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.