AussieRulesBlog

The Hun reports today that an off-field umpire’s department official, with access to video replay, will be hooked into the umpire’s audio system to assist in adjudicating “goal line” decisions during the 2012 pre-season competition. A 40-second window will be available for any video assessment which would be prior to the goal umpire signalling a decision. This means, and we think the AFL have taken a PR view of this, no decisions will be overturned as a result of video referral. Whatever we think of the general concept, and AussieRulesBlog thinks it’s a mangy dog, the final part is a PR masterstroke.

 

Let’s hope that we don’t have a repeat of last year’s nonsense of video replays being used to try to determine whether a hand has touched a kicked ball fifteen metres out from goal. Goal line decisions only please, if we must go through this nonsense.

 

The story in the Hun drags up the 2011 Sharrod Wellingham Grand Final goal that apparently deflected off a goal post and the 2009 Tom Hawkins GF poster. Are these “goal line” decisions? Will the “goal line” cameras be sited such that they can be used to adjudicate decisions like the two mentioned? If the arrangement is similar to 2011, the cameras are attached to the goal post about 2.5 metres above ground level to assist in those “did he touch it before it went over the line” decisions. Pretty typical, in our view, of the journalist responsible for this report to bring in red herrings and create expectations that probably can’t be met, because it’s all about the “controversy”.

 

The truth is, the technology and this application of it has holes you could drive a B-double through. When we’re hardly being deluged with incorrect decisions in every game — remember that errors are running at something less than one tenth of one percent of all scoring decisions across an entire season — all of this additional cost and infrastructure will achieve . . . precisely bugger-all. It’s the standard response dictated by the AFL Management Handbook — use the biggest sledgehammer you can find to crack a tiny grain of sand.

If you were at all perturbed by the season-long preoccupation with Tom Scully in 2011, stand by for more of the same — this time on steroids. The end of the 2012 season will see the AFL’s first flirtation with free agency since the famous ten year rule of the early seventies.

Just so readers are properly acquainted, here are the regulations for free agency qualification for 2012.

1. A player has served seven seasons or less of AFL football at one club, and is now out of contract.
   The player is not eligible for free agency if his club wishes to retain him. He may only move clubs via a trade or the Draft. If he delists himself, he is subject to the Draft, and may be selected by any club.
2. A player has served seven seasons or less of AFL football at one club, and has been delisted by his club.
   
   • The player is a Free Agent and is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.
   • The player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.
   • The player can move AUTOMATICALLY to the new club of his choice.
   • His original club, which chose to delist him, does not receive any compensation pick for the loss of the player.
3. A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is one of the 10 highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service.
   
   • The player is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.
   • If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.
   • His club has the right to match the presented offer.
   • If the club matches the offer, he may choose to remain with his original club, seek a trade or enter the Draft.
   • If the club does not or can not match the offer, the player can move to the new club of his choice.
   • His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula to apply where clubs lose more free agents than they gain in any single transfer period.
4. A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is NOT one of the 10 highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service.
   
   • The player is eligible to field offers from all rival AFL clubs.
   • If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.
   • His club does NOT have the right to match the presented offer, and the player can move AUTOMATICALLY to the new club of his choice.
   • His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula.
5. A player has served ten or more seasons of AFL football at one club, has already come out of contract once in the period after serving his first eight or more seasons at his club, and is now out of contract.
   
   • The player is eligible to field offers from all rival clubs.
   • If he wishes to change clubs, the player must decide on the best offer of his choice from one rival club.
   • His club does NOT have the right to match the presented offer, and the player can move AUTOMATICALLY to the new club of his choice.
   • His original club will receive a compensation pick for the loss of the player, on an AFL-determined formula.

The media excitement has already begun with queries about Brett Deledio’s decision to suspend negotiations for a new contract. Expect speculation about any players who appear to fit into the above criteria, and don’t expect it to cease unless there is an announcement of a signed contract for that player. In a somewhat stunning move, the AFL will actually fuel speculation by releasing a list of eligible players!

