Imagine this scenario.
When the ball appeared to brush the arm of Fremantle defender James Aish off the boot of George Hewett, fans watching the game on TV have 30 seconds – or as long as it takes for Matthew Cottrell to have his shot at goal – to take out their smartphones and hit a button: ‘touched’ or ‘mark’.
The numbers are swiftly crunched and sent to a smartwatch on the controlling umpire’s wrist, and if enough people voted for ‘touched’, he overturns the call and Carlton are denied the shot.
It’s a crazy idea, but maybe that’s the way officiating will be in the distant future; combining sport and entertainment – and increasing viewer activity in a ‘fun’ way.
The clumsy and inefficient dissent rule could also be thrown open to public opinion. The umpire would have to reveal what he thought was said, and it could be left to outside interpretation for possible sanction.
The problem with the dissent rule and why it was such a problem in the Gather Round clash is not that I think umpires should accept abuse, but rather since the huge and ridiculous crackdown of a few seasons ago – we rarely see a free kick or 50-metre penalty paid for players giving a bit of lip these days.
Like Nostradamus, SEN’s Garry Lyon and Tim Watson predicted this very thing would happen just last week, when Blake Hardwick pushed the boundaries in Hawthorn’s Easter Monday clash with Geelong; questioning how long until it decided a game.
They only had to wait six days!
The ferocity of the crackdown brought criticism from fans for going too far, when throwing your arms out in disbelief, throwing your head back or slapping your leg cost you distance downfield.
Now it’s retreated so much, to the point umpires have basically gone into their shell, either ignoring or being more understanding of player frustration – and then this sanction against Freo comes out at such a critical stage of the game.
You can’t blame AFL fans for wanting to kick the TV set in and asking what about the dozens of worse things that are let go each week – or not picked up by the umpires microphones.
Rule crackdowns are highly publicised AFL-driven marketing campaigns more than anything else, telling the wider world that we will not accept abuse to umpires for a few weeks. Then as the attention dies down in the media cycle, so does the consistency, and fans and players are left wondering where we stand with the enforcement of it.
It hasn’t just been this one moment of controversy this season.
When Willie Rioli sailed across the boundary line to take a mark against Melbourne last week, it seemed that everyone – barring a few one-eyed Port Adelaide fans – could see that the ball had crossed the line, except for the on-field umpires themselves.
Blunders happen from the umpires: they always have, and they always will. Humans are not perfect. No one within the AFL can do anything about stopping errors. It’s part of the game.
I admit that my earlier proposal of fans weighing in on the umpiring through smartphones was definitely tongue in cheek (a late entry for April Fool’s Day) – but seriously, why not have a video official helping the umpires for in-play decisions?
Those opposed to technology often raise the objection that this would slow the game down. But think about it: how quickly does it take the commentators, or even yourselves as fans at home, to make up your mind once you’ve seen a play live?
Be honest – it is less than 15 seconds. If it takes any longer than that, put it down to subjectivity and move on.
I am not talking about going into the ARC score review process of detailed slow-motion analysis, but just a few seconds for the video official to tell the on-field umpires what he or she sees on the screen.
Like, for example, what tennis does with the new automated Hawkeye, which has had its bugs but is soon going to eliminate line judges from the sport.
Umpires at field level can communicate with each other, so why not have an extra set of eyes seeing what we see on TV?
It just seems silly that people who cannot have an impact on the game are able to analyse individual moments so clearly, but those who can make decisions are restricted both by physical limitations, and the rules themselves.
Ray Chamberlain was recently interviewed on SEN about the West Coast boundary incident, and he explained the role of the field umpire in the decision-making process:
“The umpire’s looking forward and asks himself is the player with the ball getting tackled, then he turns his head to look at where the ball is going to go because he is the end-zone umpire and the ball is going to go into the goal square. He’s not looking at whether it is in or it is out… if you (the field umpire) could clearly see it, you could definitely blow your whistle. But the circumstances here, I did not anticipate the field umpire intervening.”
