Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Anderson to headline Comedy Festival

No comments:

On the AFL’s own website in relation to video referral:

 

Anderson said introduction of a tennis-style challenge system was unlikely.

"The problem with the challenge is the potential for manipulation or (for it) to be used to delay."

 

And then . . .


But he said he didn't see a problem with umpires listening to players who called immediately for a review. 

"A player can be a valuable indication that there's something worth having a look at, as long as they let the guys do their job once they've made the point," Anderson said.

To quote John McEnroe, “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!”

 

Just which bit of “potential for manipulation” does he think doesn’t apply if umpires listen to players’ appeals for review?

Read More

Video ostriches

No comments:

Speaking on AFL 360 tonight on Foxtel’s Fox Footy channel, AFL Football Operations boss Adrian Anderson claimed the lack of goal line cameras to use in video decision referral  during the pre-season competition was the broadcaster’s issue, because the AFL would not fund goal-line cameras.

 

This just gets worse and worse for Anderson. The decision to proceed with a trial of goal umpiring video referral knowing there would be no goal line cameras just beggars belief. That the AFL will not pay for the required cameras suggests that either they’re not serious or they’re playing games

 

Anderson further claimed that the final referral in Sunday’s Port-Adelaide-Carlton game where the replay showed a ball hitting the behind post vindicated the trial. He failed to mention that a ball on a slightly different trajectory hitting the post may not have been so clearly seen brushing the post. On this occasion, the camera was in the perfect location. So much for vindication.

 

Anderson also drew comparisons with tennis and cricket where assistive technologies are not available at every venue or in every series. While true, it’s hardly the point. Cricket doesn’t, for instance, use a camera at deep extra cover or third man — where the camera is a 45° to the batting crease — to judge runouts. When there is a camera for runouts, it’s located right on the plane of the batting crease.

 

Anderson claimed that only six goal umpiring errors were made in 2011. The evidence of 2012 thus far suggests that Gieschen and Anderson are kidding themselves with their figure of one tenth of one percent error rate.  In one ‘round’ of six games in 2012, we’ve had at least three errors. that leaves only three more for the rest of the season. . .

 

Most likely, like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, Gieschen and Anderson decide what ‘error’ means and you can bet your life it’s not a definition you’ll recognise. Ostriches!

Read More

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Video cock-up #4

No comments:

It’ll come as no surprise to regular readers that a fourth cock-up has followed the first three. AussieRulesBlog has already identified the stunningly obvious inadequacies of Adrian Anderson’s goal line video decision assistance trial.

 

In the Port – Carlton leg of the Adelaide round of pre-season round one, a Port player lunges to touch a ball heading towards the goal line. The goal umpire is well-positioned. Port players remonstrate with the umpire when he signals a goal. No video referral is made, inexplicably when the decision is so close.

 

Subsequent replays shown on the broadcast are from game camera angles — which is the root of the problem — but suggest there’s a good case that the goal umpire got the decision wrong.

 

Later in the day, after a disagreement between a goal umpire and a boundary umpire over whether a ball had struck the behind post, the field umpire made a video referral and it was quickly determined that the ball had struck the post — not the decision the goal umpire first signalled.

 

What’s most curious about these two incidents is that the later one wasn’t a goal-line decision. A camera aligned with the goal line — which is the only way that goal line decisions, the stated target of this trial, could be properly judged — wouldn’t have provided any useful information. Only a game camera — and some luck with angles — could provide appropriate video assistance.

 

The first incident needed a goal-line camera, but there aren’t any.

 

This has been a monumental cock-up. Heads should roll. We can only hope that Vlad tears Adrian a new one on Monday morning.

 

Less than a tenth of one percent of goal umpiring decisions are errors according to Anderson. If the past two weekends are any indication, that figure is massively understated. Perhaps Anderson has done the game a favour by highlighting just how poor goal line decisions are when there’s no organised scrutiny of them.

Read More

Friday, February 24, 2012

On TV, ruck rule invisible

No comments:

Our final observation from the first night of the second weekend of AFL pre-season relates to our observation from the Hawks-Roos-Tigers game last week on the implementation of the experimental no-touch rule for boundary ruck contests.

 

Live (at the stadium), it was very clear that there was significant improvement in the spectacle and effectiveness of boundary ruck work with the no-touch rule.

 

Watching tonight’s Swans-Saints-Cats game (live on TV), AussieRulesBlog hardly noticed any boundary ruck contests and the camera didn’t do us any favours to see the ruckmen prior to the ball being thrown in.

 

If you haven’t seen a game live, try to do so during this pre-season so you can see this rule in action.

 

It’s a keeper!

