Is it Aussie rules, rugby, or a rodeo show? Fremantle coach Ross Lyon isn’t sure what to make of AFL games anymore, and he’s putting the blame squarely on umpires.
Lyon claims he doesn’t know what constitutes a free kick nowadays, saying matches are more congested than ever before because umpires are letting the game go.
The veteran coach reckons stoppages have become such a mad scramble, his players may as well wear saddles to cope with the situation.
“People are being being ridden and jumped on by two or three (players), and the ball can’t get out,” Lyon said on Wednesday.
“Clearly they’ll blow for the ball-up, but they’re not paying the obvious free kicks. Hence the term the rolling maul.
“I know there’s been a lot of, ‘we’ll let it go, it’s all great’.
“But it just gets a bit confusing.
“Clearly there’s been a philosophical (shift) and different methodology applied from the coach of the umpires to the umpires.
“And the other interpretation that has really backed off is the chopping of the arms for forwards.
“To be honest, I don’t know what a free kick is or isn’t anymore.”
Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson called for calm, saying it was too early in the season to jump to conclusions about the state of the game.
“If we go back to round three, four, five of every season, we have these types of debates about the game and how it’s evolving,” Clarkson said.
“We’re still feeling our way in the season and what’s going on, what trends are happening, and how different teams are playing.
“Just let the game evolve for a little while.”
Mark Evans, the AFL’s manager of football operations, said the laws of the game committee would pick up any issues because they were the greatest debating table going around.
“The fans tell us they like the game to be tough and contested and they like exciting passages of play,” Evans said.
“As long as our game produces those things, it will be in a good state.”
Lyon said penalties for head-high contact had also become confusing.
In the AFL’s bid to reduce head injuries, players who opt to tackle instead of bump will now be held responsible for any head-high contact, even if it’s accidental.
“I think the concern is you can bump to the head, but if you don’t injure someone, you’re OK,” Lyon said.
“It clearly needs to be tidied up more.”
Although crowds have been down over the opening five rounds, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said the hype surrounding last Monday’s Hawthorn-Geelong clash and the upcoming Essendon-Collingwood blockbuster proved the game was in good shape.
“Everyone just needs to take a Bex,” McGuire said.
“We had 83,000 on Monday. We’re going to have 95,000 on Friday.
“That’s the NRL’s weekly average covered in two games.”
Fraser
Guest
These articles need more attention to detail. A few sloppy editing mistakes can pull down a good article. For example: "Players who opt to tackle instead of bump will now be held responsible." Is sloppy.
vocans
Guest
Rules will always have grey areas. Getting rid of the rules so there are no grey areas also tends to get rid of the black and white areas too. Mistakes are made in grey areas but not always, and that's what you get in this world where no one has perfect vision. Very few players only touch someone backs - usually a little more to it. But, I agree, not always, so we need to give the umpires some leeway to make mistakes, or else they'll clam up and the game will become very predictable and dreary. We give players that kind of leeway. Coaches do when they're trying to establish a game plan or blood a young player. Etc.
Cat
Roar Guru
The problem is the grey areas, sure shoving someone hard in the back should be paid, but when you are running in close quarters with someone you naturally put your hand on their back/should to keep from running over them,, touching someones back shouldn't be a free kick.
vocans
Guest
I've commented on this a number of times on the roar. The AFL seems to want to massage the game in certain directions by altering interpretations of the rules, and sometimes adding to or changing them. Most of the new rules have helped the game, but many of the interpretation shifts, including not really enforcing various rules from time to time, creates inconsistency and often unforeseen results that need further tweaking, and on and on. The basic rules are crucial to maintaining the skills of the game. Knocking of the arms in going for a mark is hardly a skill - marking is but that skill gets rubbed out if you allow arm and hand knocking. Push in the back is the last refuge of the unskilled and the defeated. It goes on. Lyon is right about the mauls: a number of frees are let go (interpreted away) resulting in ugly stacks on the mill, skill-less play. Both the spectacle and the fairness of the game suffer. I'd like to see them 'experiment' with enforcing the rules exactly as written, and see whether the game is badly or well served. Does it interrupt the flow or actually permit it? A lot of the rule/interpretation changing started when fitness levels, the interchange, and coaching standards were not as they are now, with the idea that they would make the game flow. Interchange etc and also fitness improvements etc, have helped the flow, but the tweaking actually bogs the game down and robs it of the pleasure and spectacle of many skills. If you can't ride someone into the ground simply because he's got the ball, or hold him when he's going for the ball, but really hasn't got it under control, then you have to get better at tackling, decision-making when to tackle and when not, and he gets to do something with the pill rather than sit on it with a bunch of other guys. Umpires seem often to have given up the tough decisions, the ones where they might make mistakes - such as: is the player in possession of the ball or controlling it without actually holding it, or is he in the act of trying to gain control? Yes, there'll be mistakes, but allowing defenders to hold the man, who is not in possession/control of the ball, means skills are lost to the game. The rule of thumb should always be: does this rule, interpretation, decision further or decrease the skills? I'm not expecting umpires to be perfect: they will make mistakes. I just don't want to see players rewarded or penalised simply because of fads in interpretation or not wanting to be wrong. We, the fans, should recognise the guts it takes to be a good umpire and let them know we appreciate it. People who complain about this are not nit pickers: games can be won or lost on the way rules are interpreted. For example, great attacking teams are penalised in their style by decisions that mis-apply the rules in favour teams who play negatively. 'Putting the whistle away' leads to players and teams not being rewarded for skillful legal play; and unskillful illegal play being rewarded. If playing to the rules doesn't suit you then the coach, the players and the team better get their arses into action.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
Clearly Mr Lyon has never seen a rodeo
Axle an the guru
Guest
The problem is umpires are told what to look for before the wknd starts, if they dont do as there told they get sent to the bush. It would be much better upireing if they were left to umpire the way they see fit on the day. Thats how we got great umpires like Glen James.
PGNEWC
Guest
So the Seagulls must take it turns to peck the chip if their mummy gives permission. Yes I can see now this will make AFL better!
Ash of Geelong
Guest
And Crowley is the jockey hey Ross.