This suggests that on-field umpires have too much on their plate to determine, independently of the boundary umpires whose job it is to make such decisions, if a ball is in or out.
The controlling umpire is already thinking about the play ahead and trusting his fellow official to get it right – but mistakes do happen, for whatever reason.
The fact the boundary incident has happened so many times this season alone in a few short weeks, again, shows they need more support, probably from a video official.
It is 2024 – technology has become so advanced cameras these days can include artificial intelligence functions.
In the sporting world, microchips can be put into balls (Tottenham fans will know this technology was recently used to deny them a goal against Luton), and the AFL is trialling this technology in the VFL with the aim of speeding up score reviews and making them more accurate.
But that is only going to tackle some of the problems. Technology can only do what it is permitted to do within the rules and structures set out by the league’s administration.
The problem the AFL faces with continuous (some would say increasing) umpiring mistakes is that it steals from the narrative of the game, and suppresses the essence of what sport is really about.
With broadcasters providing instant replays and sharing controversies, errors and mistakes for the AFL community to go nuts over, positive narratives like player milestones and great athletic achievements are often overlooked as attention is stolen by fans fighting among themselves in the comment sections.
On the other hand, maybe fans and commentators just like whingeing.
At times, it seems like complaining about the umpires is a sport within a sport, something that makes games more, dare I say, enjoyable.
There will always be disagreements and differences of opinion, and that’s what creates community – discussion.
On the other hand, while there should be no expectation that everyone has the same viewpoint, but disputes can become dangerous and damaging, not only to the game but to an individual’s mental health. Especially if these ‘discussions’ become too aggressive and people want to be right all the time, and that overtakes their ability to agree to disagree and move on with life.
Aussie Rules has never been more accessible, through social media and increased interactivity through online channels. But has this created an overload of extensive opinions and media commentary surrounding the game – and has all this been for the game’s betterment or worse?
There was an American study published in 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that found the average human is ‘more physiologically activated by negative than by positive news stories’.
The more negative content, the more interaction between the game and its fans.
Maybe the cynical commentary and in some way, the umpiring howlers create attention for the AFL – so they are happy to go along with 90 per cent of it, as long as it doesn’t cross any legal or moral lines.
After all, as the old saying goes, any publicity is good publicity.
So while the AFL does have a responsibility to ensure as many calls as possible are correct to uphold the integrity of the sport, as fans, we probably should be taking more responsibility for how the game is being marketed towards us as well.
Neil from Warrandyte
Roar Rookie
Had this conversation with Don last year when Richmond defeated Fremantle at Optus Stadium, despite Fremantle having 11 more free kicks and Richmond winning by 15 points. He claimed at the time that a score review that went against Fremantle robbed Fremantle of any chance of victory so therefore must have been a conspiracy by the AFL to ‘gift’ Richmond the win. You have to love Don, always entertaining :laughing:
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Yes.
Bretto
Roar Rookie
Just to confirm Don - the AFL is instructing the umpires to favor Carlton over Freo to influence the result of the games. Is that what you are saying? Or are the umpires doing this themselves without AFL involvement? Be good to understand who should sue you for defamation.
Macca
Roar Rookie
What didn't happen Don, the old saying, the "arrangement" or the free kick against McGovern? And logically one free kick was given when the Blues were behind by less than a goal with the ball 35m and close to a minute still on the clock so it was not "obvious" they couldn't win but the second was given when the BLues were in front with 40 seconds left on the clock so it couldn't possibly be obvious they weren't going to win at that point. But I do love that it was all the umpires colluding but the 18 free kicks they gave to the Dockers (6 more than then Blues) that contributed 6 of the Dockers 9 goals which led them to being 2 points in front late in the game simply "don't count" :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
This game was changed by the umpires and it has now happened twice in 4 games between the two teams. It's not a conspiracy. It's a decision.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Didn't happen. Only two that count are the two the umpires offered Carlton when it was obvious they weren't going to do it on their merits.
Bretto
Roar Rookie
mrl is not funny. The End.
