Saturday, May 19, 2012

Zero tolerance to indifference

Zero tolerance is the modern AFL’s preferred response to a crisis. Zero tolerance of racism. Zero tolerance of high tackles. Zero tolerance of hands in the back. Zero tolerance of sling tackles. Ad infinitum.

 

The problem with the zero tolerance approach is that it removes context and nuance from the decision equation. In a zero tolerance world, the Lindsay Thomas–Gary Rohan incident is superficially similar to the Goodes slide tackle and so must be stamped out. Except that on closer inspection it’s not similar at all. The context, intent and subtle nuances of Thomas’ actions are quite different to Goodes’.

 

It doesn’t seem that long ago that the AFL’s umpiring department declared a sort of total war of players maintaining a tackle after an opponent had disposed of the ball. Such was the zero tolerance approach of the umpires that whistles were on a hair trigger. Not being able to see that the ball had been released was simply no defence. “We WILL stamp out players holding opponents after they’ve disposed of the ball!”

 

And so, for a time, there were a rash of absolutely unfair free kicks paid against players who had no chance of knowing that the player they’d tackled no longer had the ball.

 

Fast forward to rounds seven and eight of the 2012 season from those far off days of zero tolerance and you’d think you are in a time warp. Players are routinely tackled to the ground well after disposing of the ball and the umpires’ reaction is . . . indifference.

 

AussieRulesBlog has long espoused the view that the rules should be interpreted the same way in the grand Final as in round one of pre-season. We’ll go further. The interpretation should be the same from season to season unless there’s a compelling reason to change it.

 

Where have these huge swings in interpretation come from? Zero tolerance. If you swing wildly in one direction, karma has a way of evening up by swinging you equally as far in the other direction. Zero tolerance to indifference — racism being the welcome exception.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice to come to a new season knowing that the umpires would apply the same interpretation of the rules that we’d been used to for years? Even if it were only two years?

 

Isaac Newton said it best. For every action, there’s and equal and opposite reaction. Until there’s a moderate and considered approach to these issues that crop up from time to time, we’re fated to suffer lurches in the opposite direction.

No comments:

Zero tolerance to indifference

Zero tolerance is the modern AFL’s preferred response to a crisis. Zero tolerance of racism. Zero tolerance of high tackles. Zero tolerance of hands in the back. Zero tolerance of sling tackles. Ad infinitum.

 

The problem with the zero tolerance approach is that it removes context and nuance from the decision equation. In a zero tolerance world, the Lindsay Thomas–Gary Rohan incident is superficially similar to the Goodes slide tackle and so must be stamped out. Except that on closer inspection it’s not similar at all. The context, intent and subtle nuances of Thomas’ actions are quite different to Goodes’.

 

It doesn’t seem that long ago that the AFL’s umpiring department declared a sort of total war of players maintaining a tackle after an opponent had disposed of the ball. Such was the zero tolerance approach of the umpires that whistles were on a hair trigger. Not being able to see that the ball had been released was simply no defence. “We WILL stamp out players holding opponents after they’ve disposed of the ball!”

 

And so, for a time, there were a rash of absolutely unfair free kicks paid against players who had no chance of knowing that the player they’d tackled no longer had the ball.

 

Fast forward to rounds seven and eight of the 2012 season from those far off days of zero tolerance and you’d think you are in a time warp. Players are routinely tackled to the ground well after disposing of the ball and the umpires’ reaction is . . . indifference.

 

AussieRulesBlog has long espoused the view that the rules should be interpreted the same way in the grand Final as in round one of pre-season. We’ll go further. The interpretation should be the same from season to season unless there’s a compelling reason to change it.

 

Where have these huge swings in interpretation come from? Zero tolerance. If you swing wildly in one direction, karma has a way of evening up by swinging you equally as far in the other direction. Zero tolerance to indifference — racism being the welcome exception.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice to come to a new season knowing that the umpires would apply the same interpretation of the rules that we’d been used to for years? Even if it were only two years?

 

Isaac Newton said it best. For every action, there’s and equal and opposite reaction. Until there’s a moderate and considered approach to these issues that crop up from time to time, we’re fated to suffer lurches in the opposite direction.

0 comments: