The bump is dead. The marking contest is dead. Contact footy is dead. Or so we’ve been told recently. To my eyes, it all looks much the same.
It was James Kelly’s suspension for a hip-and-shoulder on Brendon Goddard that saw the mourning of that particular tactic. Likewise the marking contests between Ben Reid and Tom Bellchambers, then Scott Thompson and David Hale.
But really, the only umpiring rule that has annoyed me on occasion this year has been the free kick for sliding into the legs of an opponent.
When a player is running from distance and slides into another, regardless of whether it’s head, legs or body first, that’s a dangerous act that should concede a free kick.
The rules are right, it should be out of the game. You don’t want to see the knee injuries or broken legs that can come with a dangerous slide.
But there’s confusion in applying the rule.
We’ve seen players fighting for a ball on the ground, then penalised when they dive toward it, hitting the legs of an opponent without significant force. We’ve seen others not pinged for the same thing. That’s where the discontent lies.
In this case, the only question should be whether the player is at risk. Those occasions should stand out, and the call has to be made, not calls based on a technicality.
Sure, it’s tricky for players. But whenever a rule changes, players adjust to try to make it benefit them. That’s just being smart.
We had some fun on Fox Footy the other weekend with footage of Jason Dunstall, docking goals from his career record based on the pushes and blocks he employed on opponents.
But really he probably would have been as good a player under modern rulings by adapting his tactics.
The Reid-Bellchambers contest was accentuated because it happened at speed, and with a big feller like Bellchambers having got moving, he was propelled forward.
You can argue over it, but it involved a straight-arm push along with use of the defender’s hands. I think it was more the vague explanation from Jeff Gieschen that caused the uproar.
Once the hands-in-the-back rule came in, we were told by the umpires on their yearly visit to training that if we used a forearm to hold ourselves, or brought a hip in to that contest, we’d be ok as long as we didn’t shove when we pushed off.
I don’t think their adjudication has changed. They look for two motions, and if it’s forceful they call it. Players understand that.
As forwards, I’ll continue to teach my AFL/AIS Academy students that the first thing in the marking contest is to be the quickest to pick up the flight of the ball. Then you can put yourself in the spot to protect the drop zone of the high ball coming in.
If that means you find yourself caught on the side or behind your opponent you can block with body or forearm and position yourself for the flight, keeping your eyes on the ball at all times and you’ll generally be rewarded with the mark. If you use your hands to push, you put yourself on the borderline.
With your forearm under the other guy’s armpit, for instance, it doesn’t matter how big he is, you can still move his centre of gravity. You can tilt in your favour the percentages that the mark will be paid.
In saying all this, things happen quickly once you’re in position, and you have to fight. Sometimes that means breaking a rule, but you can’t give up on the fight to win the contest.
You may get called here and there, but generally if two players are contesting on even terms, the umpires will let them play.
Those same percentages apply to the bump. In live action, Kelly’s bump on Goddard looked fair and effective, its effect exaggerated given Goddard was caught by surprise.
But the Match Review Panel slow down available video to frame-by-frame, and even in slow motion it looked like there was jaw contact.
It meant they had to make the call, because it’s the player’s responsibility when they bump to avoid the head. Lindsay Thomas being cleared caused some confusion, but players should know they’ll at least be reported in that instance.
It doesn’t mean the bump’s dead, no way. If you bump well – whether coming from the side, choosing to block, or a shirtfront like Kelly’s – you just have to avoid the head, and the bump is still a part of the game.
Across all these areas, I don’t think it’s a case of the game softening up. It’s more that we’re hyper-aware of these kind of decisions right now.
Footy’s issue of the moment tends to work in two-week cycles, then be replaced. Overall, I think the umps have done a great job on most occasions this year.
Where there’s the odd contentious decision, it’s good to remember a handful of borderline calls aren’t the same as the rules being changed.
Maple Leafs vs Canadiens Live Stream
Guest
Ѕaved as a favorite, I likе your blog!
vocans
Guest
Woops, I meant Johnno not Robbo.
