For the first time in my lifetime of watching footy, I have become genuinely concerned about the future success of the game.
Those who run the AFL must act now to save the game.
The season so far has produced upset after upset, creating immense unpredictability and proving impossible for tipsters.
Yet in a season where the first three rounds should be celebrated and fans should be filled with excitement, many are quickly losing faith in the AFL, left confused and furious towards the officiating.
Claims that the footy is unwatchable and the AFL is ruining the game are spreading around social media like wildfire.
Here are five things the AFL needs to do now to save Australian rules from becoming unwatchable.
1. Consistency on the punching stamp-out
When James Sicily and Jaeger O’Meara gave away free kicks while playing the Bulldogs in Round 2, the AFL world – non-Hawthorn supporters included – were left scratching their heads.
(Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
Both frees were for open-handed pushing and shoving that is seen in almost every game, and has been for as long as I’ve been watching footy.
These ridiculous frees came at a crucial time in a quarter that became more heavily influenced by the umpires than the players themselves.
Yet the AFL came out and gave these decisions the all clear, following up by informing clubs that they would continue to pay them to stamp out pushing and shoving.
So why then, in Round 3, did numerous incidents of an almost identical nature not result in a free kick?
Either you want to go hard on this issue to eliminate it from the game quickly, or you don’t. Make up your mind.
2. Fix the rule about contact below the knees
When Tom Phillips desperately dived on a loose ball in the grand final replay on Saturday night, it should’ve been a brilliant example of hunger for the footy all of the aspiring AFL stars around Australia.
But it was free kick against him.
This rule was initially introduced to discourage players from sliding in late and potentially injuring their opposition’s knees or lower legs.
But Patrick Dangerfield voiced on Twitter what every AFL fan was thinking.
The AFL needs to either scrap this rule, or redefine it to prevent more disgraceful calls like the one we saw in Round 3.
3. Scrap the 6-6-6 warning
Three rounds in, there is no longer a need for a warning if a team breaches the 6-6-6 rule.
Whether or not you thought St Kilda’s breach against Freo in the dying seconds was intentional, the warning needs to be scrapped.
St Kilda were within five points of the Dockers with just eight seconds left, and had an extra in the forward line at the bounce.
This could have been a tactic for two reasons.
Firstly, on the off chance it goes unnoticed, the Saints have an extra marking option inside 50. Or the fact the ball has to be thrown up after a warning rather than bounced saves precious seconds.
To avoid exploitation of the rule, get rid of the warning.
This may seem like a minor change that will have little influence on fans, but given the new 2019 rule changes were met with disapproval from many fans, it’s important they get them right early.
4. Bring back the old interpretation of holding the ball
Hearing half of the crowd at a footy game howl ‘BALL!’ in unison is a beautiful part of the atmosphere of going to the footy, and should generate healthy passion in fans when a call doesn’t go their way.
Sadly, calls that fans don’t agree with are now just deepening the growing frustration towards the game’s officiating.
(Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
Nick Riewoldt said on SEN Breakfast on Monday morning that holding the ball calls were now a “lottery” and a “coin toss”.
Spectators are being left confused and dazed by unexplainable calls.
Bring it back to the basics: the interpretation we had ten years ago.
5. Be more consistent
Of course, umpires are only human and slightly different interpretations of certain occurrences are inevitable.
But in Sunday’s game between Hawthorn and North Melbourne, it was pretty clear from the get go that the umps weren’t going to tolerate any late whacks or contact to a player who had marked the ball, and weren’t afraid to pay a 50 to those that did.
So when Ben Cunnington wandered right into Chad Wingard’s protected zone as he was lining up for goal, and casually brushed the ball out of the Hawk recruit’s hands, the non-50 call became the most inexplicable call of the game. Mind-boggling.
Inconsistent umpiring has been a feature every round of the season thus far, this glaring example being just one of many.
These five things need to be urgently dealt with by the AFL to quickly mend the relationship between itself – the governing body – and fans that have been in love with the game for their entire life.
If this doesn’t happen soon, the damage could be permanent.
Lukey Miller
Guest
I think the free kick for diving at the legs of the opposing player must be retained, it is just that adjudicating decisions consistently is difficult with 3 field umpires officiating (not to mention that 27 umpires are officiating across a round). I think I would have paid Cripps the free, but the 50 metres was harsh in the circumstances. The AFL can not get rid of the diving at the legs free kick so players will need to get used to it and keep their feet more (easy for me to say from where I am sitting).
Daz
Roar Pro
While I think there are a several fundamental issues with consistency, especially around the treatment of "stars" versus "ordinary" players, I think one of the unmentioned issues is advantage. Often the player is deemed to have taken advantage when they play on before the call is made, and they want to take the ball back and have a free kick, but it's too late. There should be no reason why when advantage is called, that the player shouldnt still have the choice whether to take advantage, or come back. Surely it won't slow down the game too much for that.
