The Giesch seems to think that all you need to understand the rules of the game is his precious DVD. We’re pretty sure he’s relying on the old adage that a picture is worth 1,000 words. He couldn’t be more wrong.

 

The proof, if any were needed, is the furore that has erupted these last two weeks over marking contests.

 

The rules around physical contact, as they’ve been stated in words since at least 2008, are very clear. In a marking contest — or any other physical contest on the field of play — it is legal to push an opponent in the side or in the chest with an open hand  as long as the ball is within 5 metres.

 

The umpire’s job is pretty simple under these conditions.

• Was the ball within 5 metres? Yes or no?
• Did player 1 push player 2 with an open hand? Yes or no?
• Did player 1 push player 2 in the side or chest? Yes or no?

 

In each case, if the answer is Yes, the contact is legal. If the answer is No, a free kick must be awarded.

 

But that was too easy for The Giesch. He has overlaid so many “interpretations” over this rule that it is all but unrecognisable.

 

Were there two actions? Were there hands in the back? It doesn’t matter! Was the ball within 5 metres and was the push with an open hand to the chest or side? Any No means a free kick must be awarded against the pushing player. It’s simple!

 

And the DVD? Well, sure it shows half a dozen examples of pushing in marking contests, but it’s far from definitive. There’re so many potential scenarios that a few pieces of video footage just can’t cut the mustard. The umpires, and the players, must have a firm foundation for understanding what is legal and what isn’t. That previously firm foundation, the written rules, has been eroded as each new interpretation obscures more of it.

 

Players, for the most part, probably don’t read the rules of the game. They absorb them as they play from a young age. Today’s players began playing in a much less complicated Aussie Rules environment, and they struggle to cope with the seemingly unremittent change.

 

Umpires are, even at the elite level, the teachers of the game. Their decisions tell the players what they can and can’t get away with. As a player tests the boundaries, he gets free-kicked and pulls back.

 

In 2013, we have umpires who are either trigger-happy or hesitant — and with three of them on the field, there’s sure to be an unhealthy mix of surety and hesitance.

 

Despite what the Giesch would have us believe, umpiring interpretations are changing on an almost weekly basis. Sitting in the stands, watching on TV, it’s as obvious as the nose on The Giesch’s face. It’s no wonder umpires are unsure. And the players just don’t have a hope.

 

Release The Giesch, reclaim the game!

On the AFL’s website tonight, The Giesch makes a not-very-astounding assertion:

 

Last week, Brisbane Lions midfielder Tom Rockliff labeled the pushing rule 'bizarre', claiming he was unaware he could not push any player in a marking contest.

Rockliff's remarks have surprised Gieschen, who says it is outlined on the Rules of the Game DVD.

The problem, Jeff, is that the 2013 Laws of Australian Football says you can push a player (in the side or the chest) in a marking contest — as long as the ball is within 5 metres.

 

Forget the DVD, Jeff. Get your mob to umpire to the rules that are written in the book. There’s a fair chance that we’ll get something that resembles football out of it.

 

Release the Giesch and reclaim the game.

One thing was crystal clear in last night’s season opener between the Bombers and the Crows. Only one team had understood and practised the changed rules, especially sliding into a contest.

 

Crows coach Brenton Sanderson’s contention that the Crows were ‘guinea pigs’ for the sliding rule is nonsense. Both teams were playing under the new rules for the first time (for Premiership points), but only the Bombers seemed to have practised new tackling techniques and understood how to play to the new rules and interpretations.

Hooray! It’s not often that AussieRulesBlog is in almost complete sync with the AFL, but we are today.

 

First and foremost we’ll see an end to the ugly blight of ruck wrestling. Making the rule trialled during the 2012 pre-season a permanent feature, ruckmen will no longer be able to make contact with each other before the ball has left the umpire’s hands.

 

 

AussieRulesBlog has a real problem with anyone who thinks the above scene is either attractive or within the other rules of the game. If Mike Pyke and David Hale aren’t holding each other in this image, then AussieRulesBlog should be watching the Melbourne ‘Victory’.

 

We’re not concerned that inability to wrestle for five minutes before the ball is back into play will somehow advantage ruckmen like Nic Naitanui. For all of a couple of weeks it might, and then the competition’s strategists will figure out a way to limit Naitanui’s effectiveness.

 

Even supposed ‘dinosaurs’ like Shane Mumford and Darren Jolley will manage. How often have either conceded an easy contest at a centre bounce in the past couple of years? No contact beforehand there, and both Mumford and Jolley have somehow contrived to deliver the ball to their midfielders pretty effectively.

 

We’re also in the mood to applaud the game’s custodians on their other rule changes, although we’re sad to see the relegation of the umpire’s bounce to a largely ceremonial role. It’s the beginning of the end for the bounce. In five years, it’ll be a curiosity.

 

Laying on tackled players and pulling the ball in beneath an opponent have been highly unattractive features of the game for too long. We’re not totally convinced about forceful contact beneath the knees, but we acknowledge the danger it poses.

 

Of course, there’s often quite a distance between our expectations of how a new rule will influence the game and how The Giesch’s mob implement that rule. that will be the test and we’ll reserve absolute applause until we see the rules in action.

 

Interchange cap
Unfortunately, there’s been a lack of will to implement an interchange cap. Long-time readers will recall that AussieRulesBlog wrote passionately of the benefits of a cap over a substitute. And, largely, our fears have been realised. There’s not that big a difference between rotation numbers in 2012 and what they were before the substitute. Entirely predictable — and we predicted it!

 

Surprising no-one, Barcodes chief cook and bottle washer, Eddie Everywhere, decided to wheel out the super hyperbole and suggested AFL players will be blood doping within weeks.

 

We’re not sure what Eddie has been sniffing, but we want some! The facts are that the game has become quicker because of unfettered interchange. Yes, players have become fitter, but their running capacity has been significantly enhanced by having more short rests. Some of Dane Swan’s visits to the pine last only thirty seconds.

 

It’s only logical that reducing interchanges — which the three-and-one bench was supposed to do and patently failed to achieve — will reduce players’ running capacity. They could dope, and thanks for that helpful suggestion, Eddie, or they could simply pace themselves more so they have some petrol tickets left for the last ten minutes.

 

Eddie and those who think like him are locked into maintaining the game exactly as it is played at the conclusion of 2012. There’s no law or logic that says that must be the case!

 

If players can’t rest as often, they’ll have to ration out their effort across their game time. It’s not hard to figure out. And we would likely see a reduction in soft tissue and collision injury to boot.

 

AussieRulesBlog waits with bated breath for the 2014 rule changes.

So, let’s get this straight. Jack Ziebell’s collision with Aaron Joseph in a genuine contest for the ball is equivalent to Chris Judd wrenching an opponent’s arm whilst he is pinned with a player on top of him. Of course that’s a simplistic assessment, but the similarity of the penalty — a four-week holiday each, if you hadn’t heard — invites the comparison.

 

The old VFL/AFL Tribunal system may have been antiquated, time-consuming and, as we then thought, inconsistent, but compared to the hotch-potch inflicted on the game by Adrian Anderson it was simply wonderful.

 

There is no part of the current system that delivers consistency and most parts, including basic on-field officiating, are devoid of considerations of context. The system is, quite simply, broken and it’s author cannot credibly remain in his post. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Adrian.

Zero tolerance is the modern AFL’s preferred response to a crisis. Zero tolerance of racism. Zero tolerance of high tackles. Zero tolerance of hands in the back. Zero tolerance of sling tackles. Ad infinitum.

 

The problem with the zero tolerance approach is that it removes context and nuance from the decision equation. In a zero tolerance world, the Lindsay Thomas–Gary Rohan incident is superficially similar to the Goodes slide tackle and so must be stamped out. Except that on closer inspection it’s not similar at all. The context, intent and subtle nuances of Thomas’ actions are quite different to Goodes’.

 

It doesn’t seem that long ago that the AFL’s umpiring department declared a sort of total war of players maintaining a tackle after an opponent had disposed of the ball. Such was the zero tolerance approach of the umpires that whistles were on a hair trigger. Not being able to see that the ball had been released was simply no defence. “We WILL stamp out players holding opponents after they’ve disposed of the ball!”

 

And so, for a time, there were a rash of absolutely unfair free kicks paid against players who had no chance of knowing that the player they’d tackled no longer had the ball.

 

Fast forward to rounds seven and eight of the 2012 season from those far off days of zero tolerance and you’d think you are in a time warp. Players are routinely tackled to the ground well after disposing of the ball and the umpires’ reaction is . . . indifference.