Read More

Duty of care free kicks

No comments:

Another incident from the Saints-Swans-Cats triple header caught our attention tonight. Swan Jude Bolton took possession of the ball in the rough vicinity of the behind post, perhaps five or six meters out from the boundary. He was running at full pace toward his own goal.

 

Bolton duly kicked the goal and was then pushed fair and square in the back by his Saints opponent. What concerned us about this incident was the proximity of the goal post to where Bolton’s body sprawled after the push.

 

A number of points need to be made.

  • Bolton could easily have been pushed into forceful contact with the goal post.
  • Does the duty of care the AFL is fond of talking about in relation to head-high contact also come into play if an opponent is forcefully, deliberately and unlawfully  propelled into a goal or behind post?
  • Why was there no extra kick at goal, or free kick from the centre? The incident is not entirely dissimilar to a Saints player kicking the ball away after a score — in fact it’s considerably worse.
Read More

Goal line video assist debacle

No comments:
Well, it's official. Adrian Anderson's goal line video decision assist trial has descended past farce and it's only the second week of the pre-season.

During the Saints-Swans-Cats triple-header tonight, the video replay was called into play twice. What became abundantly clear on the second occasion is that there are no goal line cameras. This for goal line decisions and there're no goal line cameras! Monty Python didn't dare write scripts as ridiculous as this situation.

For those without payTV, this second video referral concerned an attempt by Brendan Goddard to touch a ball otherwise going through for a goal. The goal umpire was perfectly positioned, astride the goal line. His vision was unobstructed. The goal umpire indicated, unofficially, a goal. It's not clear from the TV coverage who decided to refer to the video official, The game commentary suggested that Goddard may have encouraged the field umpire to refer it — players are not entitled to challenge decisions under the rules published.

Regardless of who initiated the decision, it was quickly obvious that only game camera footage was available. That is, the camera views were at a substantial angle to the goal line!! At a significant angle!!! For making goal line adjudications!!!!! The video referral was, unsurprisingly in the circumstances, “inconclusive”. What an understatement.

We jokingly called for Adrian Anderson's resignation after video cock-up #1. We're not joking any longer. Video cock-up #3 is nothing short of incompetent.

Video cock-up #2 was a field umpire's decision to review a decision the goal umpire was, again, perfectly placed to judge and had got right. The ball had flown over a contest, was possibly touched by a Saint (McEvoy we think), and fell onto the foot of young Swan Cunningham, from where it crossed the goal line.

The goal umpire clearly saw that the ball touched the Swans player's foot and crossed the goal line without being touched by a Saint. It was a goal and the goal umpire was certain. Nevertheless, the field umpire, whose view was markedly inferior to the goal umpire's on any analysis, elected to refer the decision.

We have two problems with this. It wasn't a "goal line" decision. The goal umpire clearly indicated his firm conviction that it was a goal and his view was unobstructed.

Video cock-ups #2 and #3 may have delivered the correct decisions, eventually, but it wasn't the technology that was decisive.

This video referral trial can only be regarded as laughable.
Read More

Another ‘stupid’ comment

No comments:

Barcodes ruckman Darren Jolley’s blast at the AFL’s mooted ‘two and two’ interchange, being trialled in this year’s pre-season, as “stupid” and “ridiculous” is itself pretty stupid and ridiculous.

 

While AussieRulesBlog acknowledges that the game was different, lets remember that prior to 1978 and the introduction of interchange players were expected to be able to play 120 minutes of football — in more-or-less continuous 30-minute chunks. The game’s rhythm was dictated by the players’ fitness level.

 

Over time, as coaches have sought more and more advantage from interchanges, we reached a point where a player like Dane Swan is interchanged continually throughout the course of the game, often only for 30 seconds or so. In turn, the modern game’s rhythm has attuned to continual interchange and the consequent higher performance levels.

 

Jolley’s comments, and the concerns voiced last pre-season by Bombers captain Jobe Watson, seem to be based on the assumption that the game will remain the same in every other respect other than interchanges. Commonsense dictates that an adjustment like restricting interchanges will, in turn, require consequent changes in the rhythm of the game, players’ fitness and endurance and game strategies. The game will evolve to cope with changed circumstances.

 

More to the point, rarely does the game evolve so quickly that the acme of overall performance is delivered the year after a change is implemented. It requires coaches and strategists searching for advantage and trying new ideas to unearth the most effective responses — the responses that stand up over time against the pressure of opponents’ strategies.

 

There are probably as many people suggesting the current frenetic pace of the game begets more injuries as there are those suggesting a two-and-two bench will generate more injuries due to greater fatigue. We won’t know how it will play out until we get to the future.

