Sunday’s free kick against Essendon’s Cale Hooker for a deliberately rushed behind, subsequently adjudicated as the correct decision by Giesch and Co, brings into sharp focus the extremely hazy definition of “pressure” in the context of this rule.
Hooker was a little further out from the goal line than Henry Slattery a few weeks earlier, but had lost his footing where Slattery maintained his. Koschitzke was three or four metres from Hooker and could reasonably have been expected to be moving quickly to tackle Hooker (that he wasn’t says more about Kosi than about the rule!). Slattery had Franklin a couple of metres behind him.
In neither case did the Essendon player get tackled across the goal line.
So, The Giesch says the Slattery decision was wrong, and Scott McLaren paid a price for it, and now says the Hooker decision was right.
AussieRulesBlog would be happy for both to be right, and many more besides, but once again ‘interpretations’ have left the game in a very murky place.
The issue for The Giesch now is to come up with an everyman explanation of “pressure” in the context of this rule — an everyman explanation that umpires can apply, correctly and consistently, in a split second; an everyman explanation that tells players precisely what they can and can’t do. Oh, and it would be useful if fans were let in on the secret too!
Posts
2 comments:
I have a feeling that this rule wont last tooooo long in AFL football for exactly the reason you stated "once again ‘interpretations’ have left the game in a very murky place.."
The rule worked well when players were less savvy about what did and didn't constitute pressure, so the defenders just high-tailed it away from goal as fast as possible.
Now, The Giesch's inconsistent interpretations have created a grey area where there was none. Both Slattery and Hooker deliberately rushed behinds. We all know that.
For Gieschen to say one is and one isn't is akin to Cardinals in pre-Rennaisance Rome arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin — pointless.
I'm happy to keep the rule, but it needs to be clearly defined.
Post a Comment