Perhaps leopards DO change their spots? Sitting amongst the crowd at the NAB Cup Bushfire Relief game at Docklands Stadium I was, frankly, astounded that the trial rule changes were not attacked with more gusto by the adjudicators. Normally the Giesch’s blokes go at a new rule like a starving dog at a bone — but not so on Friday night.
Most contentious among the rule changes was the decision to punish “rushed behinds” with a free kick. I have yet to watch the game on the small screen, but, from the stands, there appeared to be at least two instances where a defender clearly “manipulated” the ball across the goal line. The crowd were somewhat nonplussed that a free kick wasn’t awarded. I have heard a suggestion that the rule is intended only to remove the Bowden Manoeuvre. If so, it has been successful, but more detailed information seems to be in short supply.
Less contentious, a rule prohibiting restraint of a player after having disposed of the ball came into play a couple of times (apparently — it’s one of the major failings of our game at present that increasingly contentious rulings on the field are not explained to the paying customers) with 50-metre penalties awarded, but there seemed to be many other occasions warranting such penalties.
Finally, a defender, caught on the boundary line near the goals, handballing vaguely in the direction of the goals, but certainly over the boundary line, was not penalised for deliberate out-of-bounds. In 2008, a similar defensive handball, aimed at the goal line, but instead going out of bounds, would have been penalised with a free kick. Not so in 2009 it seems.
All of this seems to suggest that the Giesch has indeed changed his “spots”. I fear there's been an outbreak of virulent commonsense at AFL Umpiring Central. No doubt the medication will take hold and blot it out soon. Then we can return to normal and have rules, especially new ones, umpired to the fine letter of the law at the beginning of the season and eased off in the run to finals. I just can't take these new ways of doing things, Jeff.
Release the Giesch!!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Leopards and spots . . .
Labels:
Rushed behinds,
Umpiring
Perhaps leopards DO change their spots? Sitting amongst the crowd at the NAB Cup Bushfire Relief game at Docklands Stadium I was, frankly, astounded that the trial rule changes were not attacked with more gusto by the adjudicators. Normally the Giesch’s blokes go at a new rule like a starving dog at a bone — but not so on Friday night.Most contentious among the rule changes was the decision to punish “rushed behinds” with a free kick. I have yet to watch the game on the small screen, but, from the stands, there appeared to be at least two instances where a defender clearly “manipulated” the ball across the goal line. The crowd were somewhat nonplussed that a free kick wasn’t awarded. I have heard a suggestion that the rule is intended only to remove the Bowden Manoeuvre. If so, it has been successful, but more detailed information seems to be in short supply.
Less contentious, a rule prohibiting restraint of a player after having disposed of the ball came into play a couple of times (apparently — it’s one of the major failings of our game at present that increasingly contentious rulings on the field are not explained to the paying customers) with 50-metre penalties awarded, but there seemed to be many other occasions warranting such penalties.
Finally, a defender, caught on the boundary line near the goals, handballing vaguely in the direction of the goals, but certainly over the boundary line, was not penalised for deliberate out-of-bounds. In 2008, a similar defensive handball, aimed at the goal line, but instead going out of bounds, would have been penalised with a free kick. Not so in 2009 it seems.
All of this seems to suggest that the Giesch has indeed changed his “spots”. I fear there's been an outbreak of virulent commonsense at AFL Umpiring Central. No doubt the medication will take hold and blot it out soon. Then we can return to normal and have rules, especially new ones, umpired to the fine letter of the law at the beginning of the season and eased off in the run to finals. I just can't take these new ways of doing things, Jeff.
Release the Giesch!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Curious as to your views on the St Kilda V Brisbane umpiring... particularly in the last QTR.
I felt the saints were a bit hard done by, but that may be bias.
James, I think the umpiring has been pretty benign all round to this point. It is always difficult, amidst the emotion of watching one's own team, to make an objective judgement.
That said, comments by Gerard Healey on the Fox coverage of Tigers/Dockers suggests confusion even amongst the presumably well-briefed media about the actual operation of the anti-Bowden Manoeuvre rule. While I think the rule is clearly successful, as far as the current interpretation generally takes it, neither the AFL administration nor the umpiring department seem to have taken the rest of the football community into their confidence.
The undecision on Sam Fisher thumping the ball across the line, defended by a miked-up field umpire as a “marking contest”, is one of the more interesting pieces of rationalisation I've heard in recent years.
Thanks for your interest.
Not to mention the non decisions against the Bulldogs on friday night...
I feel better about the umpiring now that I have watched the replay... in the last qtr though i still feel the saints were a bit stiff but overall a good performance from the umpires.
Post a Comment