Read More

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Race accusation ill-founded

No comments:

Caroline Wilson’s rant against Paul Roos and James Hird today is another example — as if one were needed — of a journalist taking the most extreme and controversial construction of a comment and constructing a story to suit.

 

To suggest, as Wilson explicitly does, that either Roos or Hird have advocated race-based selection from the comments they made is mischevious at best.

 

Their comments referred to the AFL’s move to a two interchange, two substitute bench. Roos and Hird observed that a further reduction in interchanges would force recruiters and coaches to value endurance above skill. They further observed that indigenous players, generally, were high on skill, but less well-endowed with endurance and may thus be impacted by the change.

 

Quite how this equates to advocating race-based selection eludes AussieRulesBlog.

 

Not for the first time, Wilson’s instinct is to go for a sensationalist angle. It might make for ‘interesting’ and ‘provocative’ comment, but it sure ain’t journalism.

Read More

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Deafening roar of silence

No comments:

Getting goal umpiring decisions correct is so important that the AFL has all but confirmed that video referral will be implemented for the 2012 season. Lots of publicity for that announcement, however the silence has been deafening following the first video referral cock-up, in the West Coast–Essendon section of the Perth triple-header on Sunday.

Read More

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Video farce

No comments:

It’ll be interesting to read responses from Jeff Gieschen and Adrian Anderson in coming days after a clearly incorrect goal umpiring decision in tonight’s West Coast v Essendon leg of the round one triple-header. Essendon’s Cory Dell'Olio, managed to make contact with the ball, below the knee,in the goalsquare, thus scoring a goal.

 

Despite there being, according to Adrian Anderson, an umpiring department staffer on hand with access to video replay, the goal umpire chose to make a decision — the wrong decision as it turns out on the video replay — on the spot.

 

We wonder what the instructions to goal umpires in Perth have been. Have they caught up with the news about video referral? Will Adrian Anderson consider resigning now that his much-vaunted video referral system has let through a howler? After all, he announced that the AFL would deploy the video technology in order to reduce errors.

 

Of course, AussieRulesBlog is partly tongue-in-cheek. The score made no difference to the result. The result was palpably unimportant.

 

We don’t agree with the decision to use video referral, but, if it’s there, why wasn’t it used to make sure we got the right decision?

 

Video Cock-up Number One. Don’t worry, dear reader, we’ll keep count for you.

Read More

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Incidental contact penalties seem capricious

No comments:

It was, after all, only the first night of the pre-season competition, but we found ourselves once again shaking our head at free kicks for incidental contact.

 

As ‘Special K’ Hunt and ‘The Promised Land’ Folau will attest, Aussie rules is a 360° game and a physical game. Physical contact is part and parcel of the sport — unlike, for instance, basketball (even if only in the strictest sense).

 

Go out this weekend and find some netball being played. You’ll hear the referees whistling and calling “Contact!” That’s because it is a non-contact sport.

 

We understand that the AFL is determined to protect players’ heads, but we still can’t come to terms with a free kick paid for an incidental arm that brushes across a shoulder. It wouldn’t be so bad if every arm that brushed across a shoulder were similarly penalised, but they’re not. And there’s the rub!

 

If there are ‘infractions’ that are not being penalised, where is the line that an umpire uses to determine whether a particular incidental contact is worthy of a free kick?

 

In the end, for fans at the game, these decisions end up looking capricious at best because, even though we are much further away than the umpires, we see these incidental contacts throughout the game.

Read More

Ruck rule rules out wrestling

No comments:

AussieRulesBlog seriously needed a live footy ‘fix’, so along with 28,000 others we rolled along to Docklands last night. We were also keen to see the AFL’s new experimental ruck rule in action for the first time.

 

As befits the first halfway-decent competitive hitout of the year, the footy was, mostly, pretty uninspiring. The experimental rule for boundary ruck contests was, in contrast, simply fantastic!

 

On a couple of occasions ruckmen forgot and touched before the ball was launched, but instant free kicks served their purpose.

 

The AFL can keep their video technology in a box at the back of their shed, but, as far as we’re concerned, they can implement this boundary ruck contest rule for the home and away season right now! Three ‘games’ last night should have everybody convinced this is a winner.

 

And isn’t it great to have footy back!

Read More

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

News, if you can call it that

No comments:

Continuing the theme, AussieRulesBlog spied this item on Foxsports ‘News’ page:

 

daw

 

News? Who do they think they’re kidding? Undignified voyeurism at best.

Read More

Sensation and controversy

No comments:

This in The Age this morning:

 

ESSENDON is content with the progress it is making in contract talks with Michael Hurley, but it appears that the club does not want the star forward talking to the public about his future.

