Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

[Meg]

But the current (ie "new") interpretation doesn't ban players from deliberately rushing behinds. It just narrows the range of circumstances in which a player can deliberately rush a behind without being penalised.

Liz, I don't think that's right (and that's where the confusion arises I think). A player is never allowed to deliberately rush a behind IF THE UMPIRE JUDGES THAT IT WAS A DELIBERATE ACT (wording of law below).

The issue is: under what circumstances will an umpire judge the act to be deliberate? And like all the other subjective areas of AFL law this is where it becomes contentious.

The 'new' interpretation is not defining circumstances in which a player is allowed to deliberately rush a behind - that is illegal - it is a tightening of the conditions which the umpire will take into account in considering whether to judge the act was deliberate.

So it doesn't mean (for example) that because being within the goal square will be taken into account, that just because Mills was in the goal square he is allowed to rush a behind (which is what I think Mills thought).


"My reading (or listening) of the media discussion is that, had Picken been touching Mills, Mills would have been under actual physical pressure and thus would not have been penalised for rushing a behind."

It is very likely that the umpire would then have judged Mills was under immediate physical pressure and using the guidelines would have deemed Mills NOT to have deliberately rushed the behind. I suppose the underlying thinking is to give the player the benefit of the doubt that his sole objective was not to rush a behind, rather that he had no other alternative in defending the goal.


"But it would still have been a deliberate act."

Yes, probably so, but (in effect) the wording would allow the umpire to give Mills the benefit of the doubt.


"So Richardson's suggestion that it is black and white whether a rushed behind is deliberate isn't reflected in the current interpretation."

Richardson is saying that in reality the act of rushing a behind is either deliberate or not deliberate (the 'black and white' quote) and it would be better to leave the umpire to judge that (as he/she does on the deliberate OOB) without the guidelines of what to take into account. (The guidelines are being confused for allowable conditions.)

Then the player would know quite clearly that he must try to gather the ball, not deliberately rush through a behind. If in the act of defending, the ball does in fact go through for a behind then that is allowable under the laws if the umpire deems it not to have been a deliberate act with the only objective to rush a behind.


"And if we take it to extremes, how does one classify a ball touched on the goal line by a lunging defender? What is the defender's aim? To prevent a goal, but by the same token, it is to turn a goal into a rushed behind. So the defender's deliberate action gives rise to a rushed behind. How is that not deliberate?"

Well, if the umpire wanted to get lynched he might judge the lunging defender to be deliberately rushing a behind and give a free kick. But we know that an umpire wouldn't judge that to be a deliberate rushed behind under Law 15.8.1. It would be regarded as a legitimate act of defending.

Even before the new tightened conditions for the umpire to take into account, there was the contentious free kick awarded against Firrito last year. Firrito gathered the ball within the goal square, was tackled, was being rotated in the tackle, and handballed the ball through the goals. The umpire deemed it to be a deliberate rushed behind and penalised him - because there were other North players free in the square to whom (the umpire judged) Firrito could have handballed. That is, the umpire judged that Firrito had an alternative, legal action available to him.


Law 15.8.1

"A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team�s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team�s Goal Posts."

"In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to:
(i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball;
(ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and
(iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player."

[bloodspirit]

I don't think what you are each saying is necessarily disagreeing, liz and Meg.

The law is clear but the interpretation subjective and complex. Actually the law is confusing and the interpretation is a dog's breakfast.

If Picken had been touching Mills the spoil through the goals would still have been deliberate. What's more, you, I, blind Freddy and the umpire would have known it was deliberate but it would still not have been called. And that's why Alan Richardson was disingenuous to say it's simple and liz is right.

I think it is highly undesirable that there are these "laws" which aren't really laws but something players just have to make a show of adhering to. The "making an attempt to dispose of the ball" when you are tackled is another. The "scrums" in rugby league are another.

I don't know the solution but it obviously isn't easy. Any simple solution will most likely be too far from the game as we know it.

