Having seen more than half of the first two rounds’ games live or on TV, AussieRulesBlog’s considered opinion is that umpiring interpretations are out of balance — too many incidental contacts being free kicked, too many similar incidental contacts being either missed or let go.

And then, last night on Foxtel, we watched Chooseday Night Football. The game was the round 6, 1993 game between Geelong and Essendon. This memorable game, won by the Bombers to the tune of four goals, featured Gary Ablett Snr and Paul Salmon as the full forwards. Ablett bagged 14 goals from 20-odd kicks and Salmon kicked 10.

The game was in the two-umpire era and featured two of the competitions most experienced whistle-blowers at the time, Peter Cameron and John Russo.

Two things were noticeable around the dazzling display of Ablett: the “controlling” umpires were much further from the ball than we’re used to in 2012; and the commentary (Peter “Each of two” Landy, Ian Robertson and Gerard Healey) focused heavily, and not positively, on the number of free kicks paid for incidental contacts.

Not much, it seems, has changed! Free kicks for incidental contact remain a blight, at least from a spectator perspective, and 2012 has seen a significant increase in umpiring decisions made at longer distances from the ball.

Thankfully the Giesch has spared us the “we’re going to crack down on x” strategy leading into 2012. Instead, every rule is being interpreted enormously strictly it seems. Notably, the interpretation that pays a free kick when a marking player’s arm is swept away preventing him from clutching the ball with two hands has morphed into a free kick for merely brushing that player’s arms. This interpretation is umpiring defenders out of the game.

Hopefully, as has been the case in recent years, interpretations will be relaxed as the season unfolds and we’ll see some more sympathetic approaches emerging.

Is it good to have footy back? Too right it is. And the game seems to have changed while we weren’t watching. The first three quarters of the Hawks-Barcodes game was full-on pressure with pretty much no time to steady. In these conditions, it’s the quality of the bottom third of the team that becomes crucial — as both Richmond and the Barcodes have discovered.

But one thing has really stood out to us in watching the first two ‘real’ games of the season — sorry, Giants and Swans — and that’s the number of free kicks plucked out for incidental contact.

We understand that the rules are written so that incidental illegal contact is to be penalised. The problem we have is that the application of the rules to such fleeting, unintentional contacts is so wildly inconsistent. And it stands out so much more in such hotly-contested, closed-up football.

The game’s administrators declare their determination to get as many decisions right as possible and implement a half-baked video referral system, but the inconsistency of general umpiring continues unabated and, seemingly, unnoticed by the powers that be.

And it wouldn’t really be footy season if we didn’t have umpires guessing. Ah well, even footy with crap umpiring is better than no footy!

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.

Not for the first time, AussieRulesBlog is moved to address the issue of incidental contact in the context of free kicks.

In an incident we noticed in the West Coast–Dockers game yesterday, a player dived toward the ball and initiated contact with an opponent’s legs. The umpire paid a free kick for high contact. This is hardly an isolated example and it’s an issue we’ve visited previously.

In the recent West Coast–Geelong game, a number of free kicks were paid in ruck contests for what was clearly incidental illegal contact yet obvious holding by the ruckmen was allowed because, according to the umpire, both players were holding. We commented recently on the application of the rules to ruck contests.

Now, we’re struck by the logical inconsistency of a position where one player is penalised for a contact he did not initiate and could not avoid, yet other players are not penalised for clear and obvious breaches. And let’s make it clear that this is not an issue about umpiring performance — it’s about the rules and the way umpires are instructed to interpret them.

Recently, discussing the sling tackle issue, we suggested a player making incidental contact with an opponent’s boot as a result of a sling tackle would not result in the opponent being penalised for kicking, yet incidental contact with the ground was regarded by the MRP as high contact in determining Jack Trengove’s guilt. Another logical inconsistency.

There’s an underlying issue here. Zero-tolerance policies are populist responses to complex issues. They’re also highly likely to generate exceptions. And make no mistake — the intent of the rules and interpretations in relation to high contact and hands-in-the-back is zero tolerance. That is, any and every breach will be penalised regardless of intent.

We don’t think anyone can have an argument with the general proposition that players’ heads should be protected as effectively as we can do so. If a player cops a clothesline tackle or a whack to the head or a bump that connects with the currently-defined area for high contact, we generally have no issue with free kicks.

But what we see every week is tiny, insignificant, incidental high contacts being free kicked.

When the hands-in-the-back interpretation of the push in the back rule was introduced, the umpires were clearly under instruction to establish a baseline for acceptable contact. A player flexing a pinky finger in the same postcode as his opponent’s back was free kicked. Now we’re seeing a more relaxed interpretation on most occasions with only occasional over-zealousness.

We don’t think a zero tolerance approach works — in anything. As soon as discretion to consider context is removed, injustices, both large and small, are an inevitable consequence.

What’s the solution? Borrowing from the MRP’s assessment criteria, if the action that causes contact to an opponent, be it high contact or hands in the back, is intentional, reckless or negligent — that is, if the player could reasonably expect that taking that action could result in illegal contact — then pay the free kick. If it is incidental, play on. This arrangement would require umpires to make an on-the-spot judgement of players’ actions, which they do with deliberate out-of-bounds and deliberate rushed behind now (but perhaps we could provide some better guidance than is currently provided?).

This isn’t a perfect schema, but we liken it to the legal system. It’s better that nine guilty people go free than that an innocent person is convicted. In football terms, we’d rather nine free kicks be missed than that an incidental contact be free kicked.