A media contingent at yesterday's NAB Cup launch expected to speak to the 21-year-old, who was a guest at the function held at his old club, the Macleod Junior Football Club.

Instead, the Bombers sent football manager Paul Hamilton at the last minute to field questions, most of which centred on Hurley's future beyond 2012.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-believe-hurley-will-stay-20120214-1t467.html#ixzz1mPOvdV7A

 

As with reporting on the Federal political scene in recent years, it seems sports journalists have become fixated on sensation and controversy, often of their own making, to the exclusion of simply reporting.

 

Last year it was Tom Scully, every bloody week!!! Is it to be Michael Hurley this year? Can’t you vultures in the media simply wait until an announcement is made? Why do you have to speculate each and every week? You’re our conduit into the outskirts of the inner sanctums. Don’t spoil it by ignoring what there is to report in favour of writing speculative crap about your hobby horse topic. The football public deserve better than that from you.

 

Perhaps at the function mentioned in The Age’s story, the media contingent could have asked some questions about the pre-season competition? That is, after all, what the function was about. And then you have the hide to complain when Essendon protect their young star from the sort of bullying, pestering behaviour that seems to pass for journalism these days. Un-[expletive]-believable.

Read More

Monday, February 13, 2012

On the cusp

No comments:

Just over one hundred hours until AFL for 2012 begins with the first of the pre-season round one mini lightning Premierships. At AussieRulesBlog Central, we’re as toey as a Roman sandal. It has been a long and, from a sporting perspective, pretty boring summer. It’s about time we saw some Aussie rules action around Australia.

 

A year is a very long time in football. This time last year, we were aghast at Brisbane’s decision to sack Brendan Fevola after losing Daniel Bradshaw and Michael Rischitelli as an indirect result of his recruitment, the Saints were denying problems with club culture after suspending four young players, Nick Riewoldt had unveiled a new, rather robotic, goal-kicking action, Jeff Gieschen was defending the worst implementation of video decision assistance yet seen on an AFL field, and we mourned the passing of Darrel Baldock.

 

2012 has been comparatively quiet by comparison. It would be nice for the main topic of discussion over the next few days to be footy. Fingers crossed.

 

For those without access to pay-TV, the pre-season is going to be very long and very frustrating, but it’s a sign of the times. It’s likely to be increasingly difficult for free-to-air television to generate a profit out of advertising revenue, especially given the production costs involved in covering AFL. It may be that this new broadcasting agreement that we’re beginning in 2012 is the last great media cash injection into the game as audiences fragment to new modes of access to broadcasts of the game. The recent court decision on rebroadcasting to mobile devices hints at where this media space is heading. Given the speed with which so-called smart phones have come to dominate less-clever alternatives, it’s not hard to imagine the potential impacts on free-to-air broadcasting.

 

Of course, the other ‘big’ change in broadcasting is that all games will be ‘live’ in 2012. Quite what real difference this makes, we can’t fathom, but it’s clearly a highly emotive matter to a large portion of the audience. One thing’s for sure, anyone complaining about scheduling of games should direct their wrath to the live-TV activists and their supporters.

 

So, bring on Friday night and the three-way clash between the Tiges, the Roos and the Hawks! Footy’s back!!!!

Read More

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Video sledgehammer

No comments:

The Hun reports today that an off-field umpire’s department official, with access to video replay, will be hooked into the umpire’s audio system to assist in adjudicating “goal line” decisions during the 2012 pre-season competition. A 40-second window will be available for any video assessment which would be prior to the goal umpire signalling a decision. This means, and we think the AFL have taken a PR view of this, no decisions will be overturned as a result of video referral. Whatever we think of the general concept, and AussieRulesBlog thinks it’s a mangy dog, the final part is a PR masterstroke.

 

Let’s hope that we don’t have a repeat of last year’s nonsense of video replays being used to try to determine whether a hand has touched a kicked ball fifteen metres out from goal. Goal line decisions only please, if we must go through this nonsense.

 

The story in the Hun drags up the 2011 Sharrod Wellingham Grand Final goal that apparently deflected off a goal post and the 2009 Tom Hawkins GF poster. Are these “goal line” decisions? Will the “goal line” cameras be sited such that they can be used to adjudicate decisions like the two mentioned? If the arrangement is similar to 2011, the cameras are attached to the goal post about 2.5 metres above ground level to assist in those “did he touch it before it went over the line” decisions. Pretty typical, in our view, of the journalist responsible for this report to bring in red herrings and create expectations that probably can’t be met, because it’s all about the “controversy”.

 

The truth is, the technology and this application of it has holes you could drive a B-double through. When we’re hardly being deluged with incorrect decisions in every game — remember that errors are running at something less than one tenth of one percent of all scoring decisions across an entire season — all of this additional cost and infrastructure will achieve . . . precisely bugger-all. It’s the standard response dictated by the AFL Management Handbook — use the biggest sledgehammer you can find to crack a tiny grain of sand.

Read More

Anderson to headline Comedy Festival

On the AFL’s own website in relation to video referral:

 

Anderson said introduction of a tennis-style challenge system was unlikely.

"The problem with the challenge is the potential for manipulation or (for it) to be used to delay."

 

And then . . .


But he said he didn't see a problem with umpires listening to players who called immediately for a review. 

"A player can be a valuable indication that there's something worth having a look at, as long as they let the guys do their job once they've made the point," Anderson said.

To quote John McEnroe, “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!”

 

Just which bit of “potential for manipulation” does he think doesn’t apply if umpires listen to players’ appeals for review?

Video ostriches

Speaking on AFL 360 tonight on Foxtel’s Fox Footy channel, AFL Football Operations boss Adrian Anderson claimed the lack of goal line cameras to use in video decision referral  during the pre-season competition was the broadcaster’s issue, because the AFL would not fund goal-line cameras.

 

This just gets worse and worse for Anderson. The decision to proceed with a trial of goal umpiring video referral knowing there would be no goal line cameras just beggars belief. That the AFL will not pay for the required cameras suggests that either they’re not serious or they’re playing games

 

Anderson further claimed that the final referral in Sunday’s Port-Adelaide-Carlton game where the replay showed a ball hitting the behind post vindicated the trial. He failed to mention that a ball on a slightly different trajectory hitting the post may not have been so clearly seen brushing the post. On this occasion, the camera was in the perfect location. So much for vindication.

 

Anderson also drew comparisons with tennis and cricket where assistive technologies are not available at every venue or in every series. While true, it’s hardly the point. Cricket doesn’t, for instance, use a camera at deep extra cover or third man — where the camera is a 45° to the batting crease — to judge runouts. When there is a camera for runouts, it’s located right on the plane of the batting crease.

 

Anderson claimed that only six goal umpiring errors were made in 2011. The evidence of 2012 thus far suggests that Gieschen and Anderson are kidding themselves with their figure of one tenth of one percent error rate.  In one ‘round’ of six games in 2012, we’ve had at least three errors. that leaves only three more for the rest of the season. . .

 

Most likely, like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, Gieschen and Anderson decide what ‘error’ means and you can bet your life it’s not a definition you’ll recognise. Ostriches!

Video cock-up #4

It’ll come as no surprise to regular readers that a fourth cock-up has followed the first three. AussieRulesBlog has already identified the stunningly obvious inadequacies of Adrian Anderson’s goal line video decision assistance trial.

 

In the Port – Carlton leg of the Adelaide round of pre-season round one, a Port player lunges to touch a ball heading towards the goal line. The goal umpire is well-positioned. Port players remonstrate with the umpire when he signals a goal. No video referral is made, inexplicably when the decision is so close.

 

Subsequent replays shown on the broadcast are from game camera angles — which is the root of the problem — but suggest there’s a good case that the goal umpire got the decision wrong.

 

Later in the day, after a disagreement between a goal umpire and a boundary umpire over whether a ball had struck the behind post, the field umpire made a video referral and it was quickly determined that the ball had struck the post — not the decision the goal umpire first signalled.

 

What’s most curious about these two incidents is that the later one wasn’t a goal-line decision. A camera aligned with the goal line — which is the only way that goal line decisions, the stated target of this trial, could be properly judged — wouldn’t have provided any useful information. Only a game camera — and some luck with angles — could provide appropriate video assistance.

 

The first incident needed a goal-line camera, but there aren’t any.

 

This has been a monumental cock-up. Heads should roll. We can only hope that Vlad tears Adrian a new one on Monday morning.

 

Less than a tenth of one percent of goal umpiring decisions are errors according to Anderson. If the past two weekends are any indication, that figure is massively understated. Perhaps Anderson has done the game a favour by highlighting just how poor goal line decisions are when there’s no organised scrutiny of them.

On TV, ruck rule invisible

Our final observation from the first night of the second weekend of AFL pre-season relates to our observation from the Hawks-Roos-Tigers game last week on the implementation of the experimental no-touch rule for boundary ruck contests.

 

Live (at the stadium), it was very clear that there was significant improvement in the spectacle and effectiveness of boundary ruck work with the no-touch rule.

 

Watching tonight’s Swans-Saints-Cats game (live on TV), AussieRulesBlog hardly noticed any boundary ruck contests and the camera didn’t do us any favours to see the ruckmen prior to the ball being thrown in.

 

If you haven’t seen a game live, try to do so during this pre-season so you can see this rule in action.

