If you’re a Brisbane supporter – or you were barracking for a Collingwood loss on Saturday – then chances are you’re at least a bit miffed about THAT call of advantage in the dying minutes of the 2023 grand final.
In case you missed it, here’s what happened: with 80 seconds to go in the season, Lachie Neale, while handballing to Zac Bailey, was tackled below the knees by Oleg Markov.
But while the whistle rang through loud and clear on Channel 7’s TV coverage, with the umpires all with attached mics to amplify every decision, it seems almost certain that the clamour of an 100,024-strong crowd drowned it out on the field.
Certainly, Bailey missed it: weaving out of traffic before desperately hacking a pressured kick inside 50.
As it was in mid-air, the advantage was paid: Darcy Moore spoiled clear, the ball found its way into Nick Daicos’ hands, he’d pass to Will Hoskin-Elliott, and the Lions wouldn’t get another look at an inside 50.
Naturally, the reaction was swift and savage, with some former players even proclaiming on social media that the umpires had won the Magpies’ a flag.
But this simply isn’t just a mere moment of poor umpiring, a bad decision at a crucial stage that proved crucial in sealing the Magpies’ win: it’s the strongest sign yet, after years upon years of slowly swelling hints, that the advantage rule is totally broken.
It’s not the first time this specific rule has been cooked, either: in 2011, after years of conjecture, the law was tweaked with ‘the infringed player, rather than an umpire, given the power to determine the advantage rule’.
Previously, it had been at the umpires’ discretion only to determine whether a team had the advantage or not, with similar results to what we’re seeing now – because the truth is, that redefining of the law has failed to fix or even address the problem at hand.
Bailey didn’t choose to take the advantage, because he had no idea there was an advantage to be taken. We’ve seen similar on endless occasions across the last decade where players, in the dying stages of thrilling games with crowds at fever pitch, haven’t heard the umpire’s whistle, have continued to play, and been punished for not having super hearing.
Or worse: the countless instances of players instinctively picking the ball up after a free kick, taking a few steps, then holding up having decided the advantage wasn’t worth the risk – only for the umpire’s call whether to call advantage anyway or offering them leeway varying with every passing decision, so that every individual case is a spin of the roulette wheel.
The specific law, Rule 21.2, states that ‘a field umpire will call and signal ‘advantage’ when a team offended against demonstrates an intent to continue with play within a reasonable time’.
It’s deliberately grey to afford umpires leeway – there’s no definition on what constitutes a reasonable time and could change day to day and ump to ump – and it means both players and supporters have genuinely no clue what to expect out of the rule on any passing day.
It’s the reason the advantage law is the most contentious in our sport, and causes more angst than any other – including the insufficient intent out of bounds law, including the hands in the back law, including ruck infringement rules.
And there’s a simple fix.
Round-ball football has this down pat: the referee will refrain from awarding a free kick if a team continues to attack, instead merely raising their arms to signal their intent to have done so.
This has the effect of allowing play to continue uninterrupted – how many times in Aussie Rules do we see teams benefit from taking an advantage because the opposition have all stopped in their tracks upon hearing the umpire’s whistle?
It would then be to the referee’s discretion to determine whether play has continued uninterrupted for long enough that the fouled team had it better off not being awarded the free kick; if not, then the ball returns to the original spot where the foul occurred.
It’s not without its problems, and there’s still a hint of grey area – but it’s a million times better than the mess we’ve currently got.
Under this rule, it would have been perfectly legitimate to criticise the umpire who called the Lions on on Saturday, because it should have been clear from the moment Bailey kicked the ball, and certainly from the point that Moore spoiled, that Brisbane wouldn’t be benefitting from its result.
The way our system currently works is that it was Bailey’s action to kick that made the advantage necessary to be paid – despite the fact the Lions star clearly didn’t know that Neale had earned a free kick.
To change this rule to the alternative above isn’t just badly needed to fix a rule badly affecting the game and heaping further scorn on the umpiring department: it would also solve a host of other problems that flow on from the advantage law being broken.
We would no longer have farcical situations where one team stops in their tracks while the free-kicked team takes a hefty advantage: the old adage of ‘playing to the whistle’ would at last be fully true.
We would no longer have wild inconsistency over when players can choose to forego their advantage, with some occurring well and truly after an intent to play on and others, like Bailey’s done due to an understandable communication breakdown between umpire and player.
The past has shown us the AFL reacts swiftly to change any part of the game that causes it embarrassment in a grand final: Sharrod Wellingham being awarded a goal despite clearly hitting the post in 2011 saw score reviews brought in six months later, while Brent Guerra putting through a score of handballed rushed behinds in 2008 led to the birth of the deliberate behind rule from 2009 onwards.
One can only hope the AFL is sufficiently cajoled into making this latest badly necessary change, to fix a part of our game that has been going badly wrong for years.
Valentino
Roar Rookie
The other side of the argument, as often voiced by Hodgey etc. is that the delay in sending the ball back for a free all to often allows the defence to get set up. Well. Hodgey should know - they changed the rules after his deliberate rushed tactic won the Hawks a flag. Ditto Hawthorn and the introduction of the centre diamond because the Hawks were putting up to 16 players around the centre bounce.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
I like the bounce and the umpires do a really good job and did so on Saturday. Sometimes in wet weather it makes more sense to have it thrown up. But the start of the game has to be a ball-up.
Micko
Roar Rookie
You go to the WAFL GF Jeff?
Super
Roar Rookie
The old advantage rule was much better because the umpire had the discretion to bring the ball back if the advantage wasn't there... this is one instance where the rule should have been left alone because now its rare for the advantage rule to actually be advantageous...
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
"Mash" would be my 12th fave serial comedy
Aransan
Roar Rookie
The umpire has a fraction of a second to make a ruling. Perhaps each team could have a remote decision maker where their view ceases immediately the free is called, and it must be guaranteed that they have no further information. They then have to make a decision to either accept the free or take the advantage. You can be sure that there will be occasions where a goal will be disallowed because the free has been taken. There have been too many occasions in season where a team has received a benefit because playing on hasn’t turned out to be an advantage and the free has been given.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I loved that episode of Mash where an officer referred to "Military intelligence". Hawkeye Pearce replied by stating that terminology was a contradiction within itself.
RT
Roar Rookie
Overall it would probably be better if the umpire made the call, but in your scenario the attacking team would get 2 attempts at the goal. I don't agree with part of it.
RT
Roar Rookie
It's you.
JW
Roar Rookie
It was a shocker, everyone could see that wasn’t advantage except the ump. He could’ve used some common sense and just called it back. Anyway, who knows if Brisbane would’ve kicked a goal from a play starting 60 out. So can’t say it definitely cost them the game. Can add to the list of unlucky things that went either team’s way but Brisbane probably will rue a few things in the their own control - Charlie Cameron’s down free free kick on Howe that allowed Collingwood to get through Brisbane’s defensive wall and score and then control territory for the next 5-10 mins (Brisbane had taken a mark off the kick) - 50m penalty on the wing that led to side bottom goal in the last quarter. Think there was another 50 that led to a goal too. - 2 goals from outside 50m after the sirens But then again, if Brisbane won Collingwood would’ve rued that none of the extra 10 behinds kicked were goals. Well done Collingwood
Jeff
Roar Rookie
In other news, Brisbane's season-strength as a shut-down side without the capability to switch up to attacking mode, didn't serve them well in the last quarter when they were already behind on the scoreboard. But back to the umpiring...
Sunshine Tiger
Roar Rookie
So umpires decide a grand Final, Gilligan has got what he wanted contrived results, collingwood should have won easily but is it me or did the AFL want a close game for viewing audiences
Sunshine Tiger
Roar Rookie
Yappie prick as well
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
The SANFL strikes again.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Is Anarchy Rules the same as Military Intelligence
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
You need to play this idea fully out in your head, Tim. I don’t think you’ve done that. Your idea clearly comes from Rugby. It works great. The defending team can see the ‘one’ controlling ref easily. This is not the case for AFL. There are ‘four’ umpires, all not visible easily to both the attacking and defending team. Is one umpire to put their arm up, all four, or just the one who sees the infringement? Why even put an arm up at all, since it won’t be of benefit to a majority of the players on field due to these issues. It would be confusing at best. Is it to show the rest of us a free has been given, to avoid confusion when it’s called back? Maybe…. You could just delay the call, let it play out, but that would require all 4 umpires being Marvin The Mind Reader, as they wouldn’t know if the other 3 had missed a call, or looking to see if advantage eventuated. It would also require ‘all’ calls to be delayed, disrupting the flow of the game. You could call the free, as they currently do, and call it back if no advantage. No rules would need to be changed. It’s just most times they choose not to. I don’t think many understand this, because umpires on rare occasions will call ‘no advantage’ if play was stifled close enough to their advantage call. That’s both the advantage of disadvantage of our rules. By having loose rules, you can easily change their interpretations to achieve a very different outcome. In this instance, the umpires could be given a greater tolerance on when they can call the ball back. Problem solved. The main negative with this rule is advantage being gained by the rule itself. How often do we see a team stopping, to avoid a 50m penalty, only for the attacking team to take advantage of the advantage. The irony is spectacular and one often lost on the umps themselves.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Female. I'm as straight as John Candy and Steve Martin in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"
Angela
Roar Rookie
I'm sure you're right Mr Right. No offense meant. Mine is a generalised view from a spectator who has no idea of the finer points. My interest in the in the indigenous game is relatively recent. I've never played nor had any family members or friends play. One of the things that attracted me was the anarchy compared to other codes, which I found to often be boring. So, I'd hate to see the madness disappear in a flurry of minor rule changes/tweaks very time people get upset about their team being dudded especially when important considerations - as in heads - are forcing rule changes that really need to happen for player safety. In the meantime #bringbacktheshortestshorts.
PriddisJunior
Roar Rookie
It's really not hard. Watch Gilbert and his motion make 12 months of it.
PriddisJunior
Roar Rookie
Should have been infront before then. Unfair, sure. But it's the way it is.