Despite repeated emphatic denials by AFL executives, further evidence tonight in the North-Carlton game that there is a Rule of the Week.

Tonight, for the first time in our recollection, players caught with the ball and punching it to indicate "a genuine attempt to get rid of the ball" were penalised because they were, to quote the umpires, "punching the ball to themselves". We heard this from two separate umpires, so it has to be assumed it is an instruction rather than an idiosyncratic expression.

We don't have a problem with this new interpretation in general, but there are caveats. If the ball is being held in by an opponent, there should be no free kick.

Our big problem with the interpretation is that it hasn't applied previously in this season. The rule has to be that a free kick interpretation for round one of the pre-season is exactly the same as the free kick interpretation in the last thirty seconds of the Grand Final. This interpretation has appeared out of nowhere for round 19. It's just not good enough.

Release the Giesch!!!!

Hold on readers. Lance Franklin has just been effectively wiped out of elite level AFL football!

Speaking on the AFL's What's Your Decision web show, AFL umpiring department boss Jeff Gieschen says Docker Hayden Ballantyne's after the siren shot in last weekend's Western Derby should have been disallowed because Ballantyne ran off the direct line between himself and the spot nominated as "the mark" by the umpire.

We're not sure if Jeff has watched many games recently, but the are a number of players who take somewhat circuitous runups when kicking, none moreso than the aforementioned Lance Franklin.

So, AussieRulesBlog checked our calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools Day (it's not). Now we can hardly wait for the next Hawthorn game and for Franklin to take a mark or be awarded a free kick.

Seriously, can Gieschen's credibility diminish any further?

Not for the first time, AussieRulesBlog is moved to address the issue of incidental contact in the context of free kicks.

In an incident we noticed in the West Coast–Dockers game yesterday, a player dived toward the ball and initiated contact with an opponent’s legs. The umpire paid a free kick for high contact. This is hardly an isolated example and it’s an issue we’ve visited previously.

In the recent West Coast–Geelong game, a number of free kicks were paid in ruck contests for what was clearly incidental illegal contact yet obvious holding by the ruckmen was allowed because, according to the umpire, both players were holding. We commented recently on the application of the rules to ruck contests.

Now, we’re struck by the logical inconsistency of a position where one player is penalised for a contact he did not initiate and could not avoid, yet other players are not penalised for clear and obvious breaches. And let’s make it clear that this is not an issue about umpiring performance — it’s about the rules and the way umpires are instructed to interpret them.

Recently, discussing the sling tackle issue, we suggested a player making incidental contact with an opponent’s boot as a result of a sling tackle would not result in the opponent being penalised for kicking, yet incidental contact with the ground was regarded by the MRP as high contact in determining Jack Trengove’s guilt. Another logical inconsistency.

There’s an underlying issue here. Zero-tolerance policies are populist responses to complex issues. They’re also highly likely to generate exceptions. And make no mistake — the intent of the rules and interpretations in relation to high contact and hands-in-the-back is zero tolerance. That is, any and every breach will be penalised regardless of intent.

We don’t think anyone can have an argument with the general proposition that players’ heads should be protected as effectively as we can do so. If a player cops a clothesline tackle or a whack to the head or a bump that connects with the currently-defined area for high contact, we generally have no issue with free kicks.

But what we see every week is tiny, insignificant, incidental high contacts being free kicked.

When the hands-in-the-back interpretation of the push in the back rule was introduced, the umpires were clearly under instruction to establish a baseline for acceptable contact. A player flexing a pinky finger in the same postcode as his opponent’s back was free kicked. Now we’re seeing a more relaxed interpretation on most occasions with only occasional over-zealousness.

We don’t think a zero tolerance approach works — in anything. As soon as discretion to consider context is removed, injustices, both large and small, are an inevitable consequence.