Daz
Roar Pro
In the end, the umpiring doesn't affect the game that much. The better teams win, the poorer teams lose. This happens regardless of the umpires.
Daz
Roar Pro
The thing is, they introduced the rule as it is, and then everyone whinges when a team tries to exploit it. It's within the rules to just get a warning, let them do it to get a tactical advantage. If Freo also didn't have a warning already, they could have done the same, but they didn't. Kinda the same with the 30 seconds for a shot on goal. Just last night BT said one of the players was "milking" the clock. He has 30 seconds, how he choses to use that 30 seconds is up to him. There's no rule that states you have to use as small amount of the 30 seconds as possible just because you think someone takes too long.
Darren
Guest
That’s what the rule Cat posted says Richie. Cat says you can’t have a free kick against you for holding the ball if you had no prior. Literally it’s correct but a free for incorrect disposal when you had no prior will be the same signal from the umpire as not disposing of the ball when you had prior. The cry of ball is valid invoth instances.
User
Roar Rookie
It's most likely a reflection that people and their opinions are easily manipulated by those who need to create issues to validate their own jobs. It happens every year Pete, people cry the umpiring in crisis but at the end of the day it's quite sad, expected but sad.
Parer Ben
Roar Rookie
Nice to know. I wonder what makes this special? Either way it felt right.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Or it is people concerned that their appreciation of our great game is being tainted by the umpiring.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
I never said it was the best of the year. I said they put away their whistles. It is inconsistent to the rest of the year which makes it a farce. have it one way or the other but don't change it for the Grand Final.
RT
Roar Rookie
I think you got it the wrong way around, but it is more forgivable than either of them.
RT
Roar Rookie
Well I guess Cat is saying you don't have to dispose of it properly but you have to attempt to.
Porta22
Roar Rookie
The rule regarding the 6-6-6 is that after a warning the umpire throws it up. So it was not the umpires choice to throw it up but through protocol.
Darren
Guest
15.2.3 (ii) is exactly the pt I was making. Are you agreeing your original pt that holding the ball only applies when a player has prior opportunity was incorrect?
DTM
Guest
I think you are partly right on the Phillips issue. I can see the justification for the free kick (based on the rules). The umpire made a split second call that Phillips dived at the legs of the player (I think it was Cripps). The AFL justifiably, wants to stamp out this action to avoid the ugly broken legs. So I think the free kick was ok, with a slow motion replay you can see maybe Cripps milked the opportunity or turned slightly to minimise contact but the umps don't have the benefit of this. With regards to the 50m penalty, you are spot on and this was an error of judgement on the umpires part. Stephenson was not trying to delay the game or gain an advantage and the umpire should have understood that and not awarded the 50m. There was a later incident that did deserve a 50m but was not paid.
User
Roar Rookie
You do realise the reason umpiring in gf is usually the best of the year is because the three best umpires are there. It is unfeasible to have that standard all year.
User
Roar Rookie
This article is like a transcript of every footy panel show out there. Talks of crisis and not focussing on the thing that counts which is awesome footy is the world of talk back callers and online whingers.
Cat
Roar Guru
The only illegal disposal by the Laws of the Game is either throwing or handing the ball to a player. All other times it depends whether there is prior or not.
Cat
Roar Guru
15.2.3 Holding the Football – Prior Opportunity/No Prior Opportunity (a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football: (i) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled; (ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so; or (iii) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent, the Player shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity 15.3 FREE KICKS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF THE FOOTBALL 15.3.1 Correct Disposal A Player Correctly Disposes of the football if the Player Kicks or Handballs the football. 15.3.2 Incorrect Disposal and Payment of Free Kick When the football is in play, a Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who hands the football to another Player or throws the football.
Darren
Guest
Not my understanding Cat. Prior opportunity means you can have a free kick against you for not disposing of the ball (I.e keep it) If you dispose of the ball incorrectly drop/throw that is still a free kick against- unless the umpire seems the ball was dislodged by the tackle.
Darrwn
Guest
1: I don’t see this as a bid deal or anything new 2: The rule is clear - Dangerfield doesn’t like it. In the eg. you refer to Phillips went to ground and Cripps didn’t. Phillips is lucky Cripps took action to avoid the danger or he could have caused serious damage. 3. It’s a new rule, warnings run out in a few weeks. If we didn’t have a warning people would be whing. 4. Remind me again of the interpretation of holding the ball from 10 years ago? This one changes within season let alone acros seasons. But please don’t bring in the crowd screaming ball - that has very little correlation with the rule 5: The eg. you use has fallen apart already as Brian has commented that it shouldn’t have been a 50. This reads more like stuff you don’t like than urgent issues for the game. Are you a Hawks supporter by chance?