The football public are either stupid or conditioned to finding something to whinge about. I honestly don’t know how else to put it.
Thinking about it, the above statement is probably true of society at large, an observation that always appears stark in an election year.
While some will feel aggrieved at the generalisation and think they are immune, I’m referring, in particular, to the reaction to the umpiring of Friday night’s match between Hawthorn and Carlton.
Those who love their footy, and understand what a good game to watch looks like, have been enjoying the relaxed rule interpretations from the umpires in recent weeks. There appears to have been a directive to stop paying soft or ’50/50′ free kicks, and only pay the very obvious ones.
The Round 11 Friday night match between Essendon and Carlton was the best example of this we’ve seen, with only 17 free kicks paid for the entire match, the lowest since 2006. Earlier in the year, that could have been the count at quarter time.
Low numbers are an example we use to judge whether the umps are more inclined to let the game go but, as in all aspects of the sport, we get too hung up on them. Each incident or contest is to be appraised separately, and there is no right or wrong figure.
Carlton were on the wrong end of a run of decisions and non-decisions on Friday night, as St Kilda were the week previously against West Coast. Guess what? It happens. The randomness of the universe dictates that every now and then your team is going to get shafted.
If you’re a Blues fan, instead of bleating about free kicks that weren’t paid when you thought they should be, how about being dirty on your team for conceding the first three goals of the game in quick time, a critical lapse in a fifteen point loss?
Why not accept the fact that your team isn’t good enough to match it with the best teams for four quarters, hasn’t shown the mettle to get the job done in close games, and has coughed up leads in a manner similar to North Melbourne?
Mick Malthouse knows all of this, which is why he was happy to light a fire on the free kick topic, and douse it in petrol with pointed, angry comments. As with Kevin Sheedy, the two coaching doyens have been masters of misdirection for years when their team should be under the pump, and the media and public are always willing to be duped.
Malthouse was unhappy that a few holding-the-ball or illegal disposals were missed, and others have been whining about an apparent direction to not pay any free kicks at all.
Here’s a thought – there never has been, never should be, and never will be a direction to not pay free kicks. What a stupid, thoughtless position to take.
What direction there might have been though, or should be at least, is to err on the side of not paying if in any doubt. If an umpire isn’t sure a player has disposed of the ball illegally, or doesn’t quite know if he’s had prior opportunity, then simply call ‘play on’.
Another way to put it would be for umpires to only pay what they are 100% sure of, rather than indulging in guesswork, which has often been the case. 90% sure is not enough.
The benefit of this sort of direction is twofold.
Firstly, it keeps the game flowing, and doesn’t allow players and fans to dwell on poor decisions which are endlessly replayed, especially if they occur in front of goal. When the action continues, players don’t have a choice but to move on, and fans are in the same boat.
Secondly, and connected to the above, it lessens the chance of what we consider to be soft free kicks, the ones that truly drive people mad. Give me one hundred missed free kicks over one soft one being paid. Every time.
Fans of the team that is the victim of a supposed missed free kick are always going to go beserk, but frankly, the opinion of anyone emotionally attached is irrelevant. No-one should care what they think, and if you do, you’re the target of my opening sentence.
Neutral observers and lovers of the game are to be listened to, and most are in unison about enjoying the relaxed rule interpretations.
That said, it was staggering to hear the likes of Mike Sheahan and Jon Ralph bemoan an over-correction from the umpires after weeks of dissatisfaction at too many questionable free kicks.
Maybe it’s a tabloid journalism thing, constantly grandstanding, nit-picking, and looking for the negative. Whingers.
Then we’ve got those that bring up the old chestnut, saying they ‘just want consistency’.
More stupidity. These fans would have you believe they wouldn’t mind the same incorrect decision thirty times a game, as long as it was paid every time. Nonsense.
So let’s not miss the point. It’s not about not paying free kicks. The umpires aren’t out to get your team when they miss what looks an obvious one.
Umpires are going to make mistakes, and that’s more than fine. The greater good is served if they’re calling “play on” when they make them, rather than blowing the whistle.
It’s stupidity to suggest otherwise.
Jas
Guest
I accept that the opinion's of "invested" observers is less likely to be relevant/objective. However I also believe that opinions should be assessed on the merits of the argument/reasoning presented.
Bayman
Guest
Happy to take advice Tommy, it's just that some people give better advice that others, so on yer bike son, I think I hear your mother calling. By the way, what's the 'C' stand for? signed, Curious
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
PS: Nice side step Cam. Noticed you dodged my comments. Perhaps a little too deep for you, or non-supportive to your article? Actually felt they lent support to your argument - but there you go! Freedom of the press, etc.
TomC
Roar Guru
You've written a 1200 word unfocussed diatribe, and followed it up with a nasty personal attack below. If you don't like taking other people's advice, then take some of your own, and don't try to lecture others.
Murgatroyd
Guest
Yes, missed frees are frustrating, and the other team getting a dream run with them only makes it worse, but a lopsided count has happened many times this season, in matches between quality sides, and as Cameron has stated, the better side usually does enough to win regardless: Haw v Geel, cats win although free kicks 27-17 in hawks favour. Freo v Ess, dons win although free kicks 26-19 in dockers favour. Haw v Syd, Hawks win although free kicks 21-11 in Swans favour. Coll v Geel, Pies win although free kicks 22-12 in cats favour. Syd v Coll, Swans win, although free kicks 20-9 in pies favour. The common thread in the games above? All are teams who'll play finals, and probably the top 6 finishers. All the losing teams received way more free kicks (up to 11 more than their opponents - hawthorn received 9 more than Carlton). Also, each losing team is not a team you'd ever want to give any advantage to. So what conclusions might you draw from this? If a team is good enough, they'll generally win regardless of free kicks, as shown here. We all get passionate (read 'crazy') when we feel our team is hard done by, but our game is decided by roughly 120 mins of play, not a few missed decisions.
Macca
Guest
Anon - I never said Judd's didn't warrant a suspension or that Hodges did but how as a supporter or player you are supposed to know what is reportable and what isn't when Kelly, Ziebell and Betts get multiple weeks and Hodge, Roughead, Thomas & Jolly get off I don't know. This has nothing to do with my team but the system in general.
anon
Guest
Macca: Going back a couple of years but what about the Carlton v Freo game where C Judd elbowed Pavlich in the face, tore his cheek open requiring stitches, and got let off from the match review panel only to win the brownlow the same year. Im sorry, but if that didnt warrant a free or a suspension, neither did the Hodge one. But as Cameron Rose said, if it doesnt suit your team, thats the only time you get vocal about it. If your team gets away with something, you conveniently forget it.
ben speed
Guest
When I was a boy I asked my dad about an umpiring decision that i thought was really crook. He said that he didn't pay to go to the footy to watch umpires. I took that on board and have enjoyed watching footy ever since and simply ignoring umpiring decisions.
Peter Care
Guest
Macca
Guest
Cameron - If they were erring on the side of not paying them they are allowing a massive margin for error on some of the ones the erred in. And I thought the Essendon Carlton games was umpired very well (even though the blues could of got a couple of frees like Fletchers push on Betts that would of won Carlton the game) because they let the tiggy touchwood frees go, but clearly in the Hawthorn Carlton game the needle went too far the other way and clear frees weren't paid, not just the minor ones. It isn't for the good of the game just to let the game go for the sake of it, the balance needs to be found and just as we should point out when the game is over umpired we should point out when it's under umpired. As Leigh MAtthews said in the call "I can't see why the argument for paying less free kicks is a good one - just pay the ones that are there"
Bayman
Guest
Cameron, The problem is that supporters are generally not thinking 'good of the game' when an obvious free is missed and they lose the game. Never. Nor is the coach who gets sacked because he finished ninth on percentage instead of in the eight. It's the great unsolvable problem. The AFL wants to corporatise the game but keep the rivalries tribal. This problem will simply never go away - and that's a problem. It might help, however, if the AFL stopped tampering with the rules which is making an essentially simple game over complicated. As Alan Jeanes said, "There's only three things that can happen. We've got it, they've got it or nobody's got it." How come something so simple became so difficult? The answer is probably vested interest, but that's a story for another day.
Bayman
Guest
Cameron, I'd get another job if I was you, they clearly don't give you enough annual leave. I did get the point of your article and agree, that on balance, paying less free kicks almost certainly minimises the likelihood of the 'soft' free being paid. I'm less convinced of your criticism of Sheahan and Ralph because, clearly, somebody has said something to the umpires in the last week or so. The problem is, and I suspect this is what Sheahan and Ralph were referring to, nobody knew it was coming until it turned up on the doorstep. I'm sure umpires were not told to simply disregard free kicks - but it does raise the question of what instructions were in place earlier in the year, and why it changes part way through a season? I think it's a legitimate question. As for your 'consistency' comment, in truth, I suspect most fans want it but not as you suggest. I think they want the correct decision paid all the time (I know, not possible) not a poor decision repeated ad nauseam. The problem is that the same footballing event often provides a different umpiring result. Half the decisions are right and half are wrong so 'consistency' becomes an issue. So while I do agree less is more in the free kick world, I don't think the public are the stupid part of the equation. I think the AFL is far more culpable on that score. The public are merely expressing their frustration with what is happening to their game which the AFL seem determined to turn into something completely different. They just don't make that clear. Change by stealth. I'm sure the recent turn of events is a direct result of comment from the coaches, the media and the public. But what about next year?
GodOfWar
Guest
My point regarding the tennis umpires was simply pointing out how frustrating it is to watch a sport where so many refereeing mistakes are made. I wasn't blaming the umpires as the rules aren't their fault and that's what I explained later. Again just imagine watching tennis where the umpire makes wrong calls. Frustrating & confusing It would be for sure. With tennis/golf etc it is very technical. Our game shouldn't be technical and I believe that is the point of the article. We shouldn't have technical rules and pay everything we see. My argument was that we should only be be paying free kicks for the reasons that the rules exist in the first place. An example: Joel Selwood As a Geelong supporter I see what happens when he gets a free kick for a high tackle. I know what he does. Geelong fans: High tackle! Opposition: Cheat! He ducked! He does it every time...etc Neutrals: Technically a free kick but a bit unfair. The reason for the high free kick is so a player doesn't get his head taken off. Protect the head. So the free kick should only be paid when it is a serious high shot ie first contact to the head. Not for a tap on the shoulder, or a tackle that slips over a shoulder etc. That's the frustrating thing. If the tackle is malicious, dangerous or intentionally high then pay it. Same holding the ball. If the player is trying to bottle the play up. Pay it. If he just gets caught in a good tackle and can't get the ball out. Don't pay. Forget prior, forget incorrect disposal. People will be happy.
Bayman
Guest
TomC, Of course it's self-indulgent, but then I was talking to the doctor, not the disease. Another good rule of thumb is don't try to lecture me, Tommy, it rarely ends well.
Timmy
Guest
All that I saw from reading this article was that you seem to have a holier than thou attitude and believe that nobody understands the game like you do. Are we to believe that you never get angry at a poor umpiring decision and appreciate that your team is simply not good enough whenever they are beaten? I doubt it. Carlton fans have a right to be angry about the way that the game was umpired on Friday night. I agree with the sentiment that there has been different interpretations of the rules from week to week however on Friday it was more like a different interpretation for each team, which clearly has potential to affect the outcome of the game. Also to your point regarding Carlton players being breakable, that is one of the more ridiculous claims I have seen on this website, and there have been many! You suggest that the players would get injured less if they went harder at the ball, sighting Mitch Robinson as an example, but Mitch Robinson spent a large part of last weeks game with one arm hanging limply and near useless at his side. Jonathan Brown is renowned for his hardness at the ball, and look at some of the horrific injuries that have befallen him in his career! You claim to have an unbiased view, however it is hard not to see somewhat of an anti Carlton agenda to your words
Gadjo
Guest
Re holding the ball. I remember as a junior footballer standing above the player holding the ball, with one hand in the air and one hand holding his jumper. Of course this still happens occasionally, but only if there's 3 other teammates Ensuring the ball doesn't ge released. This clearly indicated there was no intent to move the ball on as the tackler wasn't solely intending to lock the ball in. Funny how this never happens anymore! A shame how cynical the game is becoming...with the professional game as it is it's no surprise.
Slane
Guest
If you order 10 medium steaks and 5 rare and 5 well-done come to your table. You haven't got what you ordered.
Slane
Guest
"The combination, together, went against Carlton on Friday. It happens." And it completely ruined a good game of footy. Guess what? We are entitled to be cheesed off about it. Your argument is that we pay for a product that sometimes is broken and we aren't allowed to complain about it because sometimes it is broken in our favour. It's an absolute joke. I don't give a rats arse that it was Carlton that got shafted. What I care about is that umpires can ruin a good game of footy whenever the hell the feel like it. Your argument is that we shouldn't complain because next week we might be on the umpires good side. Is it too much to ask for consistency?? "Then you also have the fact that sometimes, for no good reason, one team doesn’t get the rub from the umps." That isn't good enough. This is a billion dollar industry and every single one of us is in agreement that the umpires often get it wrong. Your solution is to hope that it evens out over the length of a season.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Slane, You admit that the umpiring has been better with the interpretation to let the game go. Guess what? It means free kicks are going to be missed. Then you also have the fact that sometimes, for no good reason, one team doesn't get the rub from the umps. The combination, together, went against Carlton on Friday. It happens.
Slane
Guest
Just to be clear, the umpires seemed to have smartened up over the last 3 weeks and paid much less free kicks. The Carlton Vs Hawthorn final quarter had one team being umpired with the new interpretation(less free kicks given for stupid stuff) and the other team being officiated like they were playing at the start of the year. Yes we want week to week, season to season consistency, but more importantly we need quarter to quarter consistency. It doesn't make me stupid to want rules that stay the same for both teams for the length of a match. Whether it's my team playing or not, it truly doesn't matter.