Controversy seems to be the resting state of the game these days – particularly when it comes to free kicks.
But while there was plenty of it in Sydney’s clash with Richmond – and we’re going to be hearing about a lot of it in the next few days – this was just too good a game to not have the footy be the main focus.
This was a cracking game of twists and turns, literally right to the final siren, between both sides desperate to occupy that 5-8 space on the ladder by the end of the season. Both the Tigers and Swans have flaws, sure, but they play high-octane, aggressive footy at their best that resulted in end-to-end action with momentum swings aplenty.
If you’re still looking for reasons to love the game, this match offered all you could ask for.
The reaction to Lance Franklin’s evening at the office probably tells us quite a bit about the imbalance of priorities around the modern footy landscape. It’s incredible that a 35-year old forward, having missed a full 18 months of footy in the not-too-recent past, can still shape the outcome of a match to the extent he is at the moment.
Yet for many in the media, the big talking point for the next 24 hours will be his incident with Trent Cotchin, in which he may or may not have landed a blow to the chin of the former Tigers captain.
For that to be the story, and not his superhuman final quarter in which he looked like kicking a goal every time the ball went near him (he’d end up with three for the term) is, I would argue, more of a problem than any off-the-ball free kick or dodgy holding the ball. If we can’t enjoy a high-scoring game like that, warts and all, then maybe we don’t deserve more.
Franklin was magnificent. After half time, the Swans were too. Let’s worry about whether he misses next week… next week.
For much of the first half, it was vintage Richmond at the SCG. Phenomenal tackling pressure across the ground, a perfectly tuned defensive structure that strangled the life out of Sydney’s forward forays, and ruthlessly efficient with every attacking foray, they looked every bit back to their triple flag-winning best.
Ferocious in close, it was veterans Shane Edwards and Trent Cotchin having as big a say as anyone; Toby Nankervis was a titan in the ruck, and Daniel Rioli and Nick Vlastuin rebounding at will.
The Tigers’ first four goals all came from clearances, with the Swans’ defence unable to cope with quick and precise Richmond entries. It could have been even more emphatic had Tom Lynch’s marking power been available; but the visitors were more than up to feasting at ground level.
Edwards, Hugo Ralphsmith and Maurice Rioli were among those in the thick of the action, with Rioli’s major – coming after two Swans got in a terrible tangle contested the same high ball – epitomising their defensive disarray.
Franklin’s goal on the stroke of half time – coming moments after his clash with Cotchin – was just about the only thing keeping the Swans in the hunt. It would prove a portent of things to come. Poke the bear at your own peril.
Lance Franklin celebrates a goal. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
The difference after half time – following a stern talking-to from assistant Don Pyke, brought to the club for his attacking prowess – was stark. Winning the ball at the coalface far more, moving the ball directly and finally stable in defence, it was a completely different Swans.
Central to it all was the bold move by John Longmire to switch Callum Mills into defence. Risking their centre deficiency becoming even more profound, the change paid instant dividends. No more were the Tigers able to swarm like bees around the honeypot when the ball hit the ground: instead, Mills arrived from three deep, spoiling the ball into safer waters.
The stat line doesn’t tell of his influence there, with the Tigers suddenly unable to move the ball forward by hook or by crook with Mills sitting in the hole. They’d managed only one mark inside 50 in the entire second half, having taken four in the first.
Just as influential in midfield was Chad Warner; quelled early, his electric movement out of the centre was a sight to behold after half time. Regularly cutting through the middle, his pace was a game-changer: the Tigers, in contrast, had no one to do likewise, with Shai Bolton largely remaining forward.
And of course, on the end of it all was Franklin. Up to half time, youngster Josh Gibcus, with help from Dylan Grimes and Vlastuin, had done a mighty job restricting the great man. Refusing to engage one on one, he used his athleticism to give Buddy an inch of space, then close the gap with a timely spoil.
But with more space in the second half, that tactic would start to unravel. Franklin hasn’t kicked 1000-plus goals without having more than one trick up his sleeve: pushing hard up the ground then sprinting back, his ability to find open space was Gibcus’ kryptonite.
As exciting as the first-year back is, he’ll need a few years to earn Alex Rance’s experience and defensive nous. With the Tigers’ defence falling down around him amid a weight of entries, Buddy exploded.
Okay, now to the controversy. Let’s start with the big one: Warner booting the ball away on the final siren, not realising a free kick had been paid to Prestia.
Was it a 50-metre penalty? There’s no doubt you can make a serious case for it. But you often see players get away with kicking the ball away in the instant a free is paid. ‘Common sense’ was the call from the umpires at hand; it’s a no-win situation for the umps whichever way they had gone. Surely there’s some empathy for the decision, even if you disagree with it.
My take is that it would have been a far worse outcome if the 50m penalty had been paid for it, setting up a shot on the siren. Warner, caught up in the exhilaration of a thrilling win, reacted thinking the game was over: had he known a free had been paid, there’s no way known he would have booted it away and risked turning the impossible into the very possible for Dion Prestia. It was right on the siren, too: I’ve got no doubt in my mind he didn’t hear the whistle, or assumed it was the one for full time.
The argument that anywhere else on the ground, or at any other time, it would have been paid 50 is beside the point, too: is Warner kicking the ball into the stands with five minutes to go in the game? No.
10 years ago? 50 every day of the week. But the game is no longer militant on continuing play after the whistle. Had it been paid, there’s every chance 50 per cent of the footy world would have hammered it anyway as another example of the umpires inserting themselves into the game.
By the letter of the law, Rule 19.2 of the AFL law book states that a 50m penalty can be awarded “if the field umpire is of the opinion that a player… has not returned the football directly and on the full to the player awarded the mark or free kick”. But that is extremely open to interpretation, including the consideration as to whether Warner had heard the call.
Equally, the following sub-clause states that a 50m penalty will be awarded for “any conduct which delays or impedes the play”, which might be the more appropriate clause to consider here. The siren had gone – there was no time to waste. And more to the point, Prestia was far, far too far out for goal to have any chance of kicking the goal. All kicking the ball into the stands would have done is delay the period before which Prestia had the chance to fall 40 metres short.
In any case, it’s another one of those decisions where either call would have been reasonable for the umpires to make… and then got shredded by social media for the rest of the week. Similarly to the infamous ‘Dane Rampe shakes the point post’ incident against Essendon three years ago, the call was made to not award the 50m penalty.
I think both decisions were justifiable by the spirit of the game. You, very reasonably, could argue I’m an idiot. That’s just how this game works.
I’m less happy to tick off the numerous incidents of ‘prohibited contact’ that led to another spate of frees. With 60 for the night, it wasn’t quite as whistle-happy as the Hawthorn-Brisbane game – but some of the frees, most particularly one against Daniel Rioli in the third quarter for the mildest of bumps and one against Robbie Tarrant in the first few minutes for an infringement I’m yet to comprehend – was certainly dicey.
Do we want to see those free kicks paid? No. Is there a directive from higher up to try and stamp all unnecessary off the ball contact out of the game? Clearly.
However, there’s also no denying that the large scorelines in both games – 106-100 tonight, 117-112 in Tasmania – have been brought about to some extent by the number of frees paid. There were millions paid in the ’90s, when scoring was at an all-time high, and people seem to look back on those years fondly enough.
Perhaps it’s time we choose: either a high-scoring, electric game like tonight with the odd free that we can grumble about; or a sport where the umps put the whistle away and we end with a far scrappier contest with repeat rolling mauls.
There will always be controversy in the AFL – there’s too much gray area, too many vested interests. But this game was a classic, and I’m willing to put up with a bit of controversy to get more matches as good as that.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"The decision to not award the 50 was the object of dissent" No it wasn't, because that's not what happened. The umpire hadn't made a decision to award the 50 or not. He was discussing it like it was a committee, in and around the players. Stevic then overalled his decision. This is unacceptable from the umpires, and I doubt that's even protocol. At the very least, they should have taken it away from the players and discussed it privately. Now, anything after that decision is dissent, but not before, simply because the umpire hasn't made a decision. The players are merely highlighting to him the issues, which he can take on board. I'm not aware of any rule that allows the umpire to reverse the free simply because the players are providing feedback while he's making a decision. Do you now understand why it's more complex than most make it out to be?
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Wouldn't dare... The decision to not award the 50 was the object of dissent, so yes,the free should have been reversed. As I said, a long way up this thread. I do apologize for my poor example. Oracle doesn't realise that we've had lengthy discussions in the dim distant.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
No dispute with the wording of rule 19.1 but I would hope that you would agree that when the umpires award any free kick for any offence like a high tackle, a push out in the marking contest or a playing knowingly delaying play after a free kick is awarded, that the umpire is” quite confident” that the actual offence has been committed. The last thing our game needs is for umpires to be spinning the chocolate wheel when making a decision. As I previously stated, the offence was committed out of Warner’s line of vision & only metres from the vocal fans on the boundary line. He then kicked the ball into the stands like players often do after the final siren. No offence for that. If you want a 50-metre penalty awarded every time for any type of play on after a free kick is awarded whether the player is or is not aware of the free kick, the game will become ridiculous. We have already seen the public’s outcry over the umpires overzealous ruling on 50 metre penalties for very minor forms player dissent. Both the fans & the media are pleading for more common sense to be shown.
RT
Roar Rookie
Mr Right, your first sentence is simply not true. The rule states 19.1 After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner. There is nothing to state the umpire has to be ''quite confident" about what the player heard. This is just the way the AFL interpret their rule lately (probably since the penalty is so high), but I can still think of many times I have seen a 50 m penalty when it is likely the player has not heard the whistle. I still believe a 50 m penalty was technically the right decision but I agree that we don't want that as a benchmark and the non-50 was a better outcome. However, had Prestia been a bit closer to goal with 50 m out and all the players were around the ball (i.e. vacant goalsquare) and he was denied the opportunity to dribble it through with a quick shot, then I would say otherwise. Deliberate or not, Warner would have denied him that opportunity and the 50 m would have been better. That is the problem with the inconsistent application of rules.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I understand you are viewing this issue thru your Tigers allegiance but I am quite sure with your long-term footy knowledge you aware that a 50m penalty could only be imposed if the umpires are quite confident that the player was aware that a free kick was awarded & still chose to play on. Whether he kicked it into the stands, back down the ground or even hand balled to a team mate is irrelevant under AFL rules. Yes, a player doesn’t normally kick it into the stands in normal play, but he kicked it in that direction after the final siren & obviously that is very common indeed. BTW, I only ask you two questions in my previous post. The one other question I want to ask you is do you really want to see Warner’s so-called indiscretion set as the bench mark for all future rulings as to whether a player has deliberately ignored the free kick & continues to play on?
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Yeah there is still a bit of room to improve his theatrics I suppose - he could learn some lessons off the best in the game, his teammate Dylan Grimes. :silly: But seriously, most players would just get a fine for what Buddy did. Repeat offenders like Toby Greene should deservedly be treated harsher by the tribunal, but Buddy is a cleanskin over a long time and should be treated the same as others.
Yattuzzi
Roar Rookie
Not to be too pedantic, Chris is the Geelong coach.
RT
Roar Rookie
Lots of questions there Mr Right. Definitely Richmond should have been able to hold on and a bit of ill discipline cost them. The non-50 is subjective, so I am more responding to some of the comments here dismissing the idea that 50 could have been paid. In the comment on this little sub-thread, I am pointing out that a player who didn't hear a whistle and kicking the ball forward is not the same as kicking it straight into the crowd (which would be a deliberate in normal play anyway and I bet it would be a 50 m penalty rather than the didn't hear it excuse.) On the subject of not hearing it, I think a lot of the time players do hear the whistle but are thinking it is their free and playing advantage. The enthusiasm all round for advantage contributes, but that is another issue. My other comments were directed at someone claiming it couldn't be 50 because it is time wasting and the siren had sounded so you can't waste time. That is rubbish and for what is worth I thought that incident of a Sydney player climing the post a few years ago should have resulted in a free in front of goals rather than the umpire telling him to get down. (Just writing that makes the umpire's actions sound ludicrous.) From memory it also delayed play which can put off the player 50 m out having the shot and the same could be said about Prestia in this case. (I don't know but maybe at that point the goalsquare was empty and a long kick could have dribbled in - unlikely but this is to make the point that you can't say flat out that Richmond were not disadvantaged by the kick into the crowd. For this reason alone I think the 50 probably should have stood. No I haven't seen a player penalised for kicking a ball into the crowd after the siren, but I can't recall a player doing this when the opposition is having a shot after the siren. I have seen 50 m paid for other indescretions in this scenario (or 15 m in the case of Jim Stynes running over a mark). As for Jack, have other players been fined for dissent this year? I thought it was all about free kicks and 50m. I wouldn't be fining players in this scenario anyway. We had a situation where 3 umpire were arguing about whether or not it was 50m and the umpire closest was overruled. How often does that happen? Would it have happened if it was the end of any other quarter? I think the chances are much lower so cut Jack some slack.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
I can't say I've ever seen a comment on the Roar that I've ever ever agreed with more! But Nick you've nailed it. Players more than umpires make magnitude of errors every game and it's just easily glossed over. The players get paid astronomically more than umpires yet avoid all the scrutiny. How we keep allowing this narrative about it being bad for the game and it's all the umpires fault... let's pull our heads in and get on playing the game.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Good morning RT, it must have been a hard loss to take after being in a such a strong position. We see players kicking the ball into the crowd or 50 metres away after the final siren quite regularly & I have never seen a player get penalised for it. Have you? Players are penalised for playing on for the purpose of alloying their own defenders to set themselves up in a better position. This would have not helped Richmond in the slightest. The free kick was given by the umpire out of his line of vision as Warner was running straight to the boundary line & the noise level down there would have been immense. All he would have heard is the crowd & the loud final siren. Common sense was shown by the umpire, the ball was bought back to the mark & the free kick was given. 50 metres should only have been awarded in that situation if there was foul play or umpire abuse. BTW, do you think Jack will get fined for his behaviour towards the umpire after the siren?
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
You’re the one who has implied John Howarth was incorrect. I’m simply saying some believed a 50 could have been warranted under the circumstances. Therefore he wouldn’t have been incorrect in applying the rules to the given situation. The process has failed, if indeed another umpire cannot overrule another. The less controversial outcome may have occurred this time but this may lead to a precedence being set where a future incidence occurs where an umpire overrules, and, they are clearly wrong. Should that occur, then this incident could be to blame. One persons take on common sense is another persons madness at times. You cannot always legislate for it. That’s why rules are in place. I totally understand why you may not get that. Most won’t look at the bigger picture.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
“ In answer to your question: suppose that process fails again, and a future overriding umpire calls something similar but wrong, then yes, in that case, I’d rather the wrong call be made for the greater good, i.e. the process is upheld.‘ Two responses.. 1. You’ve implied the process has failed. That’s incorrect. 2. You’ve argued the process is more important that the right outcome. Despite your lengthy post where it’s clear you’ve given the topic quite some consideration, I still don’t understand that thinking.
RT
Roar Rookie
I'm not sooking about it, just correcting a false statement.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Can’t believe you’re sooking about this. Siren sounds, player is to far out to score, game is over.
RT
Roar Rookie
No the game is not over when the siren sounds if someone has a free or mark. You have observed players kicking for goal after a siren, I assume. There were numerous grounds that the 50 m penalty could have been awarded under the Rules of the Game that were not specifically for time wasting.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
No you’re not wrong. The game is over when the siren sounds. Can’t be a fifty for time wasting when there is no time left.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
I find it ironic that fans, media, players and coaches are pleading for umpires to show some "common sense" and some being so technical, and when they do... they come down on them like a ton of bricks! As you say, Tim, if he did give the 50m, then there'd be just as many people screaming about that being unfair, being too technical and, ironically, not showing "common sense". So, if it's 50/50, why not err on the side of "common sense"? Isn't that what we all really want? BTW No comment about all the players dissenting the decision? I thought that this excessive was exactly the thing the AFL wanted to stamp out? (Ironically, on Twitter, many have said it wouldn't have happened if the ump paid the 50m... erm... That's the whole point of the dissent rule!! To stop players arguing back if they don't like the decision)
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Thanks. I appreciate the comment.
Dusty does Danger
Roar Rookie
DD May have had a disagreements over time but you have put forward a thought provoking response not appreciated by the uneducated. It seems that was the most common sense decision made all night and it’s a shame that there were not more common sense decisions made during the game. I was at the Lions game today and the umpires made the game a better spectacle by allowing it to flow. As for Doc rod, what is he on about bringing in personal stuff in this forum - not on!
Dusty does Danger
Roar Rookie
Buddy should be happy with that. You are right, pretty easy to break a jaw with an open palm when the jaw is not locked. If it was Lynch the Lynch mob would be after him!