The Rules that are Open to Interpretation | Thebigtip

Anyone who's a die hard AFL supporter would agree with the phrase "The umpiring is too inconsistent". If you're anything like me you feel like you're going to have a heart attack in the final quarter when your team is playing. What's changed, particularly over the last 5 years, is that I no longer believe that my team will lose because they played worse on the day, or that they had a bad day. I can safely say that there are times when teams lose that are solely the umpires fault. This has never been the case before.

A perfect example of this is the Melbourne vs. Essendon game played this week.. seven 50 metre penalties were given, all resulting in goals. On review of the decision less than half were genuine 50's. If i were an Essendon supporter in that game I probably would have been on the emergency table before the final siren. Not to say i'm unfit. I'm at the gym 3 times a week and hit the pavement the same amount of time. The reason is because the stress induced from the umpires having such control on the game, with interpretative rules, simply means i can never be certain what will happen.

These are the rules that are hard to understand.

In each of these examples i'm going to use the teams Geelong and St Kilda because they're the best in the league at the moment. And it will be easier to understand and visualise if i portray it this way.

1) Push in the back vs. holding or dropping the ball

Many times this year we see this scenario occur with a different call made each time. It looks something like this - The Geelong player gets the ball and starts to run it forward. He takes a bounce and keeps running, he covers about 20 metres, he doesn't see the St Kilda player coming toward him from behind with exceptional speed. The St Kilda players launches himself at the Geelong player from behind, wrapping his arms around him and taking the Geelong player to the ground chest first. The umpire blows his whistle. So what is it? Holding the ball or 'in the back'?. The umpires don't have a clear definition between the two and it is up to the umpires to make the decision. The fact is, with the way the rules are worded, it is technically both, so the umpire is forced to use bias to make a decision.

Solution: If we go back 10 years there was only 'pushing in the back' which meant that you literally had to push someone in the back to give away the free kick. Tackling from behind was always allowed. Good old Gieschen has changed it to a rule that essentially means 'any force from behind is in the back'. I have watched in some games as one umpire calls 'in the back' up on end, the ball goes to the other end, the exact same thing happens, and the other umpire calls 'holding the ball'. This rule needs to be addressed. The tackle from behind is a fair contest made by the defender and the rules should represent as such.

2) High tackle versus faking

Joel Selwood is the king of this so i'll directly use him. The ball falls into space on the ground after a ruck tapout. A St Kilda player is closest to the ball and moves in a controlled fashion to steadily pick up the ball. Joel Selwood runs full speed at the contest. As the ball is on the ground he lowers his body to be as close to the ball as possible. At the last minute he ducks his head, making contact with the outstretched arms of the St Kilda players. Joel Selwood is awarded a free kick.

I've seen this scenario occur in every game. Players are being rewarded for earning themselves free kicks and for creating a dangerous contest for themselves, when they clearly could have avoided the head high contact. It is ridiculous.

Solution: An eye in the sky, with people watching from all angles, can communicate to the umpire if the free kick deserves to be paid or not. If it is clear it was to force a free kick then 'play on' is called, or if it is determined the St Kilda player deliberately made contact with his head then a free kick is rewarded.

This type of scenario is also encouraging players to 'fish' for free kicks. Its making the game soft, and more like soccer. This is a contact sport and it should be treated as such. Players know that they're likely to get hurt during a game, and if they're thinking the umpires should be protecting their every move then they need to harden  up.