It’s good to see the umpires getting a right old whack for their umpiring.
I don’t care about the quantity of free kicks awarded. Idiots complain about the quantity of free kicks. Quantity should neither be mediated nor capped; it’s purely an outcome of what’s happening, and with that being the qualification, it could have wild swings from game to game depending on what’s happening.
The biggest problem is consistency.
It’s not just from season to season, from round to round, from game to game or even from quarter to quarter.
The problem is from incident to incident.
You’ll see it so frequently. A decision is paid and then not two kicks later you see the same thing happen and it’s ignored.
Why are interpretations so malleable?
Is it because we have a sport where we bandy new rules every year, tweak interpretations endlessly and have created so many grey areas that the game itself has become a Bermuda Triangle of enigmatic outcomes? Yet we deign umpires as sacrosanct, and therefore examination never burrows very deep. Without examination, there’s no real improvement. Why would there be when there’s limited accountability?
To be fair (to the umpires), the AFL just stonewalls complaints until we capitulate and just accept inexplicable interpretations as idiosyncrasies of the game. Instead of criticism, we consign schizoid interpretations to the realm of novelty and view such incidents with wry amusement. Eventually we stop commenting.
Which is exactly how we’ve arrived at this mess.
“It’s a hard game to umpire,” we’re told.
Well, it is when the rules, interpretations and expectations are so unstable in nature.
I’m not blaming the umpires. I’m glad they’re getting a whack, because it’s drawing the focus back to the rules.
But the mandates come from higher above.
Here are all the rules that are broken.
(Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Kicking in danger
Does it exist? Doesn’t it? It happens so often throughout a game that a player will kick the ball just as an opponent’s about to grab it, but only the odd exception is paid to remind everybody that the rule exists. It’s up there with Bigfoot sightings and yet somehow has less credibility.
The AFL should either honour the rule or do away with it entirely.
Of course, if they did away with it entirely, we’d be rewarded with a plethora of broken fingers and broken hands, at which time the AFL will decide to reconstitute the rule.
It’ll be like a dog eating its own vomit.
Deliberate
This has become farcical. Any time a player kicks, handballs or punches the ball out of bounds and a teammate isn’t in the vicinity, it’s deliberate.
Let’s forget that sometimes players are just clearing the ball from defence with a blind kick or soccering it along or punching it to stop an opponent from getting it. There is any number of legitimate reasons that a player might move the ball on from the immediate area. But if it goes out, then that must’ve always been the player’s sole intent. Forget everything else.
The AFL has made this an arbitrary rule that ignores common sense and disposes of context.
And surely it’s a horrible look – if not contrary to the spirit of the game – to watch the opposition allow the ball to go over the boundary line or chaperone it over or turn and appeal to umpires before the ball’s even gone out.
(Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
The deliberate rushed behind
Does this exist anymore? Well, it’ll show up with the frequency of Halley’s comet and then be gone again for just long.
This was one of the great overreactions. Hawthorn rushed behinds in the 2008 grand final. Well, they did that because the AFL changed another rule: previously the player kicking out had to wait for the goal umpire to stop waving his flags. Once that was done away with, a player could rush, relieve pressure and then kick out before the opposition had time to reset their zones.
Then there was the Joel Bowden incident. In a tight game against Essendon, Bowden had no idea where to kick it out. The umpire called play on. Bowden’s opponent rushed him. Bowden stepped the ball back over the line for a rushed behind – smart play, really. But AFL deemed this must never happen again because it was such a bad look – which makes it ironic they’d introduce a different bad look. However, instead of disallowing the player kicking out to rush it, they deemed that rushing as an act should be illegal.
What is wrong with a rushed behind? It comes with an automatic penalty – the score of one behind. Last time I checked, teams could win a game by one behind.
Holding the ball 1: dragging the ball in
I have no problems pinging a player who dives on the ball and drags it in being penalised for holding the ball.
What I abhor is when a pyramid of players forms and despite the player on the bottom being unable to physically move, let alone dispose of the ball, they’re somehow pinged.
I would like the AFL to demonstrate how the player could possibly move, let alone dispose of the ball, in such situations.
There are plenty of times a player tries to move the ball on but is beset and then has no hope of doing anything.
Don’t worry about that, though. He (or she) is on the bottom, so they must be guilty.
