Hudson 50 raises issues of consistency

In light of the renewed focus on footy crowd behaviour, it’s strangely coincidental that AFL Umpiring boss, Jeff Gieschen, has confirmed the fifty-metre penalty against Bulldog Ben Hudson last weekend.

 

Hudson’s ‘crime’ was to raise his arms and loudly ask “What?” a couple of times in response to a free kick awarded against him.

 

AussieRulesBlog wants to take a slightly left-field look at this incident, but first we should all remember that rule 18.1 — the rule defining when fifty-metre penalties can be imposed — clause (d) reads:

behaves in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards an umpire or disputes the decision of an umpire;

 

No-one could realistically suggest that Hudson did anything other than dispute the decision. His actions and his voice cannot seriously have been construed as abusive, threatening, insulting or obscene.

 

We can’t fault the logic of imposing sanctions on AFL players for abuse, insult or threat as a role model for lesser competitions, yet the penalty against Hudson does feel somewhat at odds with what’s happening in the game in general at AFL level. We don’t have any research to support our anecdotal recollection.

 

The left field element comes from the NRL. We’ve been watching a bit of ‘british bulldog for big boys’ recently having acquired a taste for a winning team — Melbourne Storm — during the Bombers’ mid-season run of losses*. One aspect of NRL that is in stark contrast with AFL is players’ reactions to penalties against them. It’s not that there’s no dissent — and there isn’t — but there’s a level of deference and respect shown to referees that Andrew Demetriou and Jeff Gieschen could only dream of.

 

To muddy these waters still further, there’s the example of ‘Association’ football, or soccer, where referees are routinely confronted by excited players, manhandled by players.

 

As noted, we don’t have an issue with the elite competition providing a behaviour template for players (and others) in lesser competitions. Our issue is consistency. The Hudson penalty seems out of kilter with other, similar incidents; more an exception than an example of the prevailing application of the rule.

 

As always, consistency is the gold standard and, as usual, the AFL’s umpiring department doesn’t seem capable of providing it.

 

* We attended every game (in person in Melbourne and on TV in Perth) and stayed to the final siren regardless of the score.