What’s the solution? Borrowing from the MRP’s assessment criteria, if the action that causes contact to an opponent, be it high contact or hands in the back, is intentional, reckless or negligent — that is, if the player could reasonably expect that taking that action could result in illegal contact — then pay the free kick. If it is incidental, play on. This arrangement would require umpires to make an on-the-spot judgement of players’ actions, which they do with deliberate out-of-bounds and deliberate rushed behind now (but perhaps we could provide some better guidance than is currently provided?).

This isn’t a perfect schema, but we liken it to the legal system. It’s better that nine guilty people go free than that an innocent person is convicted. In football terms, we’d rather nine free kicks be missed than that an incidental contact be free kicked.

We’re reminded of the mediaeval debates that occurred among theological scholars about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. Adrian Anderson’s assertion of Tyson Goldsack’s innocence of gambling-related malfeasance has the same ring of unreality.

It’s not enough that there’s “no evidence” — according to Anderson — that Goldsack provided inside information to family members. In this respect at least, the AFL must work to the nth degree to ensure that the game is beyond reproach. The fact that a bet was placed and the wager was won means there’s a prima facie smell of fish.

It matters not that Goldsack’s mates backed him to win the Norm Smith Medal. The point is that, however unlikely it might have seemed, Goldsack did come off the bench, went forward, and kicked the first goal. Had there been no wager, Goldsack is merely an answer in footy trivia. But there was a wager, and a very, very specific one.

It would have been a more acceptable approach for the AFL to levy even a token fine — perhaps amounting to the $400 won on the bet — whilst expressing confidence in Goldsack’s innocence.

It’s not stretching credulity too far to imagine that the only difference between Heath “Weet Bix” Shaw, Nick Maxwell and Tyson Goldsack is that the former came clean.

Sharp-eyed readers may have noticed an increasing frequency of visitors in the live traffic feed to a post we made in June of 2009. This post was in response to Chris Judd being bandaged up and looking remarkably similar to “a certain major character in the multi-chapter Harry Potter movie franchise”.

With the release of the final Harry Potter movie, we’ve finally got absolutely sick of the visitors to that post and we’ve gone back and edited it to remove said character’s name.

If it’s still our most ‘popular’ page in another week, we’ll have to go back and rename the image files.

Ah, this vicarious fame is a burden!

AussieRulesBlog wonders if Heath Shaw’s teammates will provide a new nickname for him in the wake of his betting suspension. We suggest “Weet Bix”, since he is a serial idiot!

Seen from a more macro perspective, the AFL, through its clubs and broadcasters, has no-one to blame but itself for this situation. If you lay down with dogs, the likelihood is you’ll wake up with fleas.

The exponential growth of advertising for gambling on AFL has been a useful source of revenue for clubs, but it flies in the face of their repeated claims of “community” involvement to be promoting and advertising not only large betting agencies, but their own outlets.

AussieRulesBlog has been aghast, from the very start, that our own club advertises its Donsbet agency on its website and on the scoreboard during games.

There’s no doubt that smoking has overwhelmingly negative health effects. The game weaned itself off tobacco sponsorship some time ago.

There’s also no doubt that problem gambling has overwhelmingly negative effects on families and businesses. The big difference is that you can see and smell cigarette smoke. Problem gambling is silent and invisible.

It’s one thing for clubs to host poker machines, and we’d much prefer that they weren’t there, but the proliferation of advertising and the unfettered expansion of game betting options takes clubs into murky and dangerous waters.

In this environment, it can hardly be surprising that dimmer bulbs among the playing lists and club environments are persuaded that winning a few dollars on the basis of inside information isn’t going to hurt anyone. And Shaw’s small bet or Maxwell’s family members’ bets aren’t dangerous in themselves. The danger, if you haven’t worked it out for yourself, is that unsavoury elements in the community will see opportunities to ‘lean’ on players for inside information and then artificially tilt the betting market to their financial gain — or in the extreme, persuade players to intentionally throw games.

We wonder how prevalent Nick Maxwell’s habit of relating team strategies to family members in the days leading up to a game is. We wonder just how delighted Mick and Bucks would be about that. It’s safe to assume that neither Maxwell nor Shaw are going to be fielding recruiting calls from Mensa.

