It's open season on rule changes
May 4, 2007
The Age
EVEN those at the Richmond-West Coast game last Saturday who had not spent the afternoon leaning over the fence providing useful tips to Messrs Pannell, Ryan and Wenn about where they might insert the Sherrin left the ground confused.
Either the outraged Tiger fans (admittedly, they are rarely anything else) were right and the umpires had a shocker, or, worse still, the officials were - to use a popular defence - only following orders.
So when umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen proclaimed that their performance had been "acceptable" and was "on about a par with where the umpires are travelling at the moment", you could only shudder.
It was not the disparity in the free-kick count - 30-14 in West Coast's favour - that rankled. There is nothing to say one team cannot concede far more free kicks than another. It was the confusion created by rule interpretations, particularly the holding-the-ball rule, that left you hoping the umpires had simply had a bad day.
But, apparently, this was "on a par" with what we can expect. If so, it is time to declare the annual debate about AFL umpiring well and truly open.
This year, however, the umpires can be excused from the room. With the rules containing more grey areas than Richard Gere's hair, the officials - as several AFL coaches predicted - have merely been left to carry the can (or, these days, the plastic cup).
Despite argument about the introduction of a fourth field umpire and calls for officials to become full-time professionals, the current debate is about rules, not officials. More precisely, about whether changes made to counter coaching tactics have unwittingly - or deliberately - changed the nature of the game itself.
The change in the interpretation of the holding-the-ball rule in recent seasons is just one that was made in response to new tactics - in this case, the tendency of some teams (particularly the one in red and white) to strangle the opposition by creating stoppages. Under the stricter interpretation, players who dive on the pill or pull it back into the pack are punished regardless of whether they had a prior opportunity to get rid of it.
On paper, this is a reasonable measure and Gieschen cites the drop in the average number of field bounces from 30 to 19 as evidence of its success.
"I don't think people go to football see that," he said of bounces.
But in making changes you must also consider that most people want to see players who make a legitimate attempt to take possession protected, not summarily punished.
Gieschen has a statistic to reassure those parents of junior players, such as Swans' coach Paul Roos, who say their sons no longer go in for the ball first, preferring to jump in second to get a free. He says that 76 per cent of the time the first man to a contest gets a free kick.
The numbers might add up, but fans are clearly frustrated that players courageously trying to take possession are being penalised - especially when others tackled in open play are not.
When new rule interpretations override some of the game's fundamentals - notably, that the man making the play is protected and free kicks are earned, not merely awarded to clear congestion - then you must question the wisdom of the change.
At a time for a healthy debate, it does not help that AFL administrators blame the cynical tactics of conniving coaches for forcing their hand, and coaches believe the AFL is obsessed with creating a family-friendly product at the expense of traditional football values.
The fans? They just hope the umpires put the whistle away.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/its-open-season-on-rule-changes/2007/05/03/1177788312603.html