 

It’s a keeper!

Duty of care free kicks

Another incident from the Saints-Swans-Cats triple header caught our attention tonight. Swan Jude Bolton took possession of the ball in the rough vicinity of the behind post, perhaps five or six meters out from the boundary. He was running at full pace toward his own goal.

 

Bolton duly kicked the goal and was then pushed fair and square in the back by his Saints opponent. What concerned us about this incident was the proximity of the goal post to where Bolton’s body sprawled after the push.

 

A number of points need to be made.

  • Bolton could easily have been pushed into forceful contact with the goal post.
  • Does the duty of care the AFL is fond of talking about in relation to head-high contact also come into play if an opponent is forcefully, deliberately and unlawfully  propelled into a goal or behind post?
  • Why was there no extra kick at goal, or free kick from the centre? The incident is not entirely dissimilar to a Saints player kicking the ball away after a score — in fact it’s considerably worse.

Goal line video assist debacle

Well, it's official. Adrian Anderson's goal line video decision assist trial has descended past farce and it's only the second week of the pre-season.

During the Saints-Swans-Cats triple-header tonight, the video replay was called into play twice. What became abundantly clear on the second occasion is that there are no goal line cameras. This for goal line decisions and there're no goal line cameras! Monty Python didn't dare write scripts as ridiculous as this situation.

For those without payTV, this second video referral concerned an attempt by Brendan Goddard to touch a ball otherwise going through for a goal. The goal umpire was perfectly positioned, astride the goal line. His vision was unobstructed. The goal umpire indicated, unofficially, a goal. It's not clear from the TV coverage who decided to refer to the video official, The game commentary suggested that Goddard may have encouraged the field umpire to refer it — players are not entitled to challenge decisions under the rules published.

Regardless of who initiated the decision, it was quickly obvious that only game camera footage was available. That is, the camera views were at a substantial angle to the goal line!! At a significant angle!!! For making goal line adjudications!!!!! The video referral was, unsurprisingly in the circumstances, “inconclusive”. What an understatement.

We jokingly called for Adrian Anderson's resignation after video cock-up #1. We're not joking any longer. Video cock-up #3 is nothing short of incompetent.

Video cock-up #2 was a field umpire's decision to review a decision the goal umpire was, again, perfectly placed to judge and had got right. The ball had flown over a contest, was possibly touched by a Saint (McEvoy we think), and fell onto the foot of young Swan Cunningham, from where it crossed the goal line.

The goal umpire clearly saw that the ball touched the Swans player's foot and crossed the goal line without being touched by a Saint. It was a goal and the goal umpire was certain. Nevertheless, the field umpire, whose view was markedly inferior to the goal umpire's on any analysis, elected to refer the decision.

We have two problems with this. It wasn't a "goal line" decision. The goal umpire clearly indicated his firm conviction that it was a goal and his view was unobstructed.

Video cock-ups #2 and #3 may have delivered the correct decisions, eventually, but it wasn't the technology that was decisive.

This video referral trial can only be regarded as laughable.

Another ‘stupid’ comment

Barcodes ruckman Darren Jolley’s blast at the AFL’s mooted ‘two and two’ interchange, being trialled in this year’s pre-season, as “stupid” and “ridiculous” is itself pretty stupid and ridiculous.

 

While AussieRulesBlog acknowledges that the game was different, lets remember that prior to 1978 and the introduction of interchange players were expected to be able to play 120 minutes of football — in more-or-less continuous 30-minute chunks. The game’s rhythm was dictated by the players’ fitness level.

 

Over time, as coaches have sought more and more advantage from interchanges, we reached a point where a player like Dane Swan is interchanged continually throughout the course of the game, often only for 30 seconds or so. In turn, the modern game’s rhythm has attuned to continual interchange and the consequent higher performance levels.

 

Jolley’s comments, and the concerns voiced last pre-season by Bombers captain Jobe Watson, seem to be based on the assumption that the game will remain the same in every other respect other than interchanges. Commonsense dictates that an adjustment like restricting interchanges will, in turn, require consequent changes in the rhythm of the game, players’ fitness and endurance and game strategies. The game will evolve to cope with changed circumstances.

 

More to the point, rarely does the game evolve so quickly that the acme of overall performance is delivered the year after a change is implemented. It requires coaches and strategists searching for advantage and trying new ideas to unearth the most effective responses — the responses that stand up over time against the pressure of opponents’ strategies.

 

There are probably as many people suggesting the current frenetic pace of the game begets more injuries as there are those suggesting a two-and-two bench will generate more injuries due to greater fatigue. We won’t know how it will play out until we get to the future.

