It’s only incidental

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.