Finally, the stupidity of the rules laid bare for all to see:
Citizen Journalists
Les Zigomanis
Citizen Journalist
Written on Tuesday, 01 October 2013 14:40
AFL - the anarchic football league
(Read more from Les at
www.leszig.com)
Now that another season is done and dusted, I thought it was worthwhile to look at some of the rules that either don't work properly or confuse and would be worth officialdom's time revisiting and honing (or eliminating) in the off-season.
So, here's my 13 bugbears from '13, as well as the responses I imagine the AFL would issue were they to address them.
13. The Bump
A player used to be able to bump. Then there were qualifications about the bump, e.g. the bumper couldn't leave the ground, couldn't make head-high contact, and if he played the man rather than the ball, then he did so at his peril. Perfectly black and white ... if black and white melted into a murky, unnavigable grey. We still get identical bumps and yet different results. What cypher are the AFL applying that we're not aware of?
An AFL spokesman might say: 'The head is sacrosanct at all times, and a player playing the man rather than the ball plays a lottery with his own fortunes.'
12. Too High
Yes, too high is fine, as long as the player in question is standing tall. How often do players now take the ball, duck their heads, and charge into an opponent to elicit contact? The opponent is then pinged. His only alternative is, like a matador, to swirl dramatically out of the way, and let the player run unopposed. Seriously? Stop paying this and players will stop doing it. Problem solved. Instead, we have the Academy Awards.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'It is incumbent on the player without the ball to always apply pressure cleanly and legally.'
11. Interchange Infringement
I just don't get this. Pretty much every interchange infringement is a result of one guy coming onto the field a metre before his teammate comes off. A team has nineteen players on the field for all of half a second. And for this, we penalise the team by effectively giving the opposition a shot on goal. Huh? I can understand if one team plays with nineteen men, keeps two at full-forward, fine, great, have the lot of them publically flogged, but otherwise? "Look out on the field! It's common-sense! It's logic! It's overkill!" Yes, it's overkill, strange visitor from the AFL who came to Australian Rules with interpretations and applications far beyond those of logical rules. Overkill, who can change the course of mighty games, frustrate players and fans; and who, disguised as a guardian for the spirit of the game, fights a never ending battle to confuse, exasperate, and enforce the AFL way.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'It is imperative that the integrity of the game is never held in question.'
10. Goal Review
Oh yes, I know what you're thinking. When the umpire calls for a goal review, and we get nine different angles of blurred footage, how can television get any better? Easy. First comes the anticipation. Then the speculation. And, finally, that gravelly response, nine times out of ten (if not more often): 'Video ... inconclusive. Umpire's call.' Wow. It's like watching the Zapruder footage. Come on, the goal review just doesn't work. The only way it might is if you could perfect some form of hotspot technology so we can see deflections, regardless of how faint. Cameras are incapable of catching them.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'It's not about the dozens which come back inconclusive, but the one we might get right that determines a game.'
9. Hands in the Back
Just because in one game James Clement repeatedly bullied James Hird under the ball, we remain subjected to this haphazard lunacy. If you're going to have a stupid rule, then you must enforce it ALL THE TIME, not once every twenty-five instances just to remind us that the oddity continues to exist, like some demented half-brother we lock in the attic and who might one day grow up to be an AFL commissioner. Oops, too far?
An AFL spokesman might say: 'It's imperative that every player be allowed to contest the ball without encumbrance from an opponent, despite the fact that the game is orchestrated on a contest of physicality.'
8. I Have No Name For This Rule
What's this rule called, when one opponent is too strong for the other and wrestles or shoves him out the way? You know the one – Jeff Gieschen explained it in true vaudevillian fashion, extolling the virtues of half-pushes and semi-arm extensions and stuff I entreated NASA's best scientists to decipher but which they deemed indecipherable. This is just dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. Dumb. If two players want to wrestle, then it should be open slather. If some eighty pound weakling wants to wrestle a behemoth then, basically, he's an idiot, and doesn't deserve rewarding for being flung into the stratosphere. We're obviously in this case dealing with a brain that doesn't need oxygen anyway. In fact, he should be suspended for stupidity.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'As we have stated, every player has a right to contest the ball equally, even though they may be unequal in strength, skill, and talent.'
