The Round 2 clash between Geelong and Brisbane, effectively decided in the last minute of the game by an umpiring non-decision, could have major ramifications for finals aspirations and ladder positions.
While clearly not condoning that Collingwood fan’s outburst against umpires following last week’s Collingwood-Brisbane game, there are and have been significant umpiring issues this year (and previously) associated particularly with the holding/dropping the ball rule.
What exactly is prior opportunity and how is it properly measured and communicated to players? I shudder to think of the possibility of a grand final outcome being determined by a wrong or non-decision or a contentious interpretation.
As a Magpies tragic I am particularly sensitive to this given the Wayne Harmes knock-on from (outside!) the boundary line in 1979 grand final and the disallowed goal against Anthony Rocca in the 2002 grand final.
(Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
I also do not buy the argument that free kicks even themselves out in the end. While numerically teams may gain approximately the same number of free kicks at the end of play, the impact of a decision in the first minute of play is vastly different from the ramifications of a free kick deep in time-on in the last quarter when the game is on the line.
Umpiring AFL is tricky, and to be sure it’s difficult to get everything right all the time, especially given that the ball pings from one end of the ground to the other in a matter of seconds. Interpretation is still part and parcel of the game. This is where I think a decision review system (DRS) could be brought into play.
There are a host of rules and interpretations in AFL, and I would not suggest that DRS be brought into the frame for every single ruling, just at least in the first instance for holding/dropping the ball. Otherwise the game would go nowhere.
Before I get laughed off this site, hear me out.
Allow five holding/dropping the ball reviews for each team to an umpire off the field who would have full access to slow-motion vision and replays. Ten seconds would be allowed to request a review. The review could be for a decision made – or a non-decision, as in the case of Mark Blicavs in the Geelong-Brisbane game. Hypothetically the Lions could have challenged the non-decision of holding the ball in the goal square.
To ensure that the game does not get bogged down, I suggest that more focus might be put in place. This could be through limiting the reviews to the final quarter of a game and/or limiting reviews to decisions or non-decisions that occur in the 50-metre arcs at each end of the ground. I have a particular preference for the latter. By concentrating the reviews in the 50-metre arcs the impact of decisions on potential goalscoring could be addressed.
As in cricket, a successful challenge could mean retention of the right to review. Unlike cricket, I think a third umpire decision could be simply whether a decision is correct or incorrect on balance. A simpler approach than cricket is necessary given the frenetic nature of AFL. In cricket the decision about whether more or less than 50 per cent of the ball would hit the stumps in the case of LBWs is needlessly complex.
The technology of replays is certainly there, so why not use it? After all, the goal review is now largely an accepted part of the game. As for whether teams would somehow use the decision review system to gain a tactical advantage, such as by changing field positions and utilising the interchange bench during the delay in play while the review is underway, this could occur during a goal review.
And in any case, does it matter? It all adds to the theatre and drama. Imagine the further fever-pitched excitement in a grand final if the game is awarded on the basis of a successful review overturning a holding the ball decision or non-decision.
The decision to review could be up to review leaders in each team – say, a captain of reviews in the front half and back half if the 50-metre arc rule were put in place. This is because the actual captain of the team may not be in the vicinity at the time of the alleged umpiring error.
Such an approach could be trialled in the preseason competition. It’s not as though the AFL is averse to tinkering with rules.
Such an approach would have further benefits. Firstly, it could reduce the crowd angst over umpires, which can clearly get ugly otherwise. Second, through the lessons from this experience overall umpiring standards could be raised.
One further point relates to umpiring more generally – there is a strong argument for attracting more ex-players into the umpiring group. The deliberate out of bounds rule is a case in point of the lack of feel for the game by some umpires. Hacked kicks out of defence when under pressure are not deliberate decisions.
Rob
Guest
Totally agree
George Apps
Roar Rookie
No.
The Dom is good
Roar Rookie
consistency is the elephant in the room . One ump pays a free in front of goal to one side and the exact same scenario the other end is play on or ball up. Umps must have a different interpretation of the rules or they have a soft spot for a team
Mark.
Roar Rookie
Must have missed it. When was this?