 

AussieRulesBlog has long espoused the view that the rules should be interpreted the same way in the grand Final as in round one of pre-season. We’ll go further. The interpretation should be the same from season to season unless there’s a compelling reason to change it.

 

Where have these huge swings in interpretation come from? Zero tolerance. If you swing wildly in one direction, karma has a way of evening up by swinging you equally as far in the other direction. Zero tolerance to indifference — racism being the welcome exception.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice to come to a new season knowing that the umpires would apply the same interpretation of the rules that we’d been used to for years? Even if it were only two years?

 

Isaac Newton said it best. For every action, there’s and equal and opposite reaction. Until there’s a moderate and considered approach to these issues that crop up from time to time, we’re fated to suffer lurches in the opposite direction.

Most will recall the announcement from the AFL that “the head is sacrosanct” — another in the line of zero-tolerance responses that to some degree failed because they didn’t acknowledge circumstance, nuance and context.

 

This week there was the first explicit acknowledgement that AussieRulesBlog can recall that the zero-tolerance approach to high contact was a mistake. Jeff Gieschen tells the Your Call segment on the AFL website that Cyril Rioli running head-first into a stationary Dean Polo should not have drawn a free kick for high contact.

 

Conditioned by the AFL’s track record, in the wake of the Adam Goodes slide tackle and suspension, nearly everyone piled into Lindsay Thomas over the incident in which Gary Rohan’s leg was broken. Any more than a cursory glance was sufficient to realise that Thomas’ actions were quite different to Goodes, but the community expected a zero-tolerance response.

 

The AFL today clarified its approach to slide tackles, putting the onus back on the sliding player to exercise a duty of care toward other players on the field.

 

“It is not illegal to slide to contest the ball, but players must be aware of the potential for injury if they slide into an opponent’s knees or ankles,” said Adrian Anderson.

 

It’s about time that some room for nuance and judgement was allowed. Zero tolerance works just fine — just as long as every incident is exactly the same. Introduce just one variation and the zero tolerance approach doesn’t cut it.

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!

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.

The controversy of the first day of the Boxing Day Test at the MCG is only a controversy because Channel Nein insisted on deploying its technology despite it not being available to either teams or umpires.

 

Test cricket has survived for more than 100 years without high technology assistance. Sure, there were dodgy decisions from time to time, but that was part and parcel of the process. Umpires are (allegedly) human and are expected to make decisions based on what they are sure that they see.

 

AussieRulesBlog will never impugn the integrity of the officials, but, despite there being very specific written processes for umpiring games, individuals will always have distinct idiosyncratic interpretations of those processes.

 

We raise this “controversy” generated by Channel Nein since it demonstrates why there have been controversies in AFL in relation to scoring decisions. Those controversies would have little of the widespread impact they have had were it not for the broadcasters’ highlighting of the ‘error’.

 

We weren’t watching Channel Nein yesterday, but, on past form, we assume they played and replayed and replayed the controversial footage ad nauseum, as is their wont. That was certainly the way the AFL scoring issues played out.

 

It’s also worth noting here that broadcasters’ technology rarely, if ever, shows the incident from the perspective of the umpire. The image of the ‘hot spot’ on Hussey’s shirt is from side on (below). Let’s see the same incident from the umpire’s perspective at the bowling end stumps and see how clear cut the technology makes it from there!

 

 

The issues, for both cricket umpires and Aussie Rules umpires are really rooted in human frailty. For the cricket umpire, judging the bowler’s front foot placement in relation to the popping crease and then judging nicks and LBWs at the other end a fraction of a second later is a big ask. For Aussie Rules goal umpires, judging the position of the ball in relation to a goal or behind post whilst in the jumble of a 360º game is also a big ask.

 

But, and here’s the rub in these controversies, the technology can’t give a 100% guarantee of being right either. And it probably never will — unless the games are completely virtual and a computer can assess against its own data.

 

These cricket incidents demonstrate the dangers of allowing broadcasters to deploy technology that is not available to officials. Umpires would be well within their rights to refuse to stand in these tests while Channel Nein deploys these technologies that are not available to them. Whether it is the Indian Board or any other reason that the technology is not employed, its use in these circumstances is absolutely and entirely inappropriate.

