Sunday, May 02, 2010

Hair-trigger reinterpretation

Sitting in the great Southern Stand last night watching the BombersHawks clash, AussieRulesBlog was astounded at the variance of the umpiring from all but one other game we have seen, either live or on TV, in the first five rounds.

 

We have no argument with the free kick awarded against Slattery for a rushed behind, but it’s not the way the rule has been umpired since it was introduced.

 

We have no argument against a player tackling a player who has just marked being penalised, but Jordan Lewis was entitled to be gobsmacked because the ball had clearly and obviously — to everyone except the controlling umpire — not travelled 15 metres.

 

There were other instances that we cannot recall in detail at this moment — the Foxtel replay having been bumped in the schedule by some obscure hit and giggle cricket tournament.

 

We are struggling to avoid concluding that the presence of ‘Razor’ Ray Chamberlain and Scott McLaren on the umpiring ‘team’ presaged something out of the ordinary. We are uncommonly grateful that Steve McBurney was otherwise engaged. THAT particular AFL version of the Bermuda Triangle could see the rules of the game as we know them disappear forever!

 

Regular readers will know that we have consistently demanded nothing less of the umpiring fraternity than consistency. We accept that umpires on the ground will have a different view, and therefore a different application of the rules. What we cannot accept, and it has been a feature of the Gieschen reign at umpiring HQ, is changing interpretations of rules and changing applications from week to week.

 

For the most part in season 2010, umpiring has been at what most would regard as the ‘sensible’ end of the continuum. Enter the Chamberlain/McLaren team and their hair trigger application of rules which is a long way toward the loony zealot end of the scale.

 

Must we say it again? Oh, alright! Release the Giesch! (and send Chamberlain, McLaren and McBurney off to football purgatory with him.)

No comments:

Hair-trigger reinterpretation

Sitting in the great Southern Stand last night watching the BombersHawks clash, AussieRulesBlog was astounded at the variance of the umpiring from all but one other game we have seen, either live or on TV, in the first five rounds.

 

We have no argument with the free kick awarded against Slattery for a rushed behind, but it’s not the way the rule has been umpired since it was introduced.

 

We have no argument against a player tackling a player who has just marked being penalised, but Jordan Lewis was entitled to be gobsmacked because the ball had clearly and obviously — to everyone except the controlling umpire — not travelled 15 metres.

 

There were other instances that we cannot recall in detail at this moment — the Foxtel replay having been bumped in the schedule by some obscure hit and giggle cricket tournament.

 

We are struggling to avoid concluding that the presence of ‘Razor’ Ray Chamberlain and Scott McLaren on the umpiring ‘team’ presaged something out of the ordinary. We are uncommonly grateful that Steve McBurney was otherwise engaged. THAT particular AFL version of the Bermuda Triangle could see the rules of the game as we know them disappear forever!

 

Regular readers will know that we have consistently demanded nothing less of the umpiring fraternity than consistency. We accept that umpires on the ground will have a different view, and therefore a different application of the rules. What we cannot accept, and it has been a feature of the Gieschen reign at umpiring HQ, is changing interpretations of rules and changing applications from week to week.

 

For the most part in season 2010, umpiring has been at what most would regard as the ‘sensible’ end of the continuum. Enter the Chamberlain/McLaren team and their hair trigger application of rules which is a long way toward the loony zealot end of the scale.

 

Must we say it again? Oh, alright! Release the Giesch! (and send Chamberlain, McLaren and McBurney off to football purgatory with him.)

0 comments: