As we watched the painful demolition of the Bombers by the Crows last night, we couldn’t believe our eyes as a goal was overturned.

Let’s be clear from the start that this decision had absolutely zero impact on the result. It’s remarkable enough that the Upper Kumbukta West F-grade Reserves had been delegated the task of impersonating an AFL team.

No, The Giesch’s boys managed an even more remarkable event. A boundary umpire, who must have been at least fourteen metres away and on just about the worst possible angle for making such a call, managed to overrule a goal umpire who was within a metre of the ball, insisting, despite the goalie’s protestations, that the ball had glanced the post. The TV replay demonstrated amply that the boundary umpire was delusional.

We’re all for co-operative umpiring, although it was sadly missing in last week’s St Kilda-Geelong game when Steven Baker was harassing Steve Johnson. We’re all for co-operative umpiring when the guy charged with making a decision is unsure or was unsighted.

How or why the boundary ump got involved is a matter for conjecture since the TV director was busy giving us the ‘nose hair’ close-up of the putative goal scorer at the time.

All of this was happening as the whistle-blowers continued their newfound fascination with 50-metre penalties. This umpiring department has utterly and completely lost its way. The Giesch and his crew are now as adept at swinging to meet the breeze of public opinion as the most reactive of politicians. There’s only one rejoinder to this mess: Release the Giesch!!!

The umpires in tonight’s Hawthorn-Bulldogs game have obviously been instructed to pay a free kick for pretty much any physical contact off the ball — yet another hysterical overreaction by the Giesch and his charges.

We’ve just witnessed Steve McBurney — who else? — paying a free kick against the run of play when Franklin layed a glancing block on a Bulldogs defender to free up a Hawks teammate. Since when did this become illegal? We’ve been watching AFL/VFL for more than forty years and this is a first.

About the only consistency the AFL umpiring department can provide is the assurance of maniacal obsession with “the rule of the week”.

And that’s not even to consider the 50-metre penalties for the newly-newsworthy “prohibited contact”.

Seriously, AFL umpires aren’t at the abysmal level set by FIFA’s World Cup referees — and Australia wants to host that joke of a tournament? — but a controversy is certain to get the whistleblowers blowing frantically at every available opportunity.

Release the Giesch!!

Some time ago, we mentioned in passing the logical disconnect between the umpire-adjudicated advantage rule and 50-metre penalties for those who either judge the umpire’s intent incorrectly and kick the ball on in anticipation of advantage or simply don’t hear the whistle — surely a plausible excuse in front of forty or fifty thousand screaming fans.

Keen students of the game will recall that a player-initiated advantage system was trialled in the pre-season competition this year.

A dozen or so games is insufficient to expose the inadequacies of a trial ruling, and it seems to AussieRulesBlog that the same problem remains in the player-initiated advantage schema: assumptions have to be made about what decision the umpire is about to deliver.

Were the umpires to be equipped with something resembling a miniature harmonica, with one tone for a free kick to team A and another for a free kick to team B, it would be reasonable to penalise a team whose player kicked the ball on in defiance of the whistle tone. In the absence of such a device, and with the capricious nature of many current interpretations, penalties for attempting to initiate an advantage situation verge on the ridiculous.

Let’s go further however and question the legitimacy of advantage as a concept. There isn’t a vanilla-style, one-size-fits-all scenario for advantage, although teams — and their fans — are quick to criticise perceived disadvantage when play is halted and brought back for a free kick.

Too often for AussieRulesBlog’s liking, the team gaining the advantage does so out of a combination of blind, capricious luck and their opponents having stopped on the sound of the whistle.

The fact is that most footballers have been taught to play to the whistle. When you hear the whistle, you stop what you’re doing and turn to the umpire to determine what will happen. For the umpire to suddenly decide that a player who has fortuitously gained free possession of the ball thirty metres in the clear is part of “continuous play” flies in the face of concepts like natural justice and fair play.

It’s our assessment that the rule, as it is currently umpired, is unduly advantageous on too many occasions. (The exception is scenarios where a so-called professional free kick is given up in order to slow down the attacking team. We aren’t enthusiastic about leaning on the umpire’s judgement in these situations, but there isn’t a viable alternative and it’s appropriate that the professional free kick is discouraged. We must also rely on the umpire’s judgement, unfortunately, for feined non-hearing of the whistle, since a kick against the direction of the free kick provides ample time for defenders to organise themselves.) We also note that the current interpretations favour apparently capricious and seemingly random application of the rule.

Watching games recently, especially the second part of the split round, we gradually became aware of a change in the game. It seems a lot, lot harder to get free-kicked for holding the ball.

Even Steve McBurney’s hair-trigger whistle seemed almost quiet

Perhaps it was the torrential conditions of the MCG on Friday night and the mildly slippery Homebush stadium that influenced our perception. The coming round will tell, but The Giesch has prior ‘form’ for radical overhauls of interpretations during a season.

Perhaps it was the baying media pack demanding protection, and some rights, for the bloke going in to get the ball that has driven The Giesch to spruce up the interpretations again?

Perhaps we’re running way too soon? Whatever! Can we just have a season where the interpretation we start with is the one we end with? Release The Giesch!!!