We think the AFL has hit just the right note on this. The Federal Government’s ‘encouragement’ for codes to wean themselves off the gambling teat seems to have come a just about the right time too.

Firstly, we should declare our allegience again. We are Essendon through and through. We are not blindly loyal though — if there’s any doubt on that point, look through our posts on the sacking of Matthew Knights and appointment of James Hird.

Angus Monfries frank admission today that he “took a dive” when confronted by Jordan Lewis needs to be considered carefully and knee-jerk reactions avoided.

There are a number of issues to consider.

The terms “staging” and “diving” seem to be used interchangeably, but AussieRulesBlog contends that there are two quite different actions involved, whatever we may choose to call them (and we’ve written extensively in a number of online fora on this issue).

The AFL introduced “staging sanctions” — a scale of fines — directed against players who feigned receipt of an aggressive contact in order to dupe umpires into paying free kicks or fifty-metre penalties. The key thing here is that there is no physical contact. A video highlighting this scenario featured Kane Cornes falling like an autumn leaf when the video clearly shows that the opponent’s arm did not make any contact. This is the sort of scenario aussie rules fans are pleased to deride soccer for, calling the Azzuri the Italian National Diving team, for instance.

Given that the AFL has used the word staging in the context of feigning contact where none has occurred, it would make sense to maintain that meme.

Alternatively, players can exaggerate contact to emphasise it — which is what we think Monfries is talking about. Exaggerating contact to attract an umpire’s attention has been going on since Tom Wills kicked his first possum skin ball back in the 19th century. Since Monfries used the word dive in his admission and we’re almost certain he meant it in the context of exaggerating contact, there’s an obvious case to use exaggeration as the underlying definition.

Following on then, can we make a case for suspension or fines for diving? AussieRulesBlog thinks not. By definition, contact occurred, so for most intents and purposes, a free kick should be received — providing the umpire perceives the contact. By taking a dive, players simply amplify the effect of the contact.

There’s no doubt that Monfries’ admission will generate an outcry in the media and in online fora, but let’s be careful not to overreact. (We know this is a forlorn hope.)

AussieRulesBlog watched the Weagles–Cats game last Friday night  with increasing alarm as one ruck infringement decision after another baffled everyone in the football world. The only person with any knowledge of the reason for these free kicks is the umpire concerned. Certainly the ruckmen themselves have absolutely no idea.

Under Jeff Gieschen, the umpiring department chooses to change its focus from round to round — often from quarter to quarter — and yet the blight of ruckmen wrestling each other continues.

If the rules of the game are applied in the ruck as they are everywhere else on the field — subject to weekly changes of interpretation though they are — we don’t have a problem.

If a defender grapples an opponent in a marking contest the way ruckmen grapple each other, ninety-nine times out of a hundred a free kick is paid. Why not apply the same interpretation in the ruck?

Where are those great saviours of the game, Andrew Demetriou and Adrian Anderson? Do wrestle-style ruck contests do anything positive for the image of the game?

It’s long past time to clean up this aspect of the game. Let both ruckmen contest the ball to their best ability without holding, grappling or shepherding.

Adrian Anderson’s Tribunal ‘system’ for the AFL just keeps throwing up decisions that fail to meet anybody’s expectations. This week we see Brad Ottens being flogged with a wet lettuce leaf for one of the more blatant behind the play strikes in recent years.

Quite how the system can let Ottens off with a week when Campbell Brown got two and Heath Hocking, after contesting his assessment, got three beggars belief.

Ottens was clearly looking at Nicoski and, equally clearly, cocked and threw the point of his elbow to strike Nicoski’s head. Dog act though it was, Campbell Brown wasn’t facing Callan Ward when he felled him, so there may have been an element of ill luck involved. AussieRulesBlog continues to contend that Heath Hocking was attempting to brush by Polkinghorne to continue his pursuit of Simon Black and did not intentionally strike Polkinghorne — not to mention Polkinghorne’s illegal block of Hocking.