Andrew A
Roar Rookie
Umpires make a lot of mistakes. It's unfortunate when the mistake decides the game. We'll never know if Carlton would have scored a goal to win if the incorrectly paid mark wasn't paid. It's not the first time and won't be the last time that an umpire's mistake decides a close game. If the play is stopped, as was the case when the ball was "marked", there's no reason why the decision couldn't be reviewed during the stoppage. It's important when it's a close game. On this occasion, Freo were robbed and Carlton were lucky.
RT
Roar Rookie
If there was no prior, players would be wary of receiving a ball in heavy traffic and they would tend to knock the ball on,opening up the game. Right now, players handball or take possession to effect a ball up. This is the congestion the AFL don’t like but they are encouraging it. Last year Broad (?) was rightly suspended for 4 weeks for concussing a player in a tackle. If you look at the replay what he was trying to do was force the player over the boundary line. Why? Because he knows the player will be given an eternity to dispose of the ball or even place it on the ground (used to penalised) near a teammate and a ball up or throw in us the best he can hope for. Throw ideally because the umps take forever to call a ball up.
Macca
Roar Rookie
It certainly is an old saying, or at the very least variations of it. And Don teams can get lucky with an umpiring call with out it being “an arrangement” so go ahead and “foreground” all “the assistance Carlton needed” as much as you like – it doesn’t demonstrate “an arrangement”. And if you think the umpires can “arrange” Carlton to be within a goal and have the ball in their forward 50 in the last minute of the game after paying 18 free kicks to Freo and just 12 to Carlton (a low free kick count for an AFL game) let alone create a scenario where they are in a position to blow the whistle (ie had Jackson done his job rather than punch the ball back into the centre to 3 Carlton players the umpires couldn’t have made an impact) you really are a f 00l. Oh and when you are doing all your “foregrounding” don’t forget to review all the decisions (and non decisions) that went Freo’s way during the day, like the Free kick against McGovern in the third that led to a Freo goal and bewildered every commentator.
Bretto
Roar Rookie
Macca is 100% correct. People who claim arranged outcomes by the AFL and by extension the umpires are delusional. Yes, games are often decided by appalling umpiring decisions. No, that does not mean it's all a big conspiracy. Fair enough being apoplectic about the umpiring, but that's as far as it goes.
sven
Roar Rookie
well it used to be the player that got in and got the footy was favoured too, now it seems lots of people want the player that got there second (ie the tackler) to be rewarded. if there was no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball the tacklers reward is that they stopped the bloke with the footy, they shouldnt need a free kick just for laying a tackle
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I've seen at keast 3 wgere tge ball is over the line. What bugs me is the people talking about where the player is located. It's got nothing to do with where the player is at all. It's entirely where the ball is and only the ball.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
If the ball is propelled by a clenched fist that's a handball. If not then it's incorrect disposal. The umps should ping accordingly.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
That's not an old saying. It's just something you said...it hasn't aged well at all. Happy to foreground the assistance Carlton needed. You needn't worry about 'foolishness'; that is the realm of Carlton supporters who think that last 44 seconds was legit.
Macca
Roar Rookie
Don - you are making a fool out of yourself. You need to remember the old saying "if something can be explained by either a conspiracy or a c )ck-up then nine times out of ten it is a c 0c k-up"
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Arranged finishes, orchestrated by umpires are not acceptable. That was not "every decision". That was simply an arranged finish.
Johnno
Roar Rookie
The problem is an AFL/umpire one. One of the umpires called touch the other said he didn’t know if it was touched & called a mark. Communication doesn’t take long. There are now 4 umpires out there to fix this very problem. You don’t have to be very smart to see that for this to work you need communication. Obviously the AFL don’t think so.
RT
Roar Rookie
The legalisation of the throw annoys me the most. It creeps to lower levels, all because the AFL decided to interpret the rule differently. Actually they probably changed it. They should never have taken over governing of the rules.
junk
Roar Rookie
Paying umpires a moderate amount when billions are invested in betting. This is not a good look. The racing industry has to be straight and has to be seen to be straight to survive. The AFL has left the door open for some crookedness.