The announcement of experimental rules for the 2012 pre-season games carries no surprises. We were alerted to these changes weeks ago, but it’s interesting to see the final implementation.

 

AussieRulesBlog has made no secret of our enthusiasm for any change that removes ugly wrestling from ruck contests. The explanatory notes make for some intriguing consideration.

 

Ruckmen will not be permitted to make contact with their opponent prior to bounces and throw-ins, with umpires ensuring the players do not make contact with each other until the ball leaves the umpire’s hand. The trial is designed to encourage ruckmen to contest the ball, rather than focus on nullifying their opponent, as well as making ruck contests easier to adjudicate.

 

We’re not entirely sure that the last point has been achieved by adding another rule for umpires to adjudicate! It will be fascinating to see how ruckmen manage this new process.

 

Centre bounces have generally been genuine contests since the dividing line between ruckmen was introduced. Athletic ruckmen have had the opportunity to leap high above the more lumbering types and the umpires have, in our judgement, generally done a good job in restricting the lumberers from taking the leapers’ run away from them. The second centre circle has reduced the advantage that more athletic ruckmen might otherwise have had.

 

So, for this trial, at ball ups around the ground, ruckmen will not be able to touch each other until the ball has left the umpire’s hands. Frankly, we’re not sure that there’ll be much difference discernable. The ruckmen will stand quite close to each other and, as soon as the ball hits the turf, will come together in a wrestle for the five or six seconds it takes for the ball to fall back down to them. What change have we made? Not bloody much!

 

And we can’t wait to see how precise and precious the umpires are going to be about what constitutes a touch.

 

For boundary throw ins, the situation is much the same. As the ball is arcing through the air for five or six seconds, the ruckmen will be wrestling for position and advantage as they move to the fall of the ball. Again, not much bloody difference!

 

We can’t fault the intent of these experiments, but they don’t go nearly far enough.

AFL Operations Manager Adrian Anderson is reported in The Age to have spoken about proposals for experimental rules for the 2012 pre-season competition.

 

Among the possibilities are 12 points for a torpedo goal from outside the fifty-metre arc, which we regard as populist nonsense, despite the obvious difficulties in defining whether a torpedo that’s not quite right is a torpedo or not.

 

Other possibilities are:

■ Boundary and goal umpires allowed to pay obvious free kicks for holding and high contact. [Let’s define obvious, shall we?]

■ Ruckmen not permitted to make contact for boundary throw-ins and around-the-ground bounces.

■ Free kicks not paid for last touch over the boundary but for last kick, handball or when a player walked the ball over the line. [Still a turkey of an idea.]

 

AussieRulesBlog is glad to see a mention of ruck contests in the range of issues to be addressed. The description provided can only be regarded as a quick shorthand because a literal implementation of “no contact” for boundary and around-the-ground ruck contests is simply not practical.

 

For what it’s worth, AussieRulesBlog would like to see anything that looks like a hold or a shepherd with the arms in a ruck contest penalised. We’re really over the ruck wrestling. Fair enough if players want to engage in a test of strength, but holding or shepherding is just plain ugly. We recognise that limiting contact to the body advantages athletic, high-leaping players such as Nic Naitanui and Paddy Ryder quite strongly, however they are similarly disadvantaged in the current wrestling matches that pass for ruck contests.

 

Let’s have an end to umpires shouting, “Both holding!”

 

In the same story, there are more hints that some sort of video decision assist will be implemented, sooner rather than later. We’ve already indicated our disquiet. The story notes that only seven scoring decision errors were recorded by the AFL in 2011. Seven! How many goals, behinds, out-of-bounds and goal-line marks and scrambles were adjudicated through the season, and there were seven errors. We’re pretty sure most fans would prefer to see fewer errors of interpretation of rules in the field of play, or, at the very least, consistent interpretations across the season, rather than this manic determination to find a solution to a non-problem.

Another Grand Final scoring blunder and the football community has to, yet again, endure the nonsense proposition that technology must be used to assist umpires in scoring decisions.

 

Let’s start by getting the situation straight on the Wellingham “goal”. This was not a goal umpiring error per se. It was an error of process in that the goal umpire was too influenced by a field umpire.

 

The goal umpire was in the correct position to make a decision. The field umpire was not. We see, week in and week out, goal umpires relying on boundary umpires to assist with set shot scoring decisions. The goal umpire looks to the boundary umpire who signals whether the ball passed inside or outside the behind post. This works because the boundary umpire is standing right at the behind post.

 

And yet, the AFL umpiring department has field umpires — not standing at the posts and not at the goal line — directing goal umpires. Incredible.

 

Two years ago, the Tom Hawkins “goal” was a different matter. Hawkins’ snapshot didn’t allow any time for boundary umpires to be in position at the behind posts. The goal umpire was attempting to make ground to get into position to see the ball and, understandably, did not see the deflection from the goal post. Had the broadcaster not had a camera trained at the incident from the angle they did, it’s quite possible that only a few fans at the game would have been aware that the ball had hit the post.

 

In both instances then, detecting an error relied very heavily on there being a camera with a view from an appropriate angle. So, what technology are we going to employ? Instant replay from the broadcaster. And with every angle covered? Of course not.

 

And if that replay is inconclusive? Current practice is that the lesser score option is awarded. Is that more right than the current decision-making process?

 

There are three simple points to a solution to this “problem”.

1. Goal umpire’s decisions are the prime scoring decision unless some other umpire is 100% certain that the decision is incorrect.
2. Employ four goal umpires per game.
3. Australian rules football has uncertainties built in — the shape of the ball not the least of them. There is no absolutely certain process for making these decisions, so let’s accept that the current error rate of something less than one tenth of one percent is a pretty damned good result.

There is some justification for goal line cameras, but even these offer less than conclusive evidence given the speed of the ball and the often slight touches players may get on the ball.

 

As we’ve noted on many occasions, the negatives of video decision-assist outweigh any positives to an extraordinary degree.

• In the event of a “behind” decision, the defending team loses the advantage of a quick kick out while a video review is conducted.
• The game’s rhythm is upset by the break for video review.
• Video review doesn’t guarantee certainty.

AFL football operations boss Adrian Anderson has announced only minor changes to the open sore that was player-initiated advantage.

 

Anderson said the slight modification was made after feedback from clubs, players and fans. Well, that may be strictly true, but AussieRulesBlog finds it difficult to imagine that any of the mentioned groups would have agreed to the rule remaining in any form.

 

Advantage will not apply in 2012 to free kicks paid by an “out-of-zone” umpire. Superficially, this seems like an improvement, but there are plenty of scenarios in games, especially at stoppages at either end of the ground, where two umpires operate in quite close proximity.

 

The umpires seem to have a fairly good handle on which of them is in control at any point, but for the rest of us it is a mystery.

 

Most puzzlingly, in 2012 the umpires will have “more time allowed … to consider the actual advantage.”

 

What? If there’s no advantage, they’ll call the ball back? Certainly, there were any number of incidents during 2011 where this seemed to happen, despite the provision for such action having been removed in the rewriting of the advantage law to allow player-initiated advantage.

 

The game now finds itself in a position where the lawmakers don’t rewrite a law that doesn’t work. Instead, changes to interpretations — for the most part not codified — are announced, and then the interpretation of the interpretation changes evolve over time as the laws committee and the umpiring administration realise that their initial interpretations are overzealous.

 

This continual tinkering, especially when it’s not spelled out clearly in a written law, is a crock.

 

Player-initiated advantage was, and is, a nonsense in Australian rules. It doesn’t work. Players are confused. Umpires are confused. Media are confused. Fans are confused. These changes don’t turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. It’s still a sow’s ear, no matter how hard the AFL talks it up.

AFL Umpiring boss Jeff Gieschen has been rolled out after the Grand Final to perform his verbal pirouettes again, this time over the goal/behind to the Barcodes’ Sharrod Wellingham. Once more, the spectre of video referrals of goal umpiring decisions has been raised, even though the 2010 pre-season trial of the process was, in AussieRulesBlog’s view, an unmitigated waste of time.

 

But the big issue we should be focussing on is buried at the end of Gieschen’s statement on the matter. Discussing the process the on-field umpires went through in coming to the decision, he says:

 

"Our field umpire (Shaun Ryan) actually asked the two boundary umpires, who were both on the posts, what they thought [and] they couldn't add anything.
"He then asked the other field umpires.
"It would have been probably nice if we had gone back to the goal umpire as well."

 

So, was the decision made by the field umpire or the goal umpire? Why would it have been nice to go back to the goal umpire? Did the field umpire signal All Clear with two hands, suggesting a goal? Did the goal umpire change his decision on that basis?

 

Regardless, AussieRulesBlog thinks there’s far too much emphasis on mistakes by goal umpires. The error rate is minute. Both Chris Dawes and Tom Hawkins had gimme opportunities to score goals — and missed. Why aren’t we focussing on those incidents?

 

And if Gieschen is so damned worried about getting it as right as it can possibly be, what about looking at a consistent interpretation and application of the laws of the game from the first bounce of pre-season to the final siren of the Grand Final? Now THAT would be a step forward!

 

Release the Giesch!!!!!

"The good thing for us as umpires is nothing changes. Free kicks are the same." says AFL umpire Shaun Ryan, one of the three umpires chosen to officiate at Saturday’s AFL Grand Final.

 

If only that were so, Shaun. If only it were so.

 

FWIW, AussieRulesBlog reckons Shaun is one of the best of the whistleblowers running around.

 

Release the Giesch!!!

AFL umpiring administration

The Giesch has made one of his regular forays to Toyland (seen at right with two friends) with his rationalisation of the non-decision in the last stages of the West Coast–Carlton semi final.

“The two bodies came together and there was contact, but if you put his arm out straight and have your palm facing back, that was how his hand was. It wasn't a holding motion. Holding is when you clench your fist or wrap your arm around someone.”

OK, Jeff, so you clicked your shoes together and you’re not in Kansas any more (to mix fairy tales!). “… put his arm out straight . . . that’s how his hand was.”  Really? Have you seen the stills?

And we assume that your reference to clenching a fist means clenching a fist around something — like an arm or a handful of guernsey — but we have to tell you that there’s no definition of the holding action in the rules. The Laws simply refer to “holding”. So this palm facing back doesn’t equal holding stuff is your little conception of reality.

Of course we know that the AFL Umpiring Department regards the Laws of the Game more as a set of guidelines, but seriously, you have got a particularly firm grasp of yourself.

Now, AussieRulesBlog is as pleased to see Carlton lose as anyone, but that is a free kick either for holding (despite Gieschen’s spin) or for blocking Walker from being able to contest the ball.

It should also not escape notice that Gieschen spun a difference of twenty-four free kicks — yes, that’s 24, 39:15 — between the two halves of the game as the players making the ball their objective after half time.

“People say you throw your whistle away. But that's all about the players reading the play at half time and realising, if we want to win the game, we need to focus on the ball and cut out any little tactics.”

C’mon, Jeff. You expect us to believe that the Umpiring Department representative at the game didn’t have a word in the shell-pinks of the three field umpires and suggest they’d been a touch over-zealous? Oh, for crying out loud!

We also note the recent demise of one of the media world’s more outlandish reality shows — What’s your decision, on the AFL’s website. Jeff’s weekly spinning of his charges’ more egregious blunders hasn’t reappeared after round twenty-three. We wondered why we’d felt that disturbance in the force . . .

Release the Giesch!!!

We don’t think we’re being pedantic expecting that a foundation rule of Aussie Rules football be adhered to in the game’s elite competition. Actually, there were any number of rules not adhered to in watching the four finals this weekend, but we’ve got one in particular on our mind.

We think we saw instances in all four games of players being pushed in the back by a pursuing player. Certainly, the one pictured was as obvious as the nose on our face. Swan Ryan O’Keefe is pursued by Saint Brendon Goddard. Goddard can’t get close enough to attempt to grab O’Keefe, so he pushes him in the back — firmly and in full view — in an effort to unbalance him. No free kick.

AussieRulesBlog knows we can be slow on the uptake at times, but we were firmly convinced that even placing a hand on an opponent’s back was a free kick — or does that one only apply in marking contests, Jeff?

Not for the first time, we’re beginning to see the emergence of a new set of rules for the final series, culminating in a Grand Final that everyone will agree was umpired beautifully because the umpires “let the game go”.

AussieRulesBlog doesn’t have anything against the notion of a less interventionist umpiring style. In fact we think it would be a positive benefit for the game.

What we do have something against is inconsistency! The umpiring in the first game of pre-season and the Grand Final should be all but indistinguishable. Sadly, under the Gieschen Directorate, you could be forgiven for thinking you were watching two different sports — related perhaps, but different.

Is it too much to ask that a push in the back, a blatant, undisguised push in the back be paid as a free kick?

Release the Giesch!!!

It wasn’t our intention for focus again on boundary-line ruck contests, but watching the Brisbane— West Coast game on TV certainly put it front and centre in our mind.

 

Nic Naitanui is a fearsomely talented player. His natural leap and athleticism must give him an automatic advantage over ninety per cent of the other players at AFL level. Why then, for most of the second half of the Brisbane game, would he resort to grabbing the back of his ruck opponent’s guernsey and holding it for all he was worth?

 

More to the point, where is the much-vaunted all-round coverage by the umpires? On a couple of occasions, Leuenberger’s guernsey had been pulled halfway up his torso and still there was no free kick!

 

The current umpiring cop-out in ruck contests that both are holding just doesn’t wash for AussieRulesBlog. There are rules. If they’re broken, apply penalties as appropriate. Currently, when ruck free kicks are awarded, neither the ruckmen nor fans have any idea of why. A genuine contest is all we ask for.

 

And while we’ve got the sights on the umpires, we wonder when Steve McBurney is taking delivery of a specially trained Labrador. In the closely fought last quarter of the Brisbane–West Coast game, a West Coast defender applied a genuine full nelson to a Brisbane forward in a marking “contest” in Brisbane’s attacking goal square, locking both his arms, about fifteen metres in front of McBurney. Not even the hint of a free kick. . .

Regular AussieRulesBlog readers will know that our most fervent wish is for consistency of application of the rules of the game from the first bounce of pre-season to the final siren in the Grand Final.

 

Over recent weeks we’ve posted a series of articles focusing on particular rules in a bid to assist people to a better understanding of the rules and consequently better-informed criticism of on-field officiating.

 

We watched only three games over the weekend just past, but it would be hard to imagine three more different umpiring performances.

 

Friday night saw the spellbinding clash between the Cats and the Weagles. We didn’t get to the end of the game thinking that the umpires had had any real influence on the game and there weren’t any umpiring clangers that stuck in our mind.

 

Fast forward to Saturday night and perhaps the most puzzling and inconsistent umpiring performance of the year in the first half. Now, it’s fair to say that the Bombers–Cats game of the previous weekend was champagne football befitting Moet & Chandon. We don’t think we’d get much argument that the first half of the Bombers–Tigers game only merited used dishwashing water by comparison. And it wasn’t helped by three umpires with three seemingly different and interchangeable interpretations of everything from marking to holding the ball.

 

To round out the weekend, we took in the Bulldogs–Blues game on Foxtel. A great win for the Doggies against a Carlton seemingly believing all the hype about themselves. A great game marred by appalling umpiring. We can only recall one holding the man free kick, quite late in the game, despite countless significant holds after disposal. It’s like these three umpires had ripped the rule book to shreds and just picked up a few randomly selected pages to use for this particular game.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, two goals directly from maniacally over-zealous fifty-metre penalties made Carlton’s effort look a lot better than it actually was.

 

AussieRulesBlog understands that the umpires at AFL level have an extremely difficult job. We understand that having run kilometers while making many often finely-nuanced judgements isn’t an easy gig. But when, as happened in the third quarter of the Bulldogs–Carlton game, a player is held for around two seconds after disposing of the ball and the umpire is clearly looking directly at this happening, but does not award a free kick, we think the way the game is being umpired has become a joke.

 

This game of ours is too important for there to be, no matter how much The Giesch may deny it, a “rule of the week”. Our game is too important to the fabric of our society for the emphasis and interpretation of the laws of the game to vary in the way that they do.

 

If Andrew Demetriou and Adrian Anderson seriously believe that Jeff Gieschen and Rowan Sawers are doing a competent job of running the umpiring department, then they need to come and spend some time in the stands with the fans who keep the game alive. Better educating fans to understand the rules is a waste of time when there is such blatant inconsistency.

 

AussieRulesBlog apologises for running our series of posts focussing on the rules. We’ve mislead our readers badly. An understanding of the rules is a waste of time, because the umpiring department changes, adds and discards rules and interpretations on a whim.

 

Andrew? Adrian? This situation has to be dealt with. Gieschen has to go. And if you won’t see him on his way, then you have to go.