Once again the AFL's penchant for overreaction and love affair with technical detail was laid bare as the Bulldogs battled the Swans on Friday night. There are two important points to be made in commenting on this issue.
When Tim Callan ran onto the field a metre outside the designated interchange gate, the Bulldogs gained no advantage whatsoever. Clearly the significance of the penalty massively outweighs the significance of the infraction.
Secondly, sitting in the crowd, it was impossible to know why Higgins' shot at goal was suddenly a Kennelly shot at the other end of the ground, apparently courtesy of the AFL Umpiring Department's Technocrat-in-Chief, Umpire McBurney (edited). It was just another of the mystifying incidents through a game where the crowd who've stumped up their hard-earned to actually be sitting at the game are disadvantaged. TV viewers and some radio listeners have the advantage of the umpires being miked, and so they (and the commentators, who are often at just as much a loss to explain the umpires' actions) mostly get a faintly coherent understanding.
There must be some way for Gieschen's mob to develop some signals or a scoreboard sign that provides a coherent explanation to the punters at the game. The fact that so many of the rule interpretations are so tiggy-touchwood and so technical serves only to exacerbate the problem.
Monday, September 15, 2008
A sledgehammer to crack a peanut
Labels:
Rules
Once again the AFL's penchant for overreaction and love affair with technical detail was laid bare as the Bulldogs battled the Swans on Friday night. There are two important points to be made in commenting on this issue.When Tim Callan ran onto the field a metre outside the designated interchange gate, the Bulldogs gained no advantage whatsoever. Clearly the significance of the penalty massively outweighs the significance of the infraction.
Secondly, sitting in the crowd, it was impossible to know why Higgins' shot at goal was suddenly a Kennelly shot at the other end of the ground, apparently courtesy of the AFL Umpiring Department's Technocrat-in-Chief, Umpire McBurney (edited). It was just another of the mystifying incidents through a game where the crowd who've stumped up their hard-earned to actually be sitting at the game are disadvantaged. TV viewers and some radio listeners have the advantage of the umpires being miked, and so they (and the commentators, who are often at just as much a loss to explain the umpires' actions) mostly get a faintly coherent understanding.
There must be some way for Gieschen's mob to develop some signals or a scoreboard sign that provides a coherent explanation to the punters at the game. The fact that so many of the rule interpretations are so tiggy-touchwood and so technical serves only to exacerbate the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The AFL has had a bad year imo with poor decisions (Kangas no to Gold Coast, poor tribute match, 4 boundary umpires and new interchange rule).
I think the extra boundary umps is a plus. No more Wayne Harms events because the boundary umps can keep up!
A friend has noted that the extra boundary umps robs players of the short rest while they waited for the ball to be retrieved and thrown in, but I don't see that as a major issue.
The problem with the extra two boundary umpires is the fact that the game is getting rid of the ruckman who will soon be a part of the past.
I touched on the problem when it first came out.
http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/the-afl-drops-the-ball-again
I see your point, but I think there's a bigger issue confronting ruckmen, and that is the way that ruck contests are umpired. They have become such a no-holds-barred wrestling contest (with occasional free kicks paid for incidental high contact...) that there's little art in ruck work any more.
Polly Farmer and John Nicholls, two of the game's legendary ruckmen, would be useless today, because they would be held and scragged and prevented from using the deft taps to put the ball on the hands of their rovers.
Post a Comment