It’s worth noting that this free agency system is the AFL and AFLPA having a bet each way.

Unless delisted, only players who’ve provided significant long-term service at the one club are eligible. So, a player who manages a free agency swap uses his only opportunity for such a change outside of a delisting. It’s hardly free agency, is it?

Of course the AFL are at pains to protect clubs from predatory recruiting by rivals, so, for the best of the eligible players, there’s the protection of the current club simply needing to match the offer of the rival — if they can under their salary cap arrangements — to retain the player. The loyalty and commitment to the cause of a player swayed by such an offer has to be suspect.

Experienced mid-level players have a few more options provided they can manage their contract periods appropriately. Outwardly, there doesn’t seem to be too much in this system for the players, but it’s easily argued that those who are most restricted in this system are, arguably, the least likely to be receptive to rival offers.

For the record, AussieRulesBlog is concerned about the direction that this limited free agency takes the game in. We are, for the most part, traditionalists, but there’re certainly cogent arguments in favour of freeing up some aspects of the system.

It could be argued that the ten year rule provided a lifeline for the North Melbourne Football Club that might not otherwise have existed with their first ever VFL Premiership in 1975. Had Fitzroy won a Premiership in the seventies, or early eighties when they played in a Preliminary Final, perhaps the Brisbane Bears would plod on still, but as rivals to the Lions.

Our early-season prediction? Free agency will dominate discussion for the year! Don’t say we didn’t tell you!

Good luck to you and your team for the season. Go Bombers!

Between September 1939 and May 1940 in north-western Europe a state of war existed between Great Britain and France on one hand and Hitler’s Germany on the other. Despite the declaration of war, nothing much happened in those eight months — what was labelled as “The Phoney War”. Of course, all that changed on May 10 when the Germans invaded the Low Countries.

 

The end of the Australian Open tennis tonight marks the start of southern Australia’s eight-month-long obsession with Aussie Rules for 2012.

 

There have been hints in the media as there have been fewer tennis matches to cover. Brendan Fevola, it seems, may line up for Yarrawonga Pigeons in the Ovens and Murray League — but only for home games, because, he says, he’s getting old. This is the same guy who wanted AFL clubs to use a valuable draft pick on him just a few short months ago!

 

It has been a long, long break, but in less than three weeks we’ll have footy back on television — well, those of us with pay TV will anyway. For the FreeView afficianados, it’ll be March 17. And pay TV’s dedicated AFL channel returns in a new guise, along with the pre-season comp.

 

It won’t be long before there are controversies aplenty to drive our interest. Stay tuned to AussieRulesBlog for our particular take on the important issues in Aussie Rules.

For most of those of us writing about football, the euphoria of being named on an AFL list, even as a rookie, can only be guessed at. To succeed to the extent of playing at the highest level is the stuff of dreams.

 

Two stories in the media this week piqued our interest. One reported Mick Malthouse’s thoughts on Ben Cousins’ rumoured regression, and the other dealt with efforts to avoid such scenarios in the future.

 

Let’s look at the positive story first. As we’ve already noted, getting onto an AFL list and, potentially, playing at that level is something all footy fans dream of and so few achieve. For those who do get onto a list, the hard work is only just starting. But this bright fluffy cloud obscures a dark and stormy centre.

 

The AFL Players’ Association and the AFL are certainly doing their bit to improve the chances of the youngsters coming into the game. For years now, draftees have been forced to endure sessions designed to alert them to the demands that will be made of them by their clubs, their clubs’ supporters and the football industry generally. But now this preparation strategy is being taken to a new level with similar sessions for players in the footy ‘mid-life’ and for those facing retirement — there are, after all, only a limited number of gigs in the footy media and most of them aren’t anything close to full-time.

 

Stories like this are almost de rigeur for this time of year, but welcome nevertheless. No program to educate players will ever be 100% successful and there will be some players who, despite on-field success, run off the rails. And that, of course, brings us to Ben Cousins.