Macca
Roar Rookie
The only thing you need to change is stop the umpires trying to make the game about them, you can almost guarantee in a close game with the trailing team charging hard that a hack kick out of defence by the team in front, that trickles over the boundary line with a team mate within 5m will be called for deliberate.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
Simple increase and tie the umpire wage to the median match fees paid to players but also make them subject to the review process that players are subject to
Lukey Miller
Guest
No thanks, a review system for field umpire decisions would be a cluster. Bad enough the shambolic goal decision reviews, but field decisions would become unmanageable - umpires have enough problems making decisions now without being reviewed on the spot. I've got a better idea: get rid of Razor Ray and develop umpires that can make consistent, sensible decisions (including actually looking after mauled ball players better). What about getting a few that can bounce the ball well - it wasn't long ago that almost every umpire was very competent at this. The umpire has to make decisions and not try to be the central figure in the game, which is one of Ray's worst faults.
Alchemist
Roar Rookie
Considering it started out as goal line reviews now all of a sudden incorporates a touched ball seemingly up to 50m away has me worried they'll eventually bring in some sort of review system. It only started to correct the howlers by goal umpires but were there really that many to warrant bring it in? Ironically there's more howlers in the review system than there was without it. Plus don't even get me started on the quality of the review video. The Lumière brothers would be chuckling at the poor quality. Then there's the break in play which completely kills the momentum of a game.
Boo
Guest
Years ago an American guy told me AFL will never catch on in the US because there aren't enough breaks for beer commercials .Bring in an umpire review system on top of goal review there will be too much non game time in a match .Footy is a game played on an odd shaped ground with an odd shaped ball mistakes both by player and umpire are part of the folklore of the game .
Paul2
Guest
No
Holdingtheball
Roar Rookie
Hickey was holding the ball. I preferred the old rule. If a ruckman takes full passion, is tacled and doesn't dispose correctly. He's gone. There should be no such rule as jarred free. Considering there is no rule of dropping the ball. Free kicks should be team penalties, not player. If you handball and that player is tackled and brought down. Gone! Don't like last touch penalty. If you want to penalise last touch, throw it in 20 metres down field.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I'm ok with leaving it with umpires too. Interpretations allow for great to and froing in post game chat. Reviews are inconclusive anyway and will not silence a Grand Final blooper discussion. A reviewer is just one more interpreter. Besides umpires have always affected GF results (2013...Matt?).
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Nope. Funniest thing in Syd vs Ess last night. Ess' players appealed vociferously for a free. Umpy. "that's not a rule".
Tassie.
Roar Rookie
Far too much left up to umps interpretation. If possible take that out of their hands. Not in a review, but make it more black & white. ( hasten to add: definitely NOT a pies supporter)
MarkyMark57
Roar Rookie
Chip, excellent suggestion put forward here. The idea of DRS will place less pressure on umpire decisions and as you said, reduce crowd angst.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Thanks for the article but no.
Jude
Guest
An interesting concept, something worth thinking about.
JB
Guest
The cynic in me believes that the AFL are at some level actually quite ok with variables in interpretation of many of the rules. Particularly when you see how much noise is generated by the crowds at games and emotive post game analysis by both the media and fans alike. Personally, I am not fan of the idea of a review system. I would however love to see the AFL introduce the 'last touch out of bounds' rule that has been successfully used in the SANFL for the last 5 seasons. https://sanfl.com.au/juniors/news/last-possession-out-of-bounds/ It's simple, extremely easy to interpret for players and fans alike, and importantly it takes ambiguity of the umpires trying to determine a players intent out of the equation.
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
Not going to happen. I understand trying to maximise fairness but in-play reviews would create more problems than they solve. . For players to challenge a non-decision would be weird in almost any sport. Video reviews are universally to review decisions made or to help at points that decisions have to be made ( ie a try in rugby, a penalty or goal in soccer, a completion in NFL). I can think of no sport where players can stop the game and demand a review mid action. It would be far too open to abuse at moments when it benefits a team to stop the play and reset. Especially in a game that flows as constantly as Aussie rules which is its great strength. And why just a last quarter? Why just in a forward 50? An umpiring mistake is a mistake wherever. Fans will as ever have to continue to live with umpiring errors. In this case that remains the lesser evil.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
No