Race accusation ill-founded

Caroline Wilson’s rant against Paul Roos and James Hird today is another example — as if one were needed — of a journalist taking the most extreme and controversial construction of a comment and constructing a story to suit.

 

To suggest, as Wilson explicitly does, that either Roos or Hird have advocated race-based selection from the comments they made is mischevious at best.

 

Their comments referred to the AFL’s move to a two interchange, two substitute bench. Roos and Hird observed that a further reduction in interchanges would force recruiters and coaches to value endurance above skill. They further observed that indigenous players, generally, were high on skill, but less well-endowed with endurance and may thus be impacted by the change.

 

Quite how this equates to advocating race-based selection eludes AussieRulesBlog.

 

Not for the first time, Wilson’s instinct is to go for a sensationalist angle. It might make for ‘interesting’ and ‘provocative’ comment, but it sure ain’t journalism.

Deafening roar of silence

Getting goal umpiring decisions correct is so important that the AFL has all but confirmed that video referral will be implemented for the 2012 season. Lots of publicity for that announcement, however the silence has been deafening following the first video referral cock-up, in the West Coast–Essendon section of the Perth triple-header on Sunday.

Video farce

It’ll be interesting to read responses from Jeff Gieschen and Adrian Anderson in coming days after a clearly incorrect goal umpiring decision in tonight’s West Coast v Essendon leg of the round one triple-header. Essendon’s Cory Dell'Olio, managed to make contact with the ball, below the knee,in the goalsquare, thus scoring a goal.

 

Despite there being, according to Adrian Anderson, an umpiring department staffer on hand with access to video replay, the goal umpire chose to make a decision — the wrong decision as it turns out on the video replay — on the spot.

 

We wonder what the instructions to goal umpires in Perth have been. Have they caught up with the news about video referral? Will Adrian Anderson consider resigning now that his much-vaunted video referral system has let through a howler? After all, he announced that the AFL would deploy the video technology in order to reduce errors.

 

Of course, AussieRulesBlog is partly tongue-in-cheek. The score made no difference to the result. The result was palpably unimportant.

 

We don’t agree with the decision to use video referral, but, if it’s there, why wasn’t it used to make sure we got the right decision?

 

Video Cock-up Number One. Don’t worry, dear reader, we’ll keep count for you.

Incidental contact penalties seem capricious

It was, after all, only the first night of the pre-season competition, but we found ourselves once again shaking our head at free kicks for incidental contact.

 

As ‘Special K’ Hunt and ‘The Promised Land’ Folau will attest, Aussie rules is a 360° game and a physical game. Physical contact is part and parcel of the sport — unlike, for instance, basketball (even if only in the strictest sense).

 

Go out this weekend and find some netball being played. You’ll hear the referees whistling and calling “Contact!” That’s because it is a non-contact sport.

 

We understand that the AFL is determined to protect players’ heads, but we still can’t come to terms with a free kick paid for an incidental arm that brushes across a shoulder. It wouldn’t be so bad if every arm that brushed across a shoulder were similarly penalised, but they’re not. And there’s the rub!

 

If there are ‘infractions’ that are not being penalised, where is the line that an umpire uses to determine whether a particular incidental contact is worthy of a free kick?

 

In the end, for fans at the game, these decisions end up looking capricious at best because, even though we are much further away than the umpires, we see these incidental contacts throughout the game.

Ruck rule rules out wrestling

AussieRulesBlog seriously needed a live footy ‘fix’, so along with 28,000 others we rolled along to Docklands last night. We were also keen to see the AFL’s new experimental ruck rule in action for the first time.

 

As befits the first halfway-decent competitive hitout of the year, the footy was, mostly, pretty uninspiring. The experimental rule for boundary ruck contests was, in contrast, simply fantastic!

 

On a couple of occasions ruckmen forgot and touched before the ball was launched, but instant free kicks served their purpose.

 

The AFL can keep their video technology in a box at the back of their shed, but, as far as we’re concerned, they can implement this boundary ruck contest rule for the home and away season right now! Three ‘games’ last night should have everybody convinced this is a winner.

 

And isn’t it great to have footy back!

News, if you can call it that

Continuing the theme, AussieRulesBlog spied this item on Foxsports ‘News’ page:

 

daw

 

News? Who do they think they’re kidding? Undignified voyeurism at best.

Sensation and controversy

This in The Age this morning:

 

ESSENDON is content with the progress it is making in contract talks with Michael Hurley, but it appears that the club does not want the star forward talking to the public about his future.

A media contingent at yesterday's NAB Cup launch expected to speak to the 21-year-old, who was a guest at the function held at his old club, the Macleod Junior Football Club.

Instead, the Bombers sent football manager Paul Hamilton at the last minute to field questions, most of which centred on Hurley's future beyond 2012.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-believe-hurley-will-stay-20120214-1t467.html#ixzz1mPOvdV7A

 

As with reporting on the Federal political scene in recent years, it seems sports journalists have become fixated on sensation and controversy, often of their own making, to the exclusion of simply reporting.

 

Last year it was Tom Scully, every bloody week!!! Is it to be Michael Hurley this year? Can’t you vultures in the media simply wait until an announcement is made? Why do you have to speculate each and every week? You’re our conduit into the outskirts of the inner sanctums. Don’t spoil it by ignoring what there is to report in favour of writing speculative crap about your hobby horse topic. The football public deserve better than that from you.

 

Perhaps at the function mentioned in The Age’s story, the media contingent could have asked some questions about the pre-season competition? That is, after all, what the function was about. And then you have the hide to complain when Essendon protect their young star from the sort of bullying, pestering behaviour that seems to pass for journalism these days. Un-[expletive]-believable.

On the cusp

Just over one hundred hours until AFL for 2012 begins with the first of the pre-season round one mini lightning Premierships. At AussieRulesBlog Central, we’re as toey as a Roman sandal. It has been a long and, from a sporting perspective, pretty boring summer. It’s about time we saw some Aussie rules action around Australia.

 

A year is a very long time in football. This time last year, we were aghast at Brisbane’s decision to sack Brendan Fevola after losing Daniel Bradshaw and Michael Rischitelli as an indirect result of his recruitment, the Saints were denying problems with club culture after suspending four young players, Nick Riewoldt had unveiled a new, rather robotic, goal-kicking action, Jeff Gieschen was defending the worst implementation of video decision assistance yet seen on an AFL field, and we mourned the passing of Darrel Baldock.

 

2012 has been comparatively quiet by comparison. It would be nice for the main topic of discussion over the next few days to be footy. Fingers crossed.

 

For those without access to pay-TV, the pre-season is going to be very long and very frustrating, but it’s a sign of the times. It’s likely to be increasingly difficult for free-to-air television to generate a profit out of advertising revenue, especially given the production costs involved in covering AFL. It may be that this new broadcasting agreement that we’re beginning in 2012 is the last great media cash injection into the game as audiences fragment to new modes of access to broadcasts of the game. The recent court decision on rebroadcasting to mobile devices hints at where this media space is heading. Given the speed with which so-called smart phones have come to dominate less-clever alternatives, it’s not hard to imagine the potential impacts on free-to-air broadcasting.

 

Of course, the other ‘big’ change in broadcasting is that all games will be ‘live’ in 2012. Quite what real difference this makes, we can’t fathom, but it’s clearly a highly emotive matter to a large portion of the audience. One thing’s for sure, anyone complaining about scheduling of games should direct their wrath to the live-TV activists and their supporters.

 

So, bring on Friday night and the three-way clash between the Tiges, the Roos and the Hawks! Footy’s back!!!!

Video sledgehammer

The Hun reports today that an off-field umpire’s department official, with access to video replay, will be hooked into the umpire’s audio system to assist in adjudicating “goal line” decisions during the 2012 pre-season competition. A 40-second window will be available for any video assessment which would be prior to the goal umpire signalling a decision. This means, and we think the AFL have taken a PR view of this, no decisions will be overturned as a result of video referral. Whatever we think of the general concept, and AussieRulesBlog thinks it’s a mangy dog, the final part is a PR masterstroke.

 

Let’s hope that we don’t have a repeat of last year’s nonsense of video replays being used to try to determine whether a hand has touched a kicked ball fifteen metres out from goal. Goal line decisions only please, if we must go through this nonsense.

 

The story in the Hun drags up the 2011 Sharrod Wellingham Grand Final goal that apparently deflected off a goal post and the 2009 Tom Hawkins GF poster. Are these “goal line” decisions? Will the “goal line” cameras be sited such that they can be used to adjudicate decisions like the two mentioned? If the arrangement is similar to 2011, the cameras are attached to the goal post about 2.5 metres above ground level to assist in those “did he touch it before it went over the line” decisions. Pretty typical, in our view, of the journalist responsible for this report to bring in red herrings and create expectations that probably can’t be met, because it’s all about the “controversy”.

 

The truth is, the technology and this application of it has holes you could drive a B-double through. When we’re hardly being deluged with incorrect decisions in every game — remember that errors are running at something less than one tenth of one percent of all scoring decisions across an entire season — all of this additional cost and infrastructure will achieve . . . precisely bugger-all. It’s the standard response dictated by the AFL Management Handbook — use the biggest sledgehammer you can find to crack a tiny grain of sand.