[bloodspirit]

So, effectively the rules aren't exactly what they appear to be or what is written down.

[rb4x]

There are some great commentators such as Brian Taylor, Dermott Brereton and Dwayne Russell who make an effort to talk to umpires about interpretations before games and at airports.
Jordan Bannister lost me with this line about "great" commentators.

[chalbilto]

There are some great commentators such as Brian Taylor, Dermott Brereton and Dwayne Russell who make an effort to talk to umpires about interpretations before games and at airports.
Jordan Bannister lost me with this line about "great" commentators.

As I have never been in the echelons of the dressing rooms of an AFL team, can someone advise is the umpires address the teams prior to the start of each match? If so what is the gist of their conversations?

[Dosser]

As I have never been in the echelons of the dressing rooms of an AFL team, can someone advise is the umpires address the teams prior to the start of each match? If so what is the gist of their conversations?

I think with Hawthorn they used to sit in on Clarko's pre-game tactics talk in which each player and umpire was given their roles for the match.

[Chookbilly]

Although I dislike the continual tinkering with the games rules, the number of rules now that involve interpretation must make it a nightmare to officiate.
If the AFL really want to prevent defenders rushing behinds, the rule must be black and white......

Any opposition rushed behind should be worth 6 points. Job done!

[bloodspirit]

Thanks for the links to the insightful articles, Meg and neilfws.

As regards Bannister describing those commentators as "great", in context I interpreted that he meant they are great in that they make the effort to speak directly to umpires not that they are necessarily great commentators overall. However I don't agree with Bannister's glib dismissal of complaints that umpiring decisions favour home teams by saying it is a "fact" that teams play better at home and that is why they win more free kicks. In fact Cowgill's article largely debunks this.

From the excellent Cowgill article it is interesting to note that we have fared worst of all clubs since 2000 in getting free kicks away from home. We also are among the clubs to have fared worst overall in the receiving free kicks department. This is surprising given our emphasis on discipline and contested footy and the fact that we are not known for being "unsociable". Port Adelaide is the team that has the biggest difference for free kicks home and away and Collingwood the least. West Coast do best overall, even averaging marginal advantage when they play away. Conversely, Hawthorn has the worst differential for free kicks, perhaps a reflection of (a) their less contested game; and (b) their unsociability? (Still, ironic given #FreeKickHawthorn and all that.) Here's some good quotes from the same article:

"Not only does the average free kick differential not have any relationship with the side's quality, but it doesn't seem to relate to the style of play, either"

Contested possessions aren't the only statistic that's correlated with winning more free kicks. Tackles, kicks, uncontested possessions, one percenters and contested marks also have a statistically significant relationship with free kicks. If we add these things to our free kicks model, as well as a variable indicating whether the away team is playing out of their home state, we can explain about 10 percent of the variation in net free kicks, quite a bit more than when we use contested possessions alone.

A range of research over the years in sports from basketball to soccer suggests home crowds have a small but significant influence over umpires' behaviour, and this difference in umpiring is the main factor behind home-ground advantage.

So perhaps the most important message to fans is to turn up to see your team play - your cheers and jeers might matter more than you think. Even if the players aren't affected by your outbursts, the umpires just might be.

Also, one comment that I particularly took note of in the Bannister article: "Umpires are given a book full of complicated interpretations that change annually thanks to the AFL Laws Committee." Do the clubs get this book also? This underscores exactly what I was saying earlier, namely that the rules are not just the 'laws of the game' as they are written - only I suggested these other rules were not written down and it seems I was wrong about that. It's weird that there should be these semi-official "interpretations" that are not referred to in the Laws of the Game and which are not really always consistent with the Laws e.g. "intentional" doesn't cover intentional when you are close to goal and under pressure. Or maybe not. The law generally is like that. With our law in general, judge-made 'common law' interprets legislation and sometimes the interpretations are different to what you might expect when you just read the legislation. However, one difference between the AFL Laws of the Game and the law generally is that, in AFL, the 'laws' are changed frequently enough and the interpretations even more so.

