THE AFL must address three things, one immediately and two at the end of the season. Envelopes are a priority. They won't go far without a stamp and destination.
At least we are hoping that is the explanation for an ever diminishing number of invitations to AFL events.
Second, it must fix the clumsy manner in which the intricate and inflexible tribunal boxes tackle questionable incidents that take place off the ball. Thirdly, but just as critically, it must introduce protocols that allow video evidence to ensure correct calls by goal umpires.
The AFL rules appear simple enough written out. But when three field umpires in one game must make subjective judgments about high contact, control of a mark, deliberate out-of-bounds, in the back or in the side, holding or holding your ground and all the other regulations, what once appeared black and white often has a colourful aftermath.
Last week it was the tackle. The one Melbourne's Jack Trengove applied to Patrick Dangerfield to be precise. It was instantly clear that the majority of the media and football community had no idea it was even covered by league rules never mind how it was to be applied. Trengove failed at appeal to have his three-match ban revoked. All week, too many in the media made mostly absurd observations which supporters took to be the insight of an unimaginably higher intellect.
Remarks like "that was never high contact", "it is the Campbell Brown decision that's got me stumped" and "I thought tackle was something we used in fishing" did the media little credit. Somehow the media and football community suddenly found it impossible to discern the difference between the AFL version of football and netball.
James Frawley, Melbourne's half-bright full-back, did not help matters when he twittered: "I thought my mate played for the Melbourne Demons . . . not the Melbourne Vixens."
That Frawley even had to think twice about in which sport his teammate Trengove was involved explains why whatever game Melbourne played against North Melbourne on the weekend, it was only distantly related to modern football.
The hysteria continued through the weekend. Any tackle in which players fell to the ground was suddenly the equal of Trengove's slinging tackle on Dangerfield. Mark Robinson, the popular and urbane columnist for the Herald-Sun called for a royal commission. The terms of reference are yet to be established, but Robinson suggested a working title "geez, I've got no idea but I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to tackle anymore".
Different sets of eyes can see a set of circumstances differently. The rules are interpreted and that can change depending from which angle you see an incident, how close or far away you are and whether you have an uncluttered line of sight.
But scoring - be it goals or points or out of bounds - is absolute. The ball is either a goal or it is not. The goal umpire makes either a correct or incorrect call. It should not be a matter of opinion. That is not to say the goal umpire's job is easy. He or she must dance along the line as Nureyev might have and then must communicate his/her decision as silently and dramatically as would Marcel Marceau. It is part ballet, part mime. Sometimes our goal umpires get so deep into their characters their work is comparable to the Dance of the Little Swans. Such is their focus they sometimes see a goal for a point and a point for a goal.
In round seven, Gold Coast's Matt Shaw kicked for goal, the ball struck the goal post and should have been ruled a point. It was not. After a short consultation with field and boundary umpires, the goal umpire signalled a goal.
It would have been immediately obvious to a video umpire that Gold Coast had earned a goal against Brisbane that it didn't kick and therefore deserve. The video umpire could have relayed immediately to the umpires that the ball had struck the post and was therefore a point. The interruption would have been a second or two at the most.
Senior members of the AFL football department want this facility available to the umpires. Their reckoning is that if we can assure the correct decision is made by use of video without detracting from the game then everybody benefits: let's get as many as we can absolutely right. Collingwood's president Eddie McGuire argues that umpires should not be in contact with anyone during a game to ensure the integrity of the sport.
But other officials would be tuned in. Any shenanigans would be instantly heard and thus exposed.
Essendon's Heath Hocking was yesterday cited for off the ball contact, a similar but not the same scenario that saw the Gold Coast's Brown suspended for two weeks for striking the Bulldogs' Callan Ward. Hocking can accept a three-week ban. Hocking's elbow was considered intentional (Brown's reckless), of high impact (Brown's medium) and both ticked the high contact box. If Hocking accepts the match review panel's decision - he'd be barking mad not to - then he will have received the same penalty as Trengove. So away we go, once more with feeling.
Just about everybody bar Brown's family thought this a light penalty for an action behind the play. The AFL acknowledges this and the league's general manager of football matters, Adrian Anderson, has flagged a review at the end of the season. In a broad examination the league will consider, among other things, that the match review panel refers off the ball incidents automatically to the tribunal, which is not necessarily bound strictly to the panel's inflexible box system.
It cannot come quick enough. The Brown decision is colouring debate on every other decision the match review panel makes. It is de-stabilising for the competition, but fodder for a media eager to be outraged and supporters outraged by anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment