Umpiring is hard in any sport. Unless you count chess, where basically if you know the rules and can see the pieces on the board you can umpire.
But generally speaking, umpiring is not easy. One must interpret and apply the rules to any given situation at the spur of the moment, based on an often unanticipated event that was over in a fraction of a second, while players and often spectators thunder in your ears.
In our code we are known to criticise umpires in the heat of the moment, but reserve enduring enmity for absolute howlers – or for series of decisions or non-decisions that, through the inconsistent application of the rules, favour one side over the other. We are mostly quite forgiving of the occasional marginal error.
Every season or two the AFL seems to be bitten by a bug of some sort. They need to eliminate rushed behinds. They need to crack down on deliberate out of bounds. They need to protect the ball carrier, then – perversely – penalise players who try to break tackles. They need to make life hard for the third man up. They need to get players to hurry up taking set shots. They need to reduce the likelihood of concussions.
More recently, it seems like the AFL gets carried away with a new craze on a week to week basis. The suspension of Tom Hawkins wasn’t only absurd in comparison with similar ‘offences’ from seasons past, it was absurd in comparison with similar ‘offences’ from earlier rounds.
In 1962, a man convicted of murder in Victoria received a lengthy prison term rather than the death penalty that was available at the time. It had been a particularly heinous killing and the Premier Henry Bolte vowed he would “get the next one.” As it turned out, the next one was innocent but hanged anyway, in ’67, despite the absence of any solid evidence. The MRP seems to have applied the Bolte approach to Tom Hawkins.
The AFL wants to protect players’ heads, a noble pursuit, and to discourage biff off the ball. When Tom Hawkins retaliated by striking Phil Davis on the collarbone with his fist, Davis threw his head back theatrically to draw a free. Hawkins’ fingers had made negligible contact with Davis’s chin.
A reasonable person couldn’t blame an umpire for being sucked in, but the Match Review Panel could watch the replay repeatedly, probably from a variety of angles, and still concluded it warranted a two-week ban. Two weeks, reduced to one for accepting the flagrantly moronic decision.
Hawkins’ ‘punch’ lacked venom. If Hawkins had intent, he could have put Davis into the third row. Tom Lynch, on the other hand, threw a haymaker into Jeremy Laidler’s guts that left the Swan on the ground for several seconds. The result? A fine.
If the rules of the league are such that the MRP has no greater sanction to throw at a player who has punched another in the stomach than a fine, then there’s something wrong with the rules. Clearly, eliminating the gratuitous gut-punch has not been in fashion. Whereas protecting the head, while no doubt a righteous objective, has been elevated to a point at which hyper-technical over-sensitive thinking has produced a manifestly ridiculous outcome in the Hawkins case.
The problem is much bigger than one case. The MRP needs reform to ensure there is a ‘reasonable person test’ introduced into both interpreting and applying the rules and into determining penalties. The Panel should ask whether something is outside the rules of the game and, if it is, than ask “what would a reasonable person conclude about the intent and actual effect of a player’s action?”. On that basis, it can move to the third step of determining a reasonable penalty – if one is required at all.
Liam
Guest
"Taggers appear to be coming back into the game, so with the current interpretations and punishments as they stand, a tagger could conceivably belt their opponent in the gut all day rendering him useless, and basically get away with it." There's exaggeration, then hyperbole, then there's what you've said here. I seem to remember Steven Baker doing roughly that to Steve Johnson, and copping something like eight weeks, mostly for punches below the neck. Umpires, whatever people may think, are not fools, and I don't think they or the match review panel would appreciate the implication that they are, Jamie. "Totally agree though about the risk of getting extra punishment for defending yourself. Penalty should be set at however many weeks, and players should be able to argue their case to either have it reduced, or be exonerated." Here's the problem with the removal of the potential extra week for the appeal; every single case is taken to the tribunal or appealed, because there is simply no downside. The tribunal is - or rather was - expensive to run, and wastes time in the extreme if every single case is tried properly; you have nine matches every week, and have to have the tribunal/suspensions done by early week so the teams can prepare adequately. The system, as it stands, is flawed - as are all systems - but if you wish for speedy resolutions but to still offer an appeal option to catch the poor decisions, this is fine. Giovanni, as always I do enjoy your writing, largely because you don't let facts trump the emotions of a tale, but can you honestly say this of AFL fans: "We are mostly quite forgiving of the occasional marginal error."? We agitate, we complain, we exaggerate, and we look for conspiracies. We attack, we shout our defiance, we call in to roar our impotent fury to talkback radio hosts gleeful at the opportunity to attack, to inflame. We are anything but reasonable or forgiving about this game, so was that sentence, perhaps that whole paragraph, a little tongue in cheek?
