THE ISSUE FLYING UNDER THE AFL'S RADAR
Head to Bulleen Park at 6pm on any Wednesday night and you’ll see the YJFL umpires training.
The first thing the coaching staff tell young umpires is that the umpires are a team.
Salt of the earth, footy-mad, white-haired blokes with names like John, Dave or Bruce, love nothing more than to chortle to wide-eyed teenagers “there’s three teams out there”.
I know this from experience.
But apparently it’s not true.
When a supporter leaves a ground having questioned or disagreed with the umpires anywhere up to 20 times during the course of a match (by the roughest of estimations), I would assume they wouldn’t bother complaining too much about the umpires themselves, more so, the decisions they made.
Reading between the lines, you can deduce from this an acceptance that footy is a dynamic game, full of strange collisions which rarely fit into a simple category that can be legislated for, and therefore the umpires are bound to make some mistakes.
However, Bryce Gibbs’ well-documented tackle on Devon Smith on Friday night raised a different talking point than the simple legality of a tackle.
Ray Chamberlain bounced the ball as he has done thousands of times, and backed out to the side of the contest, getting out of the players’ way, while maintaining a side-on view of the contest – a critical position so the Johns, Daves, and Bruces will tell you.
He had a clear, unobstructed view, and was less than 10 metres away and was all conviction, assertion and authority as he blew his whistle, and explained why he interpreted Gibbs’ tackle – which appeared safe from every angle – to be legitimate.
As an onlooker, I thought there was absolutely nothing in it.
However, umpire Troy Pannell, 50 metres away, overruled.
This is an absolute blight, a laughable glitch in the rules that flies under the radar.
The problem is not the wrong decision – as I’ve said, we have to expect them – but that the non-officiating umpire had the power to actually do this.
Any of the three umpires have the power to pay any free kick they see, but there is always during any passage of play one controlling umpire, and two non-controlling umpires.
Chamberlain had a perfect, unimpeded, side-on view from very close by, saw the incident, and paid a decision based off what he saw.
The average AFL match has 39 free kicks, but what must be understood is that there might be hundreds of decisions an umpire has to make in a night - whether they result in the continuation of play or a free kick.
Similar to a cricket umpire giving a decision of either “out” or “not out”, Chamberlain could either deem the tackle legal or illegal - both would be an active decision, a choice requiring interpretation.
A non-officiating umpire can overrule one of those two decisions, and not the other.
Hypothetically, if Pannell had been the controlling umpire and the same incident took place - and for the purposes of this hypothetical both umpires held the same opinion as in reality - the flaw is evident.
Once again, Pannell pays the free kick, but Chamberlain can’t overrule the free kick decision with his ball-up decision.
Never would he call out “no, not dangerous, ball it up” in his non-controlling role.
A ball-up can be overruled to a free kick, but not the other way around.
This is an example where player safety is in question, and so the potential defence is that in such times it is better to err on the side of protecting players.
However, this glitch is universal, and extends to all free kick decisions.
For an example where player safety is an excuse that cannot be hidden behind, cast your mind back to Lance Franklin’s goal of the year contender against the Crows at Adelaide Oval last year, where all have since admitted he ran too far.
If the non-controlling umpire (A) thinks Franklin had run too far, but the controlling umpire (B) didn’t, then former pays the free kick, while the latter is powerless.
But if umpire B had been the controlling umpire and paid the free kick, umpire A wouldn’t have been able to overrule and tell him to keep running.
Once again, it is not the case that the non-officiating umpire has the power to come over the top to intervene, it is just that the “free kick” gets heard and the “play on” doesn’t.
Or what about Luke Shuey’s controversial free kick in last year’s elimination final?
Maybe the non-officiating umpire saw him slip Jared Polec’s arm over his shoulder, while the controlling umpire missed it.
You cannot overrule a free kick with a non-free kick, even though sometimes the non-free kick is the decision which requires more evidence.
If he were the controlling umpire he would have balled it up, telling Shuey he played for the free kick – which the umpiring department has recently acknowledged would have been the correct decision.
But he can’t overrule a “high tackle” with a “ball up”.
In cricket, “not out” decisions are every bit as important as “out” ones, and so in footy, the power to pay free kicks should only ever be equal to the power to not pay free kicks, and that isn’t the case right now.
As it stood in the Gibbs/Smith incident, Chamberlain couldn’t very well overrule Pannell.
It would look farcical for two umpires to bicker over an incident.
They’re a team, remember?
But the system is extremely flawed if the controlling umpire saw the incident, and had a convincing explanation as to why he didn’t pay the free kick, but doesn’t have enough power to give him the final say.
The over-rulings should be saved for when the controlling umpire is completely blindsided and simply cannot see the incident.
Non-controlling umpires should only pay decisions to help the controlling umpire when he cannot do it himself.
Teamwork!
Did that free kick cost Adelaide victory?
Probably not, as they went on to open up a lead after that tackle anyway (despite losing the game in the end), but it shone a spotlight on an inconsistency in the rules which have brooded in the dark.
I can only hope the AFL iron this out before it rears its ugly head in a close final.
But it already has, as seen with Shuey.
Two of the three umpires knew it should have been a ball-up but watched, powerless to intervene, as one of the most divisive free kicks was paid to end Port Adelaide's finals dreams.
Комментарии