Overall, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I believe in the integrity of the umpires and I think the discrepancies that are arising are mostly a combination of (a) the confusing, changing and subjective nature of the laws; and (b) that winning free kicks is a skill that we don't excel at and perhaps don't train for [Joel Selwood is the out-and-out star in this department; while our own JPK is the biggest loser]. And, having read these articles, perhaps also (c) home ground advantage is real and we need to fire up wherever we attend matches. It still doesn't explain the Bulldogs favourable treatment except perhaps that because more neutrals are favourably disposed the crowd noise tends to favour the Bulldogs to an even greater degree?

[dimelb]

... Overall, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I believe in the integrity of the umpires and I think the discrepancies that are arising are mostly a combination of (a) the confusing, changing and subjective nature of the laws; and (b) that winning free kicks is a skill that we don't excel at and perhaps don't train for [Joel Selwood is the out-and-out star in this department; while our own JPK is the biggest loser]. And, having read these articles, perhaps also (c) home ground advantage is real and we need to fire up wherever we attend matches. It still doesn't explain the Bulldogs favourable treatment except perhaps that because more neutrals are favourably disposed the crowd noise tends to favour the Bulldogs to an even greater degree?

For mine, the bit in bold finds the nub of the issue. There has been a series of outbursts from lovers of the game to LEAVE THE BLOODY LAWS ALONE AND LET THE GAME EVOLVE. But the AFL is not listening to its own constituency, and there is no opposition we can vote for instead.

Winning free kicks is something we used to be good at through our highly rated "contested ball" approach; last Friday night the Bulldogs beat us at our own game. This is something we can fix. It would also be a step in the right direction if the umps stuck with the long tradition of "no prior opportunity": it seems to have got lost at times.

[Sandrevan]

I don't think I have ever read a thread on this forum where there has been so much written by inconsistent umpiring decisions. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; it shows passion for our team and the AFL in general. There's plenty of talk about the rules changes requiring more and more interpretation by the umpires eg. 'if, in the umpires view.....'. This achieves 2 things (well, probably more than 2).
1) It lets Haydon Kennedy and the AFL in general hose down criticism of the umpiring. 'The decision could have gone either way' is something you quite a lot from Hayden Kennedys mouth. He's good at sitting on the fence.
2) With all this talk about the rules after last weekend - both on forums and in the media. Perhaps this is what the AFL really wants; they want the controversy and the debate that follows because it focuses attention on the AFL. More attention on the AFL = more people watch it = greater attendances and bigger TV audiences = more money to the AFL.

If the rules surrounding rushed behinds were simplified and were made 'black and white' as suggested by Alan Richardson then half the debate after round 2 would not have happened.

My 2 bobs worth about the rules. If a player handballs or kicks deliberate OOB the other team gets a free kick. Why should being near the goals be any different? Also, why give 1 point for a rushed behind. There should be 0 points for a rushed behind. In what other games does a player from 1 team deliberately give points to the opposition? The player should be making a reasonable attempt to keep the ball in play.

Leigh Matthews commented on Sunday afternoon 'it's getting to the point where it's becoming impossible to umpire a game of AFL'

[bloodspirit]

I don't think Alan Richardson is suggesting the rules be simplified. Rather he is saying they are simple already: i.e. if you deliberately put the ball OOB or through the goals, then it's a free kick. I think he is being disingenuous because the interpretation of the relatively simpler rule is anything but simple (or consistent).

[RogueSwan]

... Leigh Matthews commented on Sunday afternoon 'it's getting to the point where it's becoming impossible to umpire a game of AFL'

This ^
As others have said there is no other sport, apart from surfing, the interpretation of athletes actions. Then again, it is the dynamics and lose structures that make Aussie Rules such a great game.
Whatever the solution is I don't think the powers that be have the guts to make the changes required. They will just tinker with another rule next season to just stuff the clubs around again.
It would be great to view a parallel world where the AFL left the rules alone for the last 20 years and see what the game naturally evolved into.