Perry Bridge
Guest
Poor Tom........although, just don't hit people in the head. Just don't do it.
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
If a player strikes an opponent he should cop a suspension. Really sick of these little stomach punches. Serves no purpose, is a terrible look and a bad example for kids. All the AFL have to do is suspend a few players for doing it and it would stop. Although Hawkins could be considered unlucky, I disagree. More that Cameron was lucky to get away with his and shouldn't have. Taggers appear to be coming back into the game, so with the current interpretations and punishments as they stand, a tagger could conceivably belt their opponent in the gut all day rendering him useless, and basically get away with it. What club wouldn't be prepared to pay a fine to keep Danger down to 15-20 disposals or less? Totally agree though about the risk of getting extra punishment for defending yourself. Penalty should be set at however many weeks, and players should be able to argue their case to either have it reduced, or be exonerated.
Cat
Roar Guru
If every player who does a similar thing gets two weeks every single time, then I'll be okay with the decision. However we all know that won't happen. AFL has been practising different rules for different teams for years.
TomC
Roar Guru
That would be an interesting debate, Sami.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Got what he deserved.
Sami
Roar Rookie
I've no problem with that, simply remove the 'force below' excuse from the guidelines.
TomC
Roar Guru
And, amusingly, this comment is awaiting moderation for directly quoting a line from the article.
TomC
Roar Guru
To keep the fashion theme going, this issue is like that blue/gold dress, because everyone seems to see the exact same image differently. Every time I look at the vision it appears to be a solid whack on Davis' throat. Giovanni sees gold, I see blue, and neither of us will ever see any different. It is a shame these incidents don't get treated consistently, but Hawkins gettting a week ban isn't 'flagrantly moronic' (and that sort of language is a good way to undermine your case), the problem is that similar incidents get a lesser punishment. We don't need a 'reasonable person' test, whatever that is. We need these incidents to consistently cop suspensions.
Pablo
Guest
Agree, Hawkins has form for the jumper punch. A guy at work once shared some of his mum's wisdom. He came home from school and complained that he got into trouble for something he didn't do. His mum asked him if he had ever done something wrong and got away with it. As the answer was of course yes she told him to stop whinging and move on. And we should move on too. No-one was hanged, Hawkins chose not to appeal, Geelong won and Hawkins had a week off.
mdso
Guest
Good suggestion but far too practical and too much common sense for the AFL. No change required.
While we're at it
Guest
Tom Hawkins has got a lot of form in this area. He has been jumper punching for a long time now, and due to his physical build, ie huge upper body strength, in combination with his height, he has regularly attacked the head of an opposition player in a surreptitious manner. I for one was glad to see him rubbed out, and to set an example that any hitting to the head, with or without a jumper involved, will not be tolerated. A love tap to the tummy is unlikely to lead to the recipient missing a match due to an injury, but a cracked tooth, badly bruised jaw or face, may in fact determine whether a player can go on.
Cat
Roar Guru
The real issue with this, in my opinion anyway, is the virtual impossibility of players/teams to appeal. This was a decision that absolutely should have been appealed, however, the risk of missing that extra week is just too much. Perhaps we need a system where the tribunal quietly and privately reviews all MRP decisions that result in suspensions and has the power to say 'Wait a minute, we think the MRP's decision might be incorrect, we'd like to take a deeper look into it". Then you would proceed with the normal tribunal process, but without the player/team risking further weeks. The tribunal could say, upon further review and hearing from all parties involved we back the MRP's decision and it stands. Or, they could say, upon further review we disagree with the MRP and the new outcome is ...
vocans
Guest
I'm always on about too much ad hockery and not enough total game analysis in the AFL approach to rules and interpretations. So, I'll leave that there. Hawkins was a victim of inconsistency or Lynch was a beneficiary - which? Customs not just fashions are changing and, just because the 'fashionistas' might piggy back along with it, doesn't mean we should stand by the assault ethos in footy. Skill in all things including use of the body should be the criterion for a complete review of the rules and interpretations.