 

If, as is rumoured, Cousins has regressed and has returned to drugs, it is sad for him. Having been addicted to nicotine for twenty odd years, we understand some of the forces involved. It certainly took us a number of attempts and a certain set of circumstances to kick the habit. For eleven years we dreamed about having a cigarette. Eventually we succumbed and we were smoking again at the same pace within a few weeks. It was a further two years before we decided we didn’t like the taste of smoking and kicked it — for good this time. We were fortunate to have a quite normal life with no notoriety, an average wage, a responsible full-time job, a family and children who depended on us. Quite a lot different to Cousins.

 

Anyone who hasn’t been addicted to a substance has no idea. Those who don’t realise they’re addicted have even less idea.

 

We hope that Ben can find a way to get his life together and keep his mind in a good space. It’s not a battle that can be won in a couple of years.

 

Mick Malthouse’s comments on the world of young AFL footballers today not only provide a context for Cousins’ situation, but also show how important the programs the AFLPA and AFL are putting in place are. The tabloid journalists might not agree, but wouldn’t it be nice if we never had another “Fevola”, or another “Cousins”? And wouldn’t it be magnificent for those young men who might otherwise have self-destructed to live fulfilling and creditable lives and have the respect of the community.

 

Best wishes, Ben.

AussieRulesBlog is staggered by a report in The Age of a punter wagering $18,000 on the Sydney Swans missing the final eight in 2012. Let’s not beat around the bush — this issue of gambling on AFL is becoming a more and more significant one.

We’re not wowsers here at AussieRulesBlog Central, but the punt simply isn’t one of our vices. We don’t understand why someone would wager more than 20% of our annual pre-tax salary on an AFL team not making the final eight. Even were we a millionaire, we wouldn’t see this as an entertainment.

With the recent suspensions of Gold Coast’s Nathan Bock for the heinous crime of telling someone he’d be playing — uncharacteristically — forward and the Barcodes’ Captain Nick Maxwell for a similar offence, no-one should mistake the direction the gambling industry would have our wonderful game take.

Cricket shows the temptations available when the gambling industry starts introducing books on exotic incidents and statistics. Pakistani players have paid, perhaps with their careers.

Admittedly, cricket offers far greater opportunity for manipulation to satisfy the format of exotic wagers, but the Maxwell and Bock incidents confirm that AFL is not immune.

Who’s to say that in some future Grand Final a key position forward noted for accuracy in front of goal inexplicably misses the first x shots? Is it nerves? Is it the result of a financial inducement? Is his team disadvantaged by these misses? Many would say that missed shots in the third quarter cost Geelong a Grand Final in 2008.*

According to The Age’s report, wagers on not making the 2012 Final Series have been placed on only one other team with the bookmaker in question at the time of writing. The imbalance of the wagers alone — only two teams out of seventeen, given that GWS is a lock in the bottom eight, and notwithstanding the quantum of the bets — provides a prima facie case for investigation.

In our view, the AFL needs to move as quickly as possible to outlaw, or at the very least heavily restrict, exotic betting on AFL games. If wagers are restricted to win or loss, in a two-horse race, there’s little attraction for nefarious people to get involved and sully the game. Without action, this problem will escalate.

We’re also moved to wonder whether the reporter or The Age were influenced to produce the story — especially since it concludes with rundowns on markets for games won (another exotic bet) and the ubiquitous Brownlow market (before a single practice game has been played), amongst others.

What is it they say about a fool and his money?

* Note: We have absolutely no evidence of any impropriety by any Geelong player. We use this example merely to support our contention that such incidents could be used by bookmakers.

The controversy of the first day of the Boxing Day Test at the MCG is only a controversy because Channel Nein insisted on deploying its technology despite it not being available to either teams or umpires.

 

Test cricket has survived for more than 100 years without high technology assistance. Sure, there were dodgy decisions from time to time, but that was part and parcel of the process. Umpires are (allegedly) human and are expected to make decisions based on what they are sure that they see.