Adding a weighting factor for incidents behind the play doesn’t sort this issue out, since all three were off the ball.

The system works tolerably well for more minor infractions, but simply doesn’t consistently provide results that meet football community expectations for more serious matters. The Tribunal can take account of factors in a way that the inflexible points system can’t. On any objective review, Ottens should be serving a longer penance than either Brown or Hocking.

A very sad day for the football world today with the passing of Allan Jeans, former coach of St Kilda, Hawthorn and Richmond football clubs.

Jeans was a highly-respected opponent, even at the height of the intense rivalry between Essendon and Hawthorn in the 80s. His teams, especially at Hawthorn, played with a take-no-prisoners zeal and were fearsome competitors.

From the many stories AussieRulesBlog has heard over the years, the straight-laced ex-policeman Jeans kept groups of volatile athletes in check and united in their purpose. There’s no doubt that he also gave many of them life skills that have transformed their lives.

Jeans remains a wonderful role model for any who care to take notice.

Well played, Yabby.

Regular AussieRulesBlog readers will know that our most fervent wish is for consistency of application of the rules of the game from the first bounce of pre-season to the final siren in the Grand Final.

Over recent weeks we’ve posted a series of articles focusing on particular rules in a bid to assist people to a better understanding of the rules and consequently better-informed criticism of on-field officiating.

We watched only three games over the weekend just past, but it would be hard to imagine three more different umpiring performances.

Friday night saw the spellbinding clash between the Cats and the Weagles. We didn’t get to the end of the game thinking that the umpires had had any real influence on the game and there weren’t any umpiring clangers that stuck in our mind.

Fast forward to Saturday night and perhaps the most puzzling and inconsistent umpiring performance of the year in the first half. Now, it’s fair to say that the Bombers–Cats game of the previous weekend was champagne football befitting Moet & Chandon. We don’t think we’d get much argument that the first half of the Bombers–Tigers game only merited used dishwashing water by comparison. And it wasn’t helped by three umpires with three seemingly different and interchangeable interpretations of everything from marking to holding the ball.

To round out the weekend, we took in the Bulldogs–Blues game on Foxtel. A great win for the Doggies against a Carlton seemingly believing all the hype about themselves. A great game marred by appalling umpiring. We can only recall one holding the man free kick, quite late in the game, despite countless significant holds after disposal. It’s like these three umpires had ripped the rule book to shreds and just picked up a few randomly selected pages to use for this particular game.

Not to put too fine a point on it, two goals directly from maniacally over-zealous fifty-metre penalties made Carlton’s effort look a lot better than it actually was.

AussieRulesBlog understands that the umpires at AFL level have an extremely difficult job. We understand that having run kilometers while making many often finely-nuanced judgements isn’t an easy gig. But when, as happened in the third quarter of the Bulldogs–Carlton game, a player is held for around two seconds after disposing of the ball and the umpire is clearly looking directly at this happening, but does not award a free kick, we think the way the game is being umpired has become a joke.

This game of ours is too important for there to be, no matter how much The Giesch may deny it, a “rule of the week”. Our game is too important to the fabric of our society for the emphasis and interpretation of the laws of the game to vary in the way that they do.

If Andrew Demetriou and Adrian Anderson seriously believe that Jeff Gieschen and Rowan Sawers are doing a competent job of running the umpiring department, then they need to come and spend some time in the stands with the fans who keep the game alive. Better educating fans to understand the rules is a waste of time when there is such blatant inconsistency.

AussieRulesBlog apologises for running our series of posts focussing on the rules. We’ve mislead our readers badly. An understanding of the rules is a waste of time, because the umpiring department changes, adds and discards rules and interpretations on a whim.

Andrew? Adrian? This situation has to be dealt with. Gieschen has to go. And if you won’t see him on his way, then you have to go.

Does AFL House talk with the umpiring department? At all? We don’t think we’ll be alone in being startled by the latest pronouncement on the sling tackle issue.

This time, it’s Football Operations honcho Adrian Anderson weighing in:

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson says Melbourne's Jack Trengove should have had a free kick paid against him for a tackle many thought would be cited by the match review panel.