Ross Lyon may have “no issue” with the tactics employed by Steven Baker against Steve Johnson last Friday night, but one wonders how he would have reacted had it been his suspected broken hand that was being repeatedly punched by his opponent whilst many, many metres off the ball.

Baker will see his black eye as a mark of his commitment to his team’s cause, but, in truth, it marks him as nothing more than a thug.

Johnson’s retaliation was understandable, but cannot be condoned.

Where, we wonder, were the umpires?

Lest readers’ thoughts be muddled on this, we’re not considering the sort of holding, blocking and frustration dished out to great players every week — the sort of treatment that Chris Judd has taken to bleating about recently.

As we have previously canvassed, our traditionalist view is that aggression at the ball is to be applauded, but premeditated, off the ball attacks on players designed to take advantage of some physical weakness are deplorable and the work of thugs.

There is close checking, and then there is thuggery. Baker’s actions fall clearly and unarguably into the latter category. We applaud him for ‘succeeding’ at the highest level in spite of self-admitted modest talents, but we wish him and his ilk gone from the game as soon as possible.

Postscript: The MRP have assessed Baker’s actions as warranting twelve weeks’ suspension according to their activation points table and loading for previous offences, discounted by three weeks for guilty pleas.

Paradoxically, given how much we despise Baker’s actions, we find this penalty excessive.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that a weekend of media following the Friday night game and a barrage of criticism over the Judd-Pavlich incident through the week has had some influence on the MRP’s deliberations.

We wonder if any other fans have noticed that it’s much, much harder to get free-kicked for holding the ball if you can retain your footing?

Once you lose your footing, the writing is already on the wall and the umpires are just itching to demonstrate their graceful sweeping action to denote a failure to dispose correctly (holding the ball) free kick.

Why is it that a player who retains his footing is treated so much differently to a player lying on the ground? Perhaps, when standing, if the ball is jarred free, it simply falls to the ground. When laying on the ground, the ball jarred free remains in pretty much the same position. Can it be that simple?

This is yet another example of the confusion that results from a zero-tolerance approach to umpiring.

And how do we finish, people? All together now, Release the Giesch!!!

In a further illustration of the inflexible, zero-tolerance approach of the current interpretation of the holding the ball rule, today AussieRulesBlog witnessed (on TV) two players, each with a firm grasp of the ball in two hands, engaged in a test of strength with each other. One happened to be lying on his back. His opponent had not tackled him. The free kick for holding the ball was paid against the player on the ground.

On another occasion, a player broke through a series of three or four tackles, none of which was made to stick, and handballed the ball to a teammate who kicked toward goal. The umpire, presumably, decided that the cumulative time of applied tackles was sufficient to deem the player to have been holding the ball and paid a 50-metre penalty for the ball being kicked on (more about the logical disconnect between the advantage rule and the 50-metre penalty later). (Ed. : Gieschen has subsequently admitted that the free kick and initial 50-metre penalty were incorrect.)

The holding the ball interpretation and the 50-metre penalty for time wasting interpretations are cancers on our game. Players are confused, fans are confused, media people are confused.

Perhaps we’ll also run a series on the abuse that umpires use to justify adding additional 50-metre penalties.

Eagle-eyed readers will be able to place all these incidents in one game. The umpiring did not affect the result of the game in any material way, but it was, in general, inflexible, capricious and inappropriate to the conditions.

More coming on holding the ball!  Release the Giesch!!

The custodians of our game must do something to bring sense and fairness back into the holding the ball rule. And while they’re at it, perhaps they could require that umpires only pay free kicks when they can see the ball or the infringement.

In recent years the interpretation of the holding the ball rule was altered so that players who had previously pounced on the ball with the intention of holding play up would be penalised if they did not dispose of the ball when tackled.

Over time, the Giesch and his minions have refined that interpretation. In Round 11 of the 2010 season, a player receiving a pressure handball and being tackled to the ground immediately is often free kicked for holding the ball, even if his arms are pinned, on the basis that he hasn’t made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball legally.

During the 2010 pres-season, an experimental rule penalising a player holding the ball to an opponent’s body was trialled. It’s a matter of enduring frustration that this situation occurs more and more often during home and away games in the season proper.

Worst though, in our opinion, is the scenario where an umpire pays a free kick for holding the ball where he can’t see the ball. We regularly see on television replays that the ball has been released as part of the tackle and is simply located near the players. A blindsided umpire should not be paying free kicks. The umpire must be able to see the ball to be able to judge whether it is being held or not. Otherwise, they are guessing.

The current interpretation of holding the ball denies the player attempting to make the ball their objective natural justice. It also penalises the player receiving the ball through no fault of their own.

By all means penalise the player who drags the ball in under himself with the clear objective of holding play up. By all means penalise the player who has had three seconds prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is tackled legally and successfully. For the rest, providing the umpire can see the ball, let common sense and a judgement of intent rule the umpire’s assessment.

Zero tolerance may be a fashionable societal attitude in some societies and in some circumstances, but in Aussie rules it works against the spirit of a fair go for the player making the ball his objective.

And the first step in claiming back common sense as a modus operandi for our game’s adjudicators? Release the Giesch!