 

AussieRulesBlog will never impugn the integrity of the officials, but, despite there being very specific written processes for umpiring games, individuals will always have distinct idiosyncratic interpretations of those processes.

 

We raise this “controversy” generated by Channel Nein since it demonstrates why there have been controversies in AFL in relation to scoring decisions. Those controversies would have little of the widespread impact they have had were it not for the broadcasters’ highlighting of the ‘error’.

 

We weren’t watching Channel Nein yesterday, but, on past form, we assume they played and replayed and replayed the controversial footage ad nauseum, as is their wont. That was certainly the way the AFL scoring issues played out.

 

It’s also worth noting here that broadcasters’ technology rarely, if ever, shows the incident from the perspective of the umpire. The image of the ‘hot spot’ on Hussey’s shirt is from side on (below). Let’s see the same incident from the umpire’s perspective at the bowling end stumps and see how clear cut the technology makes it from there!

 

 

The issues, for both cricket umpires and Aussie Rules umpires are really rooted in human frailty. For the cricket umpire, judging the bowler’s front foot placement in relation to the popping crease and then judging nicks and LBWs at the other end a fraction of a second later is a big ask. For Aussie Rules goal umpires, judging the position of the ball in relation to a goal or behind post whilst in the jumble of a 360º game is also a big ask.

 

But, and here’s the rub in these controversies, the technology can’t give a 100% guarantee of being right either. And it probably never will — unless the games are completely virtual and a computer can assess against its own data.

 

These cricket incidents demonstrate the dangers of allowing broadcasters to deploy technology that is not available to officials. Umpires would be well within their rights to refuse to stand in these tests while Channel Nein deploys these technologies that are not available to them. Whether it is the Indian Board or any other reason that the technology is not employed, its use in these circumstances is absolutely and entirely inappropriate.

AussieRulesBlog was quite surprised to see a small additional item at the end of an unrelated story mentioning that Richmond had awarded life membership to 24-year-old, 150-game player, Brett Deledio.

 

We have nothing against Deledio. In fact, we’re sure he’s a most estimable chap. But life membership? At twenty-four? One wonders what the Tigers’ board are smoking.

 

We could countenance offering life membership to a player toward the end of a storied and sparkling career. Even a workmanlike career perhaps, as long as there were at least 250 games clocked up. We’d also want to be pretty sure the player wasn’t going to hive off to a hated enemy once free agency raises its ugly head, and it’s hard to be sure that there couldn’t be some free agency involved in Deledio’s future.

 

It all seems a bit grasping and (a lot) premature.

 

Ed.: We note that Richmond awards life membership automatically on achievement of 150 games. Other clubs require ten years’ continuous service.

Each year at this time, the AFL makes its announcement of changes for the following season. The changes for the Tribunal and Match Review Panel for 2012 are remarkable not so much for the “changes” as for the language used.

 

For example:

any striking action with a raised forearm or elbow will be classified as intentional, unless there is clear evidence the strike was not intentional;

 

This is nothing more than an attempt to look to be hard on transgressions without actually changing anything. Black will be considered yellow unless there is clear evidence that it is not yellow! What nonsense!

 

There is further pain for the MRP with the addition of “excessive exaggeration of contact in an unsportsmanlike manner” to the existing staging definition of “feigning contact”. Really, how does the MRP decide what’s excessive exaggeration? And, is excessive exaggeration OK as long as it’s done in a sportsmanlike manner?

 

This change smacks of an attempt to cover the Angus Monfries revelation that he “took a dive” when hit by Jordan Lewis. That the MRP thought Lewis’ action sufficiently serious to deal out a three-week suspension suggests they’d find it difficult to also hand out a suspension to Monfries for the same incident.

 

Other critics of the staging sanctions focus on exaggerated contact in marking contests. If you’re one of these, don’t hang by your thumbs waiting to see a forward who exaggerates a push in the back get reported for “staging”. It’s not going to happen.

 

The cops could surround these changes with chequered tape and have a constable advising browsers to “move along, there’s nothing to see here.”