Jacques
Guest
Geoff you clearly were having a go at the world game earlier when you mentioned players surrounding referees when red cards are issued. I live in Victoria, follow AFL as well as soccer. Most hardcore Afl fans at work have almost given up on afl , no one understand the rules anymore so please don't compare it to a sport watched by billions
Jimbo
Guest
It was the ANFC, Aus National Football council.
Richard
Guest
Johnno, I appreciate you taking the time to post your article. It's good to hear your views. I don't think anyone thinks the bump is dead nor that the mark is on death row. As has been mentioned in various comments, supporters only want consistency and clarity. The first 5 rounds were diabolical in terms of umpiring decisions and you only have to look at the reactions of large portions of the AFL public to see the confusion. However, the last 2 maybe 3 weeks, I swear we have seen the umpires relax and let the game run. As a result, the footy has been great. My point is, the AFL treat the public like fools at their own peril. Don't instruct the umpires to adopt a more stringent interpretation policy and then relax it. Keep it consistent and inform the public. Finally, Andrew Demetriou should realise that his attempt to explain the rules on footy classifieds this week, and his weak attempt to defend Jeff Gieschens attempt to explain the rules previously, ensures that as a former player and CEO of the AFL, if he doesn't get it then how on earth can we. Thanks again for posting. Cheers
langou
Roar Guru
Yeah I think you are right on that one. It’s probably best summarised as Prior Opportunity – Must dispose of it with a kick or handball No Prior Opportunity - Must attempt to dispose of it with a kick or handball I wonder if you see less of the “dropping the ball” type free kicks now because of how many people are involved in the play these days. It must be hard for an ump to tell the difference between a ‘drop’ and the ball being accidently dislodged with so many people surrounding the ball carrier.
vocans
Guest
Cutting out a player at the legs has always been a trip, and the dangers of tripping have long been recognized. Getting your body between the ball and the opposing player has always been a legal skill. The umpires have to decide which is which, and that is a matter of interpretation. Sometimes they'll get it wrong. Most times they'll get it right, and we'll have the game the way we want - safer, clearer, better. The sliding rule tried to get rid of the interpretation side of it as much as possible by making it 'crystal clear'. But, in practice, we need interpretations of rules where rules cannot be black and white (as when the ball goes over the boundary line and is called out of bounds). The umpires have been just as confused about this rule as everyone else. It is largely unworkable, because players cannot physically make the kind of fine distinctions the rule requires. So, many rightly started to suggest that players would stop going for the ball, play for frees, etc. as the only way to adapt to the new rule. The old tripping rule, and the freedom to place body between ball and opposition, apply mostly well enough UNDER INTERPRETATION. We can usually tell when a player is doing the skilled thing and when he's actually trying to trip his opponent to get an unfair advantage in the contest. For some time now, the AFL has believed interpretations should be geared to speeding up the game and keeping it moving. They seemed to think that the game was slower than it needed to be due to too many frees being given, and so encouraged what was effectively loose interpretations by umpires. When interpretations become more important than the rules, the rules and their functions in the game are eroded. This is what happened in this case (and a number of other examples could be cited). The speed of the game started to involve players throwing themselves, especially in sliding, at the legs of opponents, and, with the trip rules apparently forgotten, dangerous play resulted. Robbo is right to say this can not be allowed to be within the rules of the game. Fact is: it was already not in the rules of the game, but speed and flow interpretation held sway instead of rules. The AFL, not aware that their own press for speed and flow had undermined the very rule they needed, created a new one - the sliding rule! All they needed was to get back to the right interpretation of tripping and all would be well. These days the speed and flow of the game is there despite this outdated interpretation response to the rules. Most of the stoppages you and I hate are due to interpretations outside the rules as written (which actually can speed the game), and most of the flow is due to increased fitness, better strategies and hand and foot skills, the interchange, and footies in a sack at full back. The AFL has done well here but, when it comes to using interpretations and not rules to speed the game, it got its diagnosis wrong. The Umps liked being more important in the game, so they didn't say No. That's gone on to all the ump chat, which is often nothing more than helping one side against another, by warning a player not to infringe when that's a skill just like any other, and, if he's no good at it, the other team should be benefited accordingly : this approach has been detrimental to the game in so many ways.
Macca
Guest
Iangou - Again the term "which causes" is where I think we differ, my issue is with people who "choose" to drop the ball not someone who has had the ball forced from their grasp within seconds of gaining possession.
langou
Roar Guru
15.2.4 A pplication – Specific Instances where Play shall Continue For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when: (a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands; (b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football; (c) a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; (d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or (e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose
Macca
Guest
That is true, also seemingly randomly as well but it doesn't absolve the responsibilty to dispose of the ball correctly.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Fair cop. Though I guess they're also getting pinged these days for holding the ball in under packs.
Macca
Guest
Geoof the difference I think we have is what causes the ball to be dropped, if the person who in the pack has no control of the ball leaving his disposal then yes I agree with you however if the person in the pack chooses to drop the ball (as is happening more and more) then that is a different matter. And as I said earlier a lost of the calls I have issue with the player had prior opportunity.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
"the only ways to correctly dispose of the ball in AFL is to kick it or handball it" - I agree with that Macca, but I would interpret that a player with no prior opportunity has not in fact taken possession of the ball, therefore can't (and doesn't have to) dispose of it. If you grab the ball in a pack, press it to your chest with one hand, but then are immediately tackled and it spills free, you haven't fully taken possession, so your disposal doesn't matter. That's just my reading.
Macca
Guest
Iangou - Now you are just making stuff up, the only ways to correctly dispose of the ball in AFL is to kick it or handball it, disposing of it in any other way is illegal. Dropping the ball is illegal, hence the umpires saying "you just dropped it" when penalising someone for "incorrect disposal". You can't say one form of incorrect disposal is allowed and another isn't. Prior opportunity only applies to someone who didn't get rid of the ball ie someone being penalised under the "holding the ball" law, once you chose to dispose of the ball incorrectly you become subject to the "incorrect disposal" rule where "prior opportunity" doesn't apply.
langou
Roar Guru
No it is against the rules to throw the ball regardless of the situation Dropping the ball isn't a rule and to my knowledge never has been a rule. Allot of footy fans yell it out and umps may say “you just dropped it” in the context of someone who has had prior opportunity and hasn’t got a kick or handball away.
Macca
Guest
Chairman - I think some of the violence of the pre 1990's era needed to be eradicated and has been, but now they seem determined to make the game injury free.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
Our game once upon a time had this. There was this entity called the Australian Football Council from memory and they used to oversee the game's laws. Now the problem is the AFL has canniballised all the smaller state leagues in Perth and Adelaide it has noone to oppose it's will. They have all the smaller leagues under it's thumb also because they control the purse strings. Question I have, what was so bad about our game prior to 1982 that it needed all the law changes? Are we trying to make it more similar to overseas games because they are superior games to our own. I would love to know the reasoning behind the constant meddling in our game. Imagine if they mucked about with the laws of tennis and golf like they have with football?
Macca
Guest
Not in the numerous cases I have seen and it wasn't the case when I played (from the late 80s' in juniors to 2007) if you didn't have prior opportunity then you could hold the ball up but if dropped the ball you got pinged for dropping the ball. By your definiton if you got tackled with no prior opportunity you could throw the ball to a team mate.
langou
Roar Guru
Its all about whether you have prior opportunity or not. No prior and incorrect disposal is irrelevant
Macca
Guest
Geoff I think players are exploiting the "knocked out in the tackle" and are choosing to drop the ball (often at an opportune time) as they can't actually dispose of it correctly. And it is more often than not they have had prior opportunity. As for the advantage of the ball spilling free well for just one example the other night when Carlton were playing the Saints I lost count of how many times the blues paid a tackle the St Kilda player dropped the ball (in one case threw it out) for a team mate to pick up - there is no advantage for the tackler or his team there. As for what I thikn should happen go back to the interpretation they used to have and start calling "dropping the ball".