proximity.
The second issue at hand is the interpretation of the rule.
Despite assurances from the parody of an umpires’ boss Jeff Geischen that there is no specific focus on particular rules from week to week or year to year, it’s been well documented that up to Round 6, over 100 more free kicks were paid in marking contests than at the same stage of 2012.
The free kick against Scott Thompson for the push on David Hale was pilloried by all and sundry, and was later admitted as a mistake by the umpires department.
Those against where the rules are taking us used the incident as an example of how soft the game has gotten. Those in favour were equally adamant that it was an umpiring error, and as such should be ignored as an example.
Both points of view can be respected, but they also missed the point.
The question ignored by too many was why was the umpire, Ray Chamberlain, a man with many years of experience, in a state of mind to deem the free kick was warranted? Surely this is the key to everything.
What it tells us, quite simply, is that we’ve gone too far in trying to make a fluid, grey game into a fixed, black and white series of acts. It’s time to scale back.
Players, umpires, coaches, commentators, fans. The interpretation of the rule, despite the denial of key advocates, has obviously become cloudy at every level.
And now we get to the third layer of the debate, which is Kevin Bartlett and his Kool-Aid drinking cohorts, media friends like Patrick Smith and Greg Denham.
KB has strong, forthright opinions, which is not unusual for a talkback radio host.
He is also dense when it comes to opposing arguments to any position he holds, to the point of breathtaking arrogance. Again, he’s not Robinson Crusoe among radio hosts. It’s part of the job description for a shock-jock, which he is on the way to becoming.
Unfortunately, it’s the last thing you want in a person that is the leading voice and most visible member of the AFL rules committee.
The picture painted is of a cantankerous old fool with an inability to listen, not just riding roughshod over the wishes of fans, but taking pleasure in doing it.
The Australian’s Patrick Smith normally can’t exhale without calling for the sacking of 15 people for incompetence on any given issue, and has taken the dimmest possible view of what he believes is Essendon’s arrogance under the Hird/Thompson regime.
It defies belief then, that he can be so obtuse on what is clearly an emotive issue among the football public. ‘Everyone is stupid’ is his basic argument against anyone that dares voice a differing opinion to KB and himself on any rules criticism.
Greg Denham, another KB flunky, wrote an article on the issue last Wednesday in The Australian that was an embarrassment to him and his paper.
So much for ‘fiercely independent’ journalism I suppose. What KB says, his mates write. We don’t want to jeopardise those regular, ego-stroking SEN spots do we fellas? The footy boys club is alive and well.
Almost every football watcher can tell the difference between fair and unfair in a marking contest, when watching through unbiased eyes at least. Why can’t we let the umpires do the same?
That’s the throwback to the ‘old days’ I want. Not the biff and bash, players in set positions, or the long kick down the line to traditional key targets.
The game has moved on to be a full ground experience, with players going as hard as they ever have, in what is a quick skilful game; the best in the world.
Strip back the verbose rule wordings, stopping bringing new ones in, and let the umpires use their experience, feel, and judgement, and only pay what they 100 percent see, clear infringements that directly affect play.
Good luck getting that message through I suppose.