7. Is It a Slide or Too High?
So a player dives to win the ball and takes out the legs of an opponent. From here, it's just a raffle. Sometimes it's too high, sometimes it's a slide. How can the same action and the same result end up with two different outcomes? No, seriously, somebody needs to explain this to everybody. I am so tired (and only halfway through at this point, too) of stupid rules being foisted on us (usually in response to a once in a centennial injury), and at us being stonewalled when it comes to their advocacy, resulting in people just resigning in questioning any further.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'The head is sacrosanct. As are the legs of players. We will endeavour to protect both equally.'
6. Throwing
It feels as if a lot of clubs (I won't name any, but one might've won a premiership this year) feel they have a license to throw because umpires so rarely enforce this rule. I'm sick of watching players throw it. This is not a hard one to get right.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'Players' disposal is so quick and slick nowadays, and we're also trying to indoctrinate the game into Rugby-based areas.'
5. The Ruck Thingy That Happens
Still. A. Lottery. Two ruckman clash or wrestle , the umpire blows his whistle, and everybody stares quizzically. Unless Darren Jolly is involved (in which case he's always penalised, whether he was in the wrong or not), the indiscretion is so unclear nobody knows which way it'll go until the umpire points. Nobody understands what the umpires are seeing. Even commentators, who usually tiptoe around bad decisions, question this. Fix it. Please.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'These indiscretions are perfectly clear to our umpires and if we have to explain what's going on then you obviously just don't get it.'
4. The Deliberate Behind
So it's not a deliberate behind if a player is under pressure when he rushes it. Given players are pretty much under pressure all the time on the goal-line, when are they pinged? Those few occasions they had opportunity to dispose of it, paused, then rushed it? You know you have a stupid rule when players stop to appeal for a free. Either pay this as you would pay a deliberate out of bounds, or modify the rushed rule so the only time a player is liable is when he's meant to kick it out but takes it back through for a behind.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'We'd like to think that the introduction of this rule has completely eliminated deliberate unpressured behinds.'
3. The 50 Metre Penalty
So, a player has the ball. An opponent canters past him too close so, it's a fifty metre penalty. Seriously, this has become like the interchange infringement. I could understand if the player with the ball has attempted to kick it and the ball's deflected off an opponent who wasn't meant to be there, but the bulk of the time the opponent has absolutely no bearing on the player. He's just trying to get into his position. Can this only be cited when the player with the ball is actually interfered with?
An AFL spokesman might say: 'The ball-carrier must be given every right to instigate play from wherever he is standing, even if opposition are not perceived by the public to be in a contentious position.'
2. Dragging the Ball Back In
I understand the principle. The AFL wants the game moving at all times. If a player's on the ground and he drags the ball in, then opponents pile on him, then he's effectively stopped the game. Punish him! Flagellate him! But it's a rule without sense, common or otherwise. The potential to dispose of the ball should be that the act itself is physically possible. Often, you get three opponents sitting on one player, completely incapacitating him. Sometimes, the ball is even under one of the opponents. The offender is punching frantically, the ball which, by the laws of physics, can't go anywhere, and yet it's a free for holding the ball. This rule might've been introduced with good intentions, but it's no longer in the spirit of the game.
An AFL spokesman might say: 'Players should be encouraged to keep the ball moving at all times.'
1. Holding the Ball
So, you want to know what happened to holding the ball? The AFL brought in quite possibly the stupid qualifier of all time to contextualise the holding the ball rule, and that qualifier is called 'prior opportunity.' Holding the ball should be simple. If you don't dispose of it legally by hand or foot, it's a free kick. It shouldn't matter if you've had it for a millisecond (bad luck) or if you'd tried to take everybody on. Just pay the damn thing. So many games – and the efforts of teams – are undone because they are just not rewarded for tackling, predominantly because they can't be arbitrated under 'prior opportunity.'
An AFL spokesman might say: 'Burp.'
Perhaps I'm asking a lot to have clear, understandable rules that live up to the spirit of the game. My fear, though, is like the ruck thingy, as hands in the back is becoming, people will just stop questioning and these stupid, murky, inexplicable rules will simply be accepted into the lexicon of our game and regarded with little more than a raised eyebrow.
http://www.backpagelead.com.au/index.php/afl/11069-afl-the-anarchic-football-league