(Photo by Matt King/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)
Holding the ball 2: no genuine attempt
So what the umpires have been instructed to look for is genuine mimicry that a player is attempting to dispose of the ball, even if they can’t. But if they’re pretending they’re trying, that’s all that’s important.
Dismiss the reality that the ball’s held to them and they can’t dispose of it so they don’t bother mimicking.
Pantomime is the priority.
This borders on a whole new level of stupid.
Holding the ball 3: dropping the ball/illegal disposal
How many times do you see players legitimately tackled, only to drop the ball? Or throw the ball? We have games where there are 80 tackles and yet maybe five holding-the-ball decisions paid. Wow. That team must be appalling at tackling to convert so few of those tackles into free kicks.
Or perhaps the simpler truth is that these just aren’t paid often enough – because somebody (hint: it’s the AFL) wants the ball constantly in motion.
The amount of illegal disposal during any game is rampant. And screw ‘prior opportunity’ as a defence. If you drop it or throw it, you should be pinged regardless.
Push in the back
Why do I constantly hear it’s okay to push somebody in the back as long as you don’t use your hands? A push is a push.
What confused the interpretation is the fleeting introduction of ‘hands in the back’ as a penalty. How long did that last? Just long enough to convince some morons that a push is only an issue when hands are involved.
And now we have frequent pushes in marking contests and irregular penalties.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
Ruck infringement
Two ruckmen tangle up, the umpire blows the whistle and nobody – nobody – knows which way it’s going to go.
How long has this existed? And nobody calls outs the stupidity of allowing it to prevail. Nobody demands clarification.
This is the standard-bearer of nonsense interpretations that we’ve stopped questioning.
Taking the legs out
A player dives in to win the ball and handballs it out perfectly to a teammate but is penalised for taking out an opponent’s legs in the process.
Here’s the big problem with this rule: a player should never be deprived of an option to impact (or win) a contest. For example, the ball is kicked into the forward 50. A defender has the option to punch or mark. Each option might have a different probability of success. The defender must choose what they think is their best option.
In this case the player’s only alternative to attempting to win a ground ball is to hold back and let an opponent take possession instead.
How is that right?
Of course the AFL decided that because one player had his leg broken when an opponent slid in knees-first – which used to be the qualifier but has long since been discarded – they need to ensure this never happens again.
Now we have this fun grey area. Did the player take the legs out? Was he taken high? Is it not paid at all?
Well, who knows?
Gary Rohan is tackled by Taylor Duryea. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
The stand rule
So the ball-carrier can pretend to set off, arc around the man on the mark, do the lambada, but should the man on the mark blink, it’s a 50-metre penalty.
Hmm. This seems perfectly reasonable. Let’s go back to giving an opponent an option. Previously the man on the mark could bounce around and try to throw the ball-carrier off. As long as he didn’t cross the mark, he was fine.
Not anymore. “Stand,” the umpire tells the player, like he’s a dog being taught to stay.
The biggest problem with this rule is that it wasn’t introduced to address issues with the man on the mark. It was introduced to try to speed up ball movement and decrease the possibility of congestion – the AFL were finding a way to give the ball-carrier greater freedom, speed and distance to move the ball, which meant limiting the defensive accountability of the man on the mark.
The protected area
I appreciate the need to protect the ball-carrier’s options, but how often does some opponent drifting past impinge upon the ball-carrier’s options? Yet a 50-metre penalty is awarded.
Just like the stand rule, this exists as a means to create space and distance and diffuse any potential congestion.
Players need to be allowed to maintain their zones or mind opponents rather than being told to stay out of the way.
It’s such an easy fix: if an opponent legitimate impinges upon the ball-carrier, award the 50. If not, let the game go.
Umpire dissent
This is already so hideously inconsistent that it’s quickly become an aberration.
Why shouldn’t a player be allowed to question an umpire for clarification? Why shouldn’t a player be allowed to throw their arms up in frustration?
Who is this hurting other than the AFL’s belief that player backchat and gesticulations are discouraging the next generation of umpires from taking up the game? God forbid we teach that next generation how to defuse potential volatility, manage the situation and build a rapport with players. Just let’s make sure it never happens.
It’s fine if the AFL want to penalise overt demonstrations, but for God’s sake let the players be human and be able to exclaim like we all do when some situation exasperates us.
‘It’s a hard game to umpire’
Again, that’ll be the defence. The reality is the interpretations vary so extremely from game to game and the templates for decisions are so inconclusive that it’s no shock the game’s such a mess.
There are thousands of hours of archival footage. It can’t be hard to find concrete examples that can act as guides as to how rules and their interpretations should look.
Instead of trying to make the rules arbitrary and colouring in all grey areas so they become black or white, how about we teach umpires what rules look like, how to interpret context and, when needed, apply common sense?
If we all understood the filter required, we’d all happily find that middle ground.
But instead, let’s not only allow but enable interpretations to fluctuate wildly from moment to moment.
I’m sure that’ll keep working out.
Gharner
Roar Rookie
Some good points in here, but "It’s good to see the umpires getting a right old whack for their umpiring", followed a few paragraphs later by "I’m not blaming the umpires" is quite inconsistent in itself, and does no favours to a fraternity crying out for support at lower levels in particular. My opinion on the individual issues you've queried: Kicking in danger - Maybe we watch different games because I've never thought of this as a problem. The kick first and foremost has to be in a manner likely to cause injury, and it won't be paid to someone who is second to the ball (i.e. a player attempting a smother) Deliberate The rule is no longer "deliberate" at most levels, including AFL. I'll assume you know that but it would be helpful to use the correct terminology to assist those who don't. Having said that, I largely agree as while the law is perhaps now clearer, the subjectivity has transferred from borderline obvious free kicks to assessing genuine football acts. Either go to a last touch rule (it is a historic law of the game, and could improve the spectacle by encouraging corridor play in the same way that out on the full did in the 1960s), or go back to basics. Deliberate rushed behind Agree. The second Bowden pulled his stunt, the AFL should have prevented that specific, easily enforceable action and left it at that. Far too much to assess for an umpire as it stands. Dragging the ball in - I'm confused about what you want here. You start by saying you've got no problem with pinging blokes who drag/dive, but then you're not happy with them being pinged when opponents jump on them? Maybe you've combined two categories, but the whole point of drag/dive is that it increases the chance of a stoppage, so the law makes it automatic prior opportunity to discourage the action. If the player subsequently has no chance to get rid of it, that's their problem. No genuine attempt The better umpires can tell when the ball is absolutely pinned. Law doesn't need to change but application requires work. Dropping the ball/illegal disposal I've touched on this in another comment in here. Contrary to many fans' memories, dropping the ball has not been a rule since the 1940s. The reason for this is because players hanging back to tackle each other instead of going to get the ball made the game a farce. Would be a horrendous change. Push in the back - Hands in the back was in place between 2007-18, and was introduced due to the same inconsistencies we're seeing now. Made the action much easier to police but led to a lot of soft frees. Personally I wouldn't like it to come back but there's been some bad misses this year in particular. Taking the legs out - Largely agree. The laws as they existed catered for the action that led to its more detailed introduction, and now here we are dealing with a black and white rule that isn't necessarily just. The stand rule I think it's been a success in that it has opened the game up, but I was and am against it as it was too artificial an enhancement. It's a hard rule for players and umpires alike to deal with and leads to laughable penalties like Noble's on Queen's Birthday. The protected area Another rule change that didn't think the consequences through. This was rarely an issue when it was a 5m zone but the nature of the game means its difficult to avoid a 10m area. Should only really be paid if it affects play, not against a guy gliding past and facing away from the kicker. Umpire dissent Bad change that by angering fans, only makes it harder to protect umpires at lower levels, which is why they brought it in. ‘It’s a hard game to umpire’ It is a hard game to umpire and has never been harder thanks to the mix of massive congestion and fast pace, plus the recent introduction of a series of nonsensical rules. "There are thousands of hours of archival footage. It can’t be hard to find concrete examples that can act as guides as to how rules and their interpretations should look." It's somewhat concerning you think they don't already do this. Instead of trying to make the rules arbitrary and colouring in all grey areas so they become black or white, how about we teach umpires what rules look like, how to interpret context and, when needed, apply common sense? They still do and the best umpires still get it, though I worry it may change. I do find it curious you ask not to go black and white though, shortly after asking for dropping the ball to be brought in.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Which is exactly what you don't want to see!
George Komoneski
Roar Rookie
Whilst I agree the umpiring can be frustrating, I don't think it's all that bad. As long as I can remember, umpiring has been the most contentious aspect of footy. I think generally, the umpires do a pretty good job. Most of the time and once we have seen the slow motion replay, we see the umpire made the right call. Lets be honest, most of our reactions to umpiring decisions, revolves around our fierce support of and loyalty to our respective team. How often have you stood next to someone supporting the opposition who had the complete opposite view on a decision ?
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Very good. I've hated the umpire mic. from day one, it's as if the AFL wanted to turn everything into a circus act.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Absolutely spot on Les. More rules = more confusion. I've been following football since 1956 and to be honest I'm as bewildered as the next person. Watched a game the other day where the crowd, the players and I didn't have a clue why play was stopped! This happens more than once or twice a game. Can somebody please sort this mess out!
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
The 3rd man up would be the guy who has a team mate rucking the same stoppage?
Gharner
Roar Rookie
Just about every ruck rule that has been introduced in the last 20 years has been ridiculous. When any player could contest an unpredictable bounce, you had chaos. Now non-rucks know who are contesting and they are now effectively allowed to block, so they all man up closely around the contest. Each ball-up is now homogeneous, so each contest is neutralised and the ball more often than not falls to the feet of all the one-on-ones for a repeat. Congestion is perhaps the biggest gripe of fans; these rules encourage it.
Gharner
Roar Rookie
The rule around incorrect disposal has been around for over 70 years. When 'dropping the ball' was a penalty, it was widely ridiculed because players would hang back from the footy waiting to nail the first sucker who grabbed it.
Seano
Roar Rookie
I don’t agree with all this but unfortunately this is not just a problem with the afl but Australia in general. We are as a people rule makers. We never seem to take any away. The best thing that can happen to the AFL will be big USA tv players getting some rights. They will push the barrow for what rates. Bumps tackles and goals. It’s our only hope.
Tony
Guest
This is the best article I have read on the demise of the rules. Congratulations on showing common sense is still out there, perhaps he could take Brad Scott's place, no wait he could replace the entire executive
Leighton
Guest
The core of this problem is the conflict of interest at the heart of the AFL commission. The rules are massaged and fooled with to manufacture a commercial product for TV purposes, not whether they can be consistently applied. The rule making responsibility should sit with a different entity than the competition organisation. An easy fix in the short term would be to remove the microphone from umpires-it only draws excessive attention to them when there is no need for it. But TV money is everything, and the closer the game gets to vaudeville and train wreck reality TV the more eyeballs apparently. Umpire controversy is just another attention seeking device by the AFL.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I agree with most of this Les, although I want to nitpick a couple of your points. Firstly, there's an area in between legally disposing of the ball and just dropping or throwing it. According to the holding the ball rule, if a player is tackled without prior opportunity and they make a genuine attempt to handball or kick it, then even if it spills free (i.e. they don't get a legitimate handball or kcik away) it's play on. To my knowledge the rule has been that way for a long time and I don't think it's particularly hard to interpret. I would hate to see a player be penalised in that situation because it potentially discourages going for the footy in congestion. Secondly, IMO there is rarely a situation where a player is justified in sliding into another player's legs to win the ball. Players should be encouraged to keep their feet. If you can't stop your opponent from getting to the footy first without sliding into their legs, so be it. They were in a better position. Lay a tackle. I sort of see this one as being analogous to the in the back rule - your opponent was in a better spot and you only won the contest by making illegal contact. I think this rule would be far less of an issue if umpires just had more clarity around when to pay it (which I take it is the general point of your article). It just seems to me that we'd have more consistency and clarity if the AFL finally made umpiring a full-time profession. Umpires could spend their weeks combining physical training with reviewing on-field footage. If everyone is scrutinising the same incidents frequently enough, and getting the same messages from their boss, then in theory that can only improve consistency.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
The weekly instructions from the umpires overlords to alter interpretations each round is a large part of the problem. It’s a very hard game to umpire. Just get back to the basics of why there are rules in the first place. Was a player unfairly impeded from participating in play, was their incorrect disposal, etc. Stop making rules and interpretations for the sake of aesthetics. More goals on the scoreboard as a result of unwarranted 50 metre penalties is not making the game better to watch.
Johnno
Roar Rookie
How do you know who is the 3rd man up if you don’t nominate.
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
Like all supporters I get frustrated by umpiring inconsistency especially when it affects my team. But some important caveats. Football codes that involve full body contact and high speed play are difficult to umpire – both in setting rules and adjudicating them. This is especially true when the ball is in contest. AFL followers are often very insular and don’t understand that their game is a unique blend and solves these issues better than other codes. Rugby Union’s rules around the contested ball (tackled ball, rucks, scrums etc) are so many and so complex that even knowledgeable fans often have no idea why a penalty is given. Rugby League has fewer umpiring mistakes but solves the problem by simplifying the contest for the ball – run , get tackled, defending team retreats ten metres, play the ball , start again for up to six tackles. But that makes the game so regimented and repetitive that it has none of the continuous flow and contest of the Australian game. Soccer solves umpiring problems and flow by taking hands out of the equation and therefore simplifying the contest. But that removes the all-of-body aspect and wonderful hand skills of the Australian game. American football sees fewer umpiring mistakes by making the game so stop-start that rule breaches are announced by throwing flags on the field then umpires consulting often using TV replays while the game stops completely. AFL rules are designed – unlike the other codes, to keep the game moving as much and as fast as possible with fewest stoppages . That introduces “feel for the game” and interpretation far more than other codes. That’s really what is meant by saying the game is difficult to umpire. As such some inconsistency is inevitable. Personally I’m amazed when I watch replays, even when upset with a decision, how skilled AFL umpires are and how often they get it right. The other issue is that AFL fans often, like the article’s author, don’t actually know the rules of their own game. There is for example no such thing as the “ deliberate out of bounds” rule and hasn’t been for five years. The rule actually reads: 18.10 A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:… (b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play. Insufficient intent to keep the ball in is a completely different rule from the old deliberately putting the ball out of bounds. There’s not much point in criticising umpires’ consistency if you don’t actually know the rules yourself.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
"The biggest problem is consistency." Yes - all the more because certain media and even fans can't decide what they want. The greatest consistency comes with allowing umpires to simply pay the frees that they see. Of course we want a scale such that minor frees might be overlooked (especially in a 50/50 contest). However - we often see commentators assert it's good when umpires put the whistle away late in a game...........how is that consistent?? And who does that anywhere else in the world!?!? We've seen recently 2 tight games with each side scoring 100+ points. Seemingly what many want (like the old days). However - many not happy with 60+ free kicks. So are we better with less frees........but who tells each of the 3 umpires which ones to let go? And 3 umpires. Of course there'll be consistency issues.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
for umpiring - the ruck nomination is brilliant. It means there's only 2 players - whom I know of - that I care about if they get blocked. What was ridiculous prior to the rule coming in were these 2 scenarios: 1. third man in complained about getting blocked and technically......the umpire had to pay it - even though it was pretty clear who the primary rucks were and that that person was going in as third up. 2. running 2 vs 1 in the ruck; which was entirely against the spirit of ruckwork. I saw it play out when the Bulldogs ran 2 up against Goldstein; it might have been Roughead and Campbell - - and one of those rucks was squarely targetting the body of Goldstein and not seriously targetting the ball. So - - I'm fine with ruck nomination. And - it would NOT have been an issue except that coaches - as is their want - decide to exploit the rules and as a result the rules need to crack down on that to continue the game being played as we prefer it to be played.
Jimmy Woods
Roar Rookie
Outstanding Les, get right up ‘em!! So much to unpack but main one for me is just the lack of game sense? Probably wrong words & not wanting to pick on the umpires who have a tough job with a fast game & psycho fans, me included, but in the final hectic minutes of a tough, tight contest most of the empires let the game go. Like they do in the VFL & by all reports the other state leagues. If something bad happens then pull them up, otherwise let it go (queue Elsa)
Igor Oligarchov
Guest
A good start to fixing this 'umpiring malaise' is to cut back their numberrs. Two field, two boundary and two goal. If you don't see a fucking free kick, don't guess, don't go on crowd noise, just pay what you can definitely see. By AFL umpires rationale, lets just put every UFO 'sighting' on as front page news because the spotter of the alien craft is always right. Really we need a peaceful revolution at the AFL to remove the imbeciles ruining our game.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
... and get rid of the playschool matesy- baby talk.