. . .

Anderson said a 'rough conduct' free kick should be paid for instances of sling tackles or players being unnecessarily driven into the ground in a tackle, regardless of whether such incidents were considered reportable at the time by the umpires.

He said examples of the rule have been included on an educational DVD sent out each year to explain rule interpretations, going back to 2008.

Sorry, Adrian, but the last time we recall an umpire paying a rough conduct free kick* for a player being slung or driven into the ground in an otherwise legal tackle was when we were watching Noah catch the animals before boarding the ark.

Readers of recent posts won’t be surprised that AussieRulesBlog welcomes Anderson’s announcement. It’s just that it’s so out of kilter with what we’ve got used to seeing from The Giesch’s boys.

Well, at least we know now. Prepare for a zero-tolerance blitz on heavy tackles for the next few weeks!!

————

*For the keen, the rough conduct free kick is at 15.4.5 (l) in the 2011 AFL Laws of the Game booklet.

The MRP’s Round 15 report makes fascinating reading. The sling tackle is OK as long as  the tackled player’s head doesn’t impact the ground and give him a headache.

Here’s the ‘report’ on Trengove’s latest sling tackle:

Contact between Melbourne's Jack Trengove and the Western Bulldogs' Callan Ward from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. Ward had taken possession of the ball when he was wrapped up in a tackle by Trengove. Trengove pivots and takes Ward to the ground. It was the view of the panel that while the action was a slinging motion, the impact on this occasion was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area. The Western Bulldogs' player was immediately able to continue in the game when play proceeded. A medical report from the Western Bulldogs said Ward had sustained no injury and required no treatment after the incident. No further action was taken.

Looking back to the AFL Tribunal Booklet 2010, the section on dangerous tackles includes:

The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without limitation, regard may be had to:

• . . .

• whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

So, we can now confidently say that a sling tackle is perfectly OK as long as there is no discernable impact to the head.

AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that the MRP has made things any easier for the players here. Did Trengove intend his opponent’s head to hit the turf in the tackle he was suspended for? Probably not. Did he mean Callan Ward’s head to hit the turf in this tackle? Probably not. The difference between no case to answer and a short enforced holiday? Luck.

Someone has to get fair dinkum about this issue. It’s one thing to tackle an opponent and drag them to the ground. It’s quite another to sling the opponent with the intention of hurting them, and with a much greater likelihood of causing an impact to the head.

We disagreed with the MRP’s assessment of Trengove’s first tackle being ‘high contact’. The high contact was incidental. Had the tackled player’s head incidentally struck a player’s boot, would the MRP have charged that player with kicking? We think not. Logically then, the high contact should not have been a factor in the assessment.

Assessing the danger of the tackle on the basis of head trauma leaves every player in the competition free to roll the dice and continue to sling tackle with the intent to injure. A better solution would be to penalise the sling tackle at every opportunity, regardless of head trauma.

AussieRulesBlog just doesn’t understand the fascination with knowing the time remaining in the game.

When there is a tight finish, as there was on Saturday night in the Bombers–Cats clash, not knowing how much time is left maintains the tension right up to the moment that the siren sounds. To our mind, this is far preferable to seeing a countdown clock and knowing that the final ten or fifteen seconds are dead.

Predictably, there were commentators and radio talk back callers complaining that Channel 10 chooses to go with a count-up clock from five minutes to go.

Geelong fans were hoping there was enough time for yet another sortie forward and the opportunity to run over the brave but tiring Bombers. Bombers fans hoped the siren would sound sooner rather than later. So much tension! Such an explosion of joy/disappointment at the siren.

We agree that Channel 10 shouldn’t change their time system at a crucial time of the game. We all survived for many, many years with rudimentary clocks that only counted up and didn’t take account of time-on and we all got through those dark days unscathed.

Perhaps some keen AussieRulesBlog reader will provide us with a cogent and compelling reason to know that the last seconds in the game are meaningless.