Umpiring styles affecting playing styles.

[cos789]

The AFL umpires have continually made a rod for their own backs by allowing "interference" to creep in to such an extent that they have had to clumsily re-work the laws. Gone is the old umpire's test "was the player going for the ball yes/no?
So we now at the point where we must ask is it worth having a quality forward if he is allowed to be held all the time.
OK, so the defenders are incredibly skilled at not holding a player (much) but certainly by lying across a player they are not going for the ball in a marking situation. Similarly most rucking situations have reverted to wrestling shepherds. Gone are the occassional thumps forward to open up an attacking window.What's the point of having an athletic ruckman again(because there was a brief window of policing) Both the AFL and fans have noticed a decrease in scoring and an increase in congestion. Each of these can easily be linked to players not being allowed to direct passage to the ball.
The recent penalties to the Swan's forwards force the Swans to diversify but does this have long term implications to the type of player drafted?
Even in the open field players first to ball are being fallen over and dragged down but that is much too difficult to delineate. Skilful players handball away just before being tackling yet I haven't seen a penalty paid from before when Peter Mataria executed it perfectly (and never benefited).

There has been one law that is extremely simple and has been simply ignored. It happened late last week and it happened Thursday. It happened in the open in clear view of the umpires. Jarrad McVeigh had 1m on the opposition and kicked the ball but the lunging push for directly behind forced a grubber that went out instead of deep into attack. Why is it that everybody has forgotten this most basic law? You cannot get away with pushing a player in the back just because ....well...any reason. If you come from behind you've tackled from behind.
One feature that is becoming more common as we revert back to these wrestling matches is the simple mark. Whilst to players wrestle for the mark a third players simply moves across for an uncontested mark. The Swans did that add hoc but Port seemed to have a few set plays up forward.
Again, we seem to be dumbing down the skills required and maybe that is the unfortunate blueprint for the future.

[Scottee]

Hi cos789,

couldn't agree more. I have been thinking about posting something similar to your post for some time now, because in a number of respects, the game is not the same the one I grew up with and is losing its best attributes.

Retarding a player without the ball was in the past always free kicked, pushing a player in the back regardless of the part of the body being used was free kicked (note, you could hold your ground by pressing against the opposition players back, whether with the hands or not) unless you were making a genuine attempt to mark.

The around the neck rule, which is the worst rule in the book if you ask me, has been retained as it always was. It is interpreted as over the shoulder, the shoulder being not the most vulnerable part of the body. Complete rubbish. Dangerous high tackle is the only part of the rugby rule book I would borrow.

Of course the holding the ball rule is still ridiculous whereby the object of tackling is often to hold the ball in to the ball carrier and get a free or a ball up. No wonder the game is not as fast flowing as it was once and the scoring is lower.

The rucking rules are now absurd and unintelligible.

The defining parts of the game used to be to reward the player in front, the genuine mark attempt and the genuine ruck tap attempt. Things have become very muddy and the real speed of the game and the high scoring seem to have been compromised. Unfortunately the game has become all about playing for free kicks for many.

As someone who writes rules for a living it is clear that there is an ad-hoc approach to the rules rather than an overall strategic objective of making the game the most attractive product possible for the spectator and especially the potential new converts to the game. Speed of ball movement, high scoring, long and accurate kicking, ball handling, high marking (they are often not paying the best marks because they are not applying the rules) and the original simple rules are the major defining elements of the game and should be emphasised rather than suppressed.

[wolftone57]

This is a basic game that should be umpired by basic umpires not bloody thinkers. Never make rules that require umpires to interpret. Never allow them to interpret existing laws. What is a free is a free. Push in the back is a simple rule and it is easy to umpire. I found it the easiest in the few games I umpired in junior footy.

Holding the ball is more problematic, especially since they introduced prior opportunity. That requires an umpires interpretation and that is never good. Umpires are hopeless at interpreting rules. They have to be told this is what the rule is and don't pay it any other way. No rules that need huge interpretations like the holding the ball rule.

The other rule I loathe today is the incorrect disposal rule. Again the umpires are left to interpret the rule rather than play the free according to the situation and what really happened. Every time the ball comes out in a tackle it is paid incorrect disposal, even if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. The interpretation is wrong.

Again umpires being required to do something that is not within their abilities, interpret. the holding the ball in a pack. How can players get the ball free when it is being held to them by players on top of them. Stupid. This is how dumb our umpires and therefore umpires coaches are. They are lucky to have a combined intelligence of 50 for @@@@s sake.

Wayne Campbell is a crap Umpires Director too. The umpire's coach is too bent on umpires having too much impact. Being too involved in the play. Umpires have become too important and it is ruining the game. That third quarter against Richmond was the worst umpiring I have ever seen, in a lifetime of watching footy from the age of 4 or 5, I am 58. They were the main attraction, not the footy, which was really stop/start due to their @@@@ umpiring and wanting to be stars.

[dimelb]

I agree with most of these gripes. Mine is the "in the back" free kick for a perfectly executed tackle from behind.

And the commentators drove me mad for not informing us what was going on; I say "drove" because I now understand that they don't know either.

[Hotpotato]

Mine is holding the ball or incorrect disposal . The umps just ignore it most of the time. You can let go of it, fumble it out of your grasp, do anything but handball or kick it.
Just how long is prior opportunity ?

[RogueSwan]

I remember two tackles in the Tigers game.
One, Hanners was tackled without prior opportunity and was able to free his hands but unfortunately was only able to toss the ball with one hand and, separately, hit the ball with his fist. Decision: incorrect disposal.
Two, Ted (I think) tackles a Tiger without prior opportunity the Tiger was unable to handball the ball away.Decision: no prior, ball up.
Now both these tackles had the same set up (ie:grab the ball and tackle commenced immediately. This was really unfair on Hanners, due to him being better at getting his hands free in a tackle. In the other not fair on Teddy because he had a better tackle technique.