Refreshingly, in February 2010 we are not going to be discussing new or changed rules of the game, but the AFL’s announcement of sanctions for staging for free kicks is mostly welcome.
The major issue, and it’s not of the AFL’s making (this time), will be misunderstanding of the definition of staging. Already, on the back page of Age Sport, Martin Blake has singled out a list of stagers.
What is abundantly clear from the AFL’s explanatory video is that these sanctions are directed at players who exaggerate the impact of a physical confrontation — falling like autumn leaves might be an apt description.
Since it is only with the particular perspective and clarity of TV cameras and slow-motion replays that many of these acts of staging become fully apparent, it would seem that it will be the match review panel, rather than the field umpires, doing most of the heavy lifting on this issue
Blake’s list of stagers features seven players who exaggerate(d) defensive contact infringements against them (Wanganeen, Lloyd, Brent Harvey, Fevola, Leon Davis, Milne, Monfries). This is a wholly inaccurate representation of the intent of the AFL’s anti-staging position.
Even worse, The Age is running an online vote for the worst stagers, having at least partly misrepresented the AFL’s position.
Lest there be confusion, let us make clear that the incidents in the AFL video do not involve exaggerating a push in the back or falling in the act of marking in an effort to bring the defender into infringing contact. Whilst we would agree that the game might be better without this type of action, it is not covered under the new system.
It is disingenuous of The Age and of Martin Blake to imply that the listed players are ‘stagers’ under the AFL’s definition.
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between staging and diving, although colloquially they are all but interchangeable.
Less controversial will be the upgrading of so-called ‘spear tackles’ to reportable offence status. It will be interesting to see what the umpires, match review panel and the tribunal consider to be a spear tackle.
Aussierulesblog can forsee a further development of the spear tackle ban being the tackle where a player’s shoulder is intentionally ground into the playing surface in a tackle. Remember, you read it here first!
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
AFL staging sanctions welcome, but. . .
Labels:
laws of the game
Refreshingly, in February 2010 we are not going to be discussing new or changed rules of the game, but the AFL’s announcement of sanctions for staging for free kicks is mostly welcome.The major issue, and it’s not of the AFL’s making (this time), will be misunderstanding of the definition of staging. Already, on the back page of Age Sport, Martin Blake has singled out a list of stagers.
What is abundantly clear from the AFL’s explanatory video is that these sanctions are directed at players who exaggerate the impact of a physical confrontation — falling like autumn leaves might be an apt description.
Since it is only with the particular perspective and clarity of TV cameras and slow-motion replays that many of these acts of staging become fully apparent, it would seem that it will be the match review panel, rather than the field umpires, doing most of the heavy lifting on this issue
Blake’s list of stagers features seven players who exaggerate(d) defensive contact infringements against them (Wanganeen, Lloyd, Brent Harvey, Fevola, Leon Davis, Milne, Monfries). This is a wholly inaccurate representation of the intent of the AFL’s anti-staging position.
Even worse, The Age is running an online vote for the worst stagers, having at least partly misrepresented the AFL’s position.
Lest there be confusion, let us make clear that the incidents in the AFL video do not involve exaggerating a push in the back or falling in the act of marking in an effort to bring the defender into infringing contact. Whilst we would agree that the game might be better without this type of action, it is not covered under the new system.
It is disingenuous of The Age and of Martin Blake to imply that the listed players are ‘stagers’ under the AFL’s definition.
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between staging and diving, although colloquially they are all but interchangeable.
Less controversial will be the upgrading of so-called ‘spear tackles’ to reportable offence status. It will be interesting to see what the umpires, match review panel and the tribunal consider to be a spear tackle.
Aussierulesblog can forsee a further development of the spear tackle ban being the tackle where a player’s shoulder is intentionally ground into the playing surface in a tackle. Remember, you read it here first!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Staging and diving? whats the difference?
There's a need to distinguish between falling like an autumn leaf and allowing defensive contact to be more easily noticed by the umpire. We can call one staging and one diving. The AFL have defined 'staging' in their video. It then follows that exaggerating defensive contact is diving.
Having few new rules to worry about is a refreshingly good change.
The focus on staging is a curious one.
I too would hope that it is saved for extreme occurences.
How about that crowd favourite: give him an academy!!
We'll need to wait and see what the MRP serve up to know absolutely, but the video suggests that 'diving' (in a leading marking contest, for example), which would most often be the subject of your "Give him an academy" comment, Mister Football, will not be policed under these staging sanctions. I hope that is the case. Otherwise, we'll be heading down the awful slope of video review of on-field decisions, and THAT would be too horrible to comtemplate (I hope).
Post a Comment