Wednesday, April 29, 2009

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Jeff?

1 comment:
Michael Gleeson's piece in The Age, and especially the quotes of Jeff Gieschen therein, show exactly how parlous the state of officiating in elite Aussie Rules has become. The logical contortions required to justify the current week's interpretations of rules are breathtaking. God-botherers aguing about angels and pins would be almost a breath of logical fresh air by contrast.

Nick Maxwell is quoted saying: "I thinks there's just a little bit of confusion [among players] at the moment." Well, Nick, you sure dribbled a bib-full there. If the players, who have regular conversation with the umpires, are confused, what chance de we poor dumb punters have?

The micro-definition of (some) laws of the game, the (temporary) 'zero tolerance' stands, constant shifting (apparently) of interpretations, bald-faced contradictions as noted by Gleeson AND the increasingly precious attitude on the part of some umpires are damaging the brand.

I think most players and spectators want one thing and one thing only from the umpires: CONSISTENCY. Even if we think a rule is a crock of poo, if it's applied and adjudicated consistently, I'm sure most people would wear that. If the current interpretations don't allow for consistent application, CHANGE THEM!

The buck for this mess has to stop somewhere. Jeff, grab your coat and piss off!
Read More

Monday, April 27, 2009

Will Jeff Gieschen kill the 50-metre penalty?

No comments:
The 50-metre penalty was initially introduced to combat 'professional' time-wasting. Defenders would hurl the ball back over a free kick recipient's head in order to buy time to man up. A player taking a mark would be dragged to the turf — again to buy time to man up. In the past, time-wasting activities like kicking the ball over the boundary line were used for the same purpose. Brent Guerra, in the 2008 Grand Final, used deliberately rushed behinds to waste time in an attacking ploy.

I have no problem with the 50-metre penalty in these situations.

Recently though, we've seen 50-metre penalties applied for trifling indiscretions: touching an umpire (not aggressively); pointing at an umpire; pointing at your own eyes (in a threatening manner?); abuse of an umpire; and some in-play examples that are inconsistently adjudicated . . . Arguably inconsistent applications include the contrast between the Heath Shaw suspension and the Henry Slattery letoff for touching umpires (it's not hard to argue that Shaw's action was more aggressive than Slattery's) that was announced as a zero tolerance policy a few short weeks ago.

AFL Umpiring Director, Jeff Gieschen, has made the point that player behaviour toward umpires in the elite competition provides an 'acceptable behaviour template' (my words, my emphasis) for players in lesser competitions, where security arrangements for umpires might be non-existent. I'm sure there are scenarios every weekend of the season where umpires in lesser competitions fear for their safety.

Despite this rational argument, the practical implementation leaves much to be desired. As things stand at Round 5 of 2009, the umpires are looking precious. Perhaps it's a personality-driven thing. Is it just me, or does Steve McBurney feature disproportionately in the awarding of off-the-ball 50-metre penalties? Does he have super vision, is he simply extra vigilant, or is he the ultimate umpiring technocrat? (I'll go for #3.)

Whatever the reasons, whatever the justifications, the elite-level game is now littered with 50-metre penalties for trivial offences. A penalty awarded anywhere forward of the half-back line virtually means a kick for goal. This is too large a penalty for many of the infractions it is applied to.

Applying my Nostradamus-like qualities to this conundrum, I'd suggest we'll see a review of these interpretations for the next season.

This has been yet another example of the AFL trying to crush a peanut with a 50-tonne press.
Read More

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Of Emperors and clothes . . .

3 comments:
As I was having the heretical thoughts to follow, I was reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen story of the Emperor's new clothes.

In essence, the story relates how an Emperor is flattered by a charlatan into purchasing a special new suit of clothes. The courtiers all praise the beauty and quality of the clothes, but a small boy, unwise to the tradition of sycophancy in the Imperial court, exclaims that the Emperor is, in fact, naked. Cute, moralistic story. Oft-referenced.

As I watched the Blues battling the Bombers in Round 3 (Thank you to my footy gods again!), it occurred to me that Chris Judd had got a hell of a lot of the ball, but hadn't really damaged the Bombers.

Judd was roundly praised for his 32 touches, but they were hardly the rapier thrusts and swashbuckling swathes that 32 Ablett touches would likely cut through an opposition. Judd's kicks were more like gentle lobs to a man in a little bit of space. Hardly the stuff of footy nightmare. Thinking back, I can't recall, even vaguely, an incident where the current Judd has torched the opposition.

I'm beginning to think that Judd may have feet of clay, that he may be . . . . . . over-rated.

The Emperor has no clothes!!!
Read More

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Jack Anthony, you're the man!!!

1 comment:
Long-time readers — I'm sure there are some of you out there — will know that I am a devoted Bombers man. I hope you would also realise, from reading AussieRulesBlog, that I care as much, and perhaps more, about our game than I do about my favourite team.

The Round 1 Collingwood-Adelaide game was the last of seven games for the round that I watched. It was an entertaining game and the Magpies lost in a close result, so my footy gods had done their bit. Jack Anthony, as has become his habit, was a very effective marking forward and a beautiful kick for goal. However there was an earlier aspect of Jack's game that impressed me far more.

At the start of the game, it's normal, these days, for opponents to greet each other with a bump. For all I know, the exchange might be along the lines of, "G'day china," — umph — "that was a great pub we saw you at last week." But, from the sidelines, these rituals seem designed to steal the intimidatory march on the opponent.

The aforementioned Jack Anthony however, sought out his starting opponent, Adelaide's Ben Ruttan, and offered his hand. Ruttan was shocked and moved away. It took two or three efforts, but eventually Ruttan shook Anthony's hand.

What's so impressive you may ask. Well, it's simple. Anthony was symbolically saying to Ruttan, "I respect you for being out here. Good luck." What a wonderful way to commence the game! Play it hard, give no quarter, but respect the guy in the other jumper. It's called sportsmanship.
Read More

Friday, April 03, 2009

Off-the-ball free kicks

No comments:
Not for the first time, my attention has been drawn to off-the-play free kicks, this time while watching Adelaide-Saints on the idiot box.

In the first quarter, an Adelaide free was overturned because of an off-the-ball incident. The TV audience and some of the radio audience were aware of the reason for the change, but the punters sitting at AAMI Stadium are left completely in the dark.

We really need some way to provide an explanation for these otherwise inexplicable decisions. Perhaps an explanatory slide on the scoreboard?

This is irrespective of the merits or otherwise of any one specific decision.

Unfortunately, the way the game is moving, these off-the-ball-based, sometimes tiggy-touch-wood interpreted, free kicks can have potentially catastrophic consequences for a team whose supporters at the ground are left in the dark.

It's time that the AFL's paying customers were kept informed on the reasons for these incidents.
Read More

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Jeff?

Michael Gleeson's piece in The Age, and especially the quotes of Jeff Gieschen therein, show exactly how parlous the state of officiating in elite Aussie Rules has become. The logical contortions required to justify the current week's interpretations of rules are breathtaking. God-botherers aguing about angels and pins would be almost a breath of logical fresh air by contrast.

Nick Maxwell is quoted saying: "I thinks there's just a little bit of confusion [among players] at the moment." Well, Nick, you sure dribbled a bib-full there. If the players, who have regular conversation with the umpires, are confused, what chance de we poor dumb punters have?

The micro-definition of (some) laws of the game, the (temporary) 'zero tolerance' stands, constant shifting (apparently) of interpretations, bald-faced contradictions as noted by Gleeson AND the increasingly precious attitude on the part of some umpires are damaging the brand.

I think most players and spectators want one thing and one thing only from the umpires: CONSISTENCY. Even if we think a rule is a crock of poo, if it's applied and adjudicated consistently, I'm sure most people would wear that. If the current interpretations don't allow for consistent application, CHANGE THEM!

The buck for this mess has to stop somewhere. Jeff, grab your coat and piss off!

Will Jeff Gieschen kill the 50-metre penalty?

The 50-metre penalty was initially introduced to combat 'professional' time-wasting. Defenders would hurl the ball back over a free kick recipient's head in order to buy time to man up. A player taking a mark would be dragged to the turf — again to buy time to man up. In the past, time-wasting activities like kicking the ball over the boundary line were used for the same purpose. Brent Guerra, in the 2008 Grand Final, used deliberately rushed behinds to waste time in an attacking ploy.

I have no problem with the 50-metre penalty in these situations.

Recently though, we've seen 50-metre penalties applied for trifling indiscretions: touching an umpire (not aggressively); pointing at an umpire; pointing at your own eyes (in a threatening manner?); abuse of an umpire; and some in-play examples that are inconsistently adjudicated . . . Arguably inconsistent applications include the contrast between the Heath Shaw suspension and the Henry Slattery letoff for touching umpires (it's not hard to argue that Shaw's action was more aggressive than Slattery's) that was announced as a zero tolerance policy a few short weeks ago.

AFL Umpiring Director, Jeff Gieschen, has made the point that player behaviour toward umpires in the elite competition provides an 'acceptable behaviour template' (my words, my emphasis) for players in lesser competitions, where security arrangements for umpires might be non-existent. I'm sure there are scenarios every weekend of the season where umpires in lesser competitions fear for their safety.

Despite this rational argument, the practical implementation leaves much to be desired. As things stand at Round 5 of 2009, the umpires are looking precious. Perhaps it's a personality-driven thing. Is it just me, or does Steve McBurney feature disproportionately in the awarding of off-the-ball 50-metre penalties? Does he have super vision, is he simply extra vigilant, or is he the ultimate umpiring technocrat? (I'll go for #3.)

Whatever the reasons, whatever the justifications, the elite-level game is now littered with 50-metre penalties for trivial offences. A penalty awarded anywhere forward of the half-back line virtually means a kick for goal. This is too large a penalty for many of the infractions it is applied to.

Applying my Nostradamus-like qualities to this conundrum, I'd suggest we'll see a review of these interpretations for the next season.

This has been yet another example of the AFL trying to crush a peanut with a 50-tonne press.

Of Emperors and clothes . . .

As I was having the heretical thoughts to follow, I was reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen story of the Emperor's new clothes.

In essence, the story relates how an Emperor is flattered by a charlatan into purchasing a special new suit of clothes. The courtiers all praise the beauty and quality of the clothes, but a small boy, unwise to the tradition of sycophancy in the Imperial court, exclaims that the Emperor is, in fact, naked. Cute, moralistic story. Oft-referenced.

As I watched the Blues battling the Bombers in Round 3 (Thank you to my footy gods again!), it occurred to me that Chris Judd had got a hell of a lot of the ball, but hadn't really damaged the Bombers.

Judd was roundly praised for his 32 touches, but they were hardly the rapier thrusts and swashbuckling swathes that 32 Ablett touches would likely cut through an opposition. Judd's kicks were more like gentle lobs to a man in a little bit of space. Hardly the stuff of footy nightmare. Thinking back, I can't recall, even vaguely, an incident where the current Judd has torched the opposition.

I'm beginning to think that Judd may have feet of clay, that he may be . . . . . . over-rated.

The Emperor has no clothes!!!

Jack Anthony, you're the man!!!

Long-time readers — I'm sure there are some of you out there — will know that I am a devoted Bombers man. I hope you would also realise, from reading AussieRulesBlog, that I care as much, and perhaps more, about our game than I do about my favourite team.

The Round 1 Collingwood-Adelaide game was the last of seven games for the round that I watched. It was an entertaining game and the Magpies lost in a close result, so my footy gods had done their bit. Jack Anthony, as has become his habit, was a very effective marking forward and a beautiful kick for goal. However there was an earlier aspect of Jack's game that impressed me far more.

At the start of the game, it's normal, these days, for opponents to greet each other with a bump. For all I know, the exchange might be along the lines of, "G'day china," — umph — "that was a great pub we saw you at last week." But, from the sidelines, these rituals seem designed to steal the intimidatory march on the opponent.

The aforementioned Jack Anthony however, sought out his starting opponent, Adelaide's Ben Ruttan, and offered his hand. Ruttan was shocked and moved away. It took two or three efforts, but eventually Ruttan shook Anthony's hand.

What's so impressive you may ask. Well, it's simple. Anthony was symbolically saying to Ruttan, "I respect you for being out here. Good luck." What a wonderful way to commence the game! Play it hard, give no quarter, but respect the guy in the other jumper. It's called sportsmanship.

Off-the-ball free kicks

Not for the first time, my attention has been drawn to off-the-play free kicks, this time while watching Adelaide-Saints on the idiot box.

In the first quarter, an Adelaide free was overturned because of an off-the-ball incident. The TV audience and some of the radio audience were aware of the reason for the change, but the punters sitting at AAMI Stadium are left completely in the dark.

We really need some way to provide an explanation for these otherwise inexplicable decisions. Perhaps an explanatory slide on the scoreboard?

This is irrespective of the merits or otherwise of any one specific decision.

Unfortunately, the way the game is moving, these off-the-ball-based, sometimes tiggy-touch-wood interpreted, free kicks can have potentially catastrophic consequences for a team whose supporters at the ground are left in the dark.

It's time that the AFL's paying customers were kept informed on the reasons for these incidents.