Just a quick rant related to "including how pundits and commentators contribute to misunderstanding." My new pet peeve is commentators complaining about an out-of-zone umpire calls - "how could he see that from 50 meters away!" - when they spend the entire game confidently calling that the umpire has gotten it wrong from their box. They never seem to learn from the fact that on a slow motion replay the umpire has often in fact made the right call, they just keep telling the viewer that the game has been adjudicated wrong.
People always need something to complain about - and footy gives us plenty of opportunities for that. Umpiring! Anyone tried it? Anyone thought about how an umpire is geographically in an entirely position to the camera we witness these events through TV? How the umpire sees things from their perspective - they are not dumb, clowns or (heaven forbid) cheating: it's what they witness in a split second. And it will always be difficult with rules as complex and interpretative as we have in AFL. Is it dropping the ball, holding it or holding the man without it or, maybe, incorrect disposal! Try umpiring before being too critical - I did for 10 years and it's possibly the hardest thing I've ever done. So my big complaints with AFL these days are (1) screaming commentators who seem to think the present/next passage of play is the greatest/worst thing anyone has ever seen (bring back "Smokey" Dawson, Doug Hayward and the ABC); (2) fireworks before a game which still pollute the stadium half way through the first quarter and it's difficult to see what's happening at the other end; (3) blaring/deafening music after each home goal is scored - I'm at the football and can go to Festival Hall if I want to listen to a concert; (4) betting ads (and the Gill McLachlan issue raised by Mateo is SO pertinent); (5) trying to ensure that every team is eligible to play in the finals. So, having said that people need something to complain about, I have.....
Great post. As you allude to, the nature of the monopoly the league has over the entire sport is never clearer than when watching media cover the AFL. When your entire life and income is predicated around having access to something, it obviously makes no logical sense to bite the hand that feeds. Why on earth would you risk becoming shut out of the league/club you cover by writing something truly disparaging? Hence, there are no real AFL journalists. There are just people who write and talk about AFL.
As an aside, have you had time yet to check out the new Footy Redraft game going around the traps? Unfortunately it's hitting the online community of AFL fantasists harder than crack cocaine in the 1980s.
It’ll fill the massive hole in addiction until I finally manage to develop my AFL based roguelite deckbuilder based on former St Kilda forwards: Slay the Spida
I think most of the rule problems come from over-rewarding the tackle and the multitude of interpretations required stemming from that.
The other major factor is player intent. How would the umpire know what the player intended? They miss set shots from 10 metres out yet deliberately kick it out of bounds from 70 metres with a right angle bounce. I know that this is no longer the issue it used to be since the rule change but it is indicative of the thinking.
I agree concussion is the really big issue creeping up and I reckon it will kill bumps and tackles as they try to change the rules to make dangerous collisions less likely.
One rule change not getting any coverage is the change to the draft which sees the bottom 5 clubs get an extra pick at end of first round/start of second round (it’s the same thing!) if they are bumped a spot due to f/s or academy selections. It’s interesting that North Melbourne would have received more ‘assistance’ from the AFL under this rule than it did from its combined draft ‘concessions’ over the last 6 seasons where it’s been on the bottom 5. Good luck to all the clubs who get to avail of the rule, I guess its unfortunate for North that their one lean patch in the last 26 years came between the windows of giving away priority picks for fun and giving away top 20 picks for free. No doubt in 5 years we will be hearing all about how Essendon and Richmond, with the help of a number of these extra top 20 picks, climbed the ladder without ‘assistance’ unlike those beggars at North.
Great read Mateo, very well written. I tend to agree about the system, it’s a monopoly and with that there comes some questionable governance fuelled by the absence of competition. Or a lever to drive better standards nevertheless; complacency can be hard to shake.
I do have a slightly contrarian view on some of what you’ve described, or maybe it’s a tangent, or pivot, either way you’ve compelled me into a piece for Tuesday.
There’s a couple Chris Scott quotes that come to mind.
You mention the point about AFL House holding a monopoly over the game, and I think that's relevant to the constant tinkering with rules. Cricket Australia can't change the LBW law halfway through an Ashes series. The same can be said of the FFA, Rugby Australia and to a certain extent even the NRL (though they aren't immune to tinkering). While it's great to own the game and not be subject to outside international forces I'm not sure that it promotes great long-term decision making. Arguably it needs a moderating influence (an AFL Senate?) to look out for the game itself, divorced from the commercial interests of actually running a competition day-to-day.
Hi Hugh, thanks for the comment. I almost included a section about this exact subject, but ended up cutting it for space/time reasons. The AFL's dual role as administrator and custodian is somewhat unique. The ICC and IFAB are, for example, nominally independent to the governing bodies of those sports. In practice, it's a bit fuzzy, and the major US sports have endogenous rule-making capability, but even that's a little different (in the NFL, for example, I believe you need a supermajority on a quasi-separate Rules Committee to significantly change the rules of the sport. Would be really interested to see a constraining influence on the AFL – what does the Commission do, for example?? – even if the average punter might just see it as another layer of bureaucracy.
It's interesting how little the US sports have changed, even though like the AFL they control the whole game. Realistically the only major changes to NFL have been with regards to player safety/concussion (tightening rules around roughness, helmet contact etc). Likewise NBA. And yet the AFL has made a number of tangible changes this year alone - the bounce, lasso, bench size to name just a few. I think this is where a lot of angst comes from, the constant desire to improve something that has actually worked pretty well for 100-odd years. And it does seem a pretty uniquely AFL thing.
Just a quick rant related to "including how pundits and commentators contribute to misunderstanding." My new pet peeve is commentators complaining about an out-of-zone umpire calls - "how could he see that from 50 meters away!" - when they spend the entire game confidently calling that the umpire has gotten it wrong from their box. They never seem to learn from the fact that on a slow motion replay the umpire has often in fact made the right call, they just keep telling the viewer that the game has been adjudicated wrong.
Haha, we covered this (and several other umpiring-related subjects) on this week's pod!
I'll push through the trauma response of being reminded about Canberra weather to hear more
People always need something to complain about - and footy gives us plenty of opportunities for that. Umpiring! Anyone tried it? Anyone thought about how an umpire is geographically in an entirely position to the camera we witness these events through TV? How the umpire sees things from their perspective - they are not dumb, clowns or (heaven forbid) cheating: it's what they witness in a split second. And it will always be difficult with rules as complex and interpretative as we have in AFL. Is it dropping the ball, holding it or holding the man without it or, maybe, incorrect disposal! Try umpiring before being too critical - I did for 10 years and it's possibly the hardest thing I've ever done. So my big complaints with AFL these days are (1) screaming commentators who seem to think the present/next passage of play is the greatest/worst thing anyone has ever seen (bring back "Smokey" Dawson, Doug Hayward and the ABC); (2) fireworks before a game which still pollute the stadium half way through the first quarter and it's difficult to see what's happening at the other end; (3) blaring/deafening music after each home goal is scored - I'm at the football and can go to Festival Hall if I want to listen to a concert; (4) betting ads (and the Gill McLachlan issue raised by Mateo is SO pertinent); (5) trying to ensure that every team is eligible to play in the finals. So, having said that people need something to complain about, I have.....
And if we didn't have anything to complain about, we'd probably complain about that... :-)
Great post. As you allude to, the nature of the monopoly the league has over the entire sport is never clearer than when watching media cover the AFL. When your entire life and income is predicated around having access to something, it obviously makes no logical sense to bite the hand that feeds. Why on earth would you risk becoming shut out of the league/club you cover by writing something truly disparaging? Hence, there are no real AFL journalists. There are just people who write and talk about AFL.
As an aside, have you had time yet to check out the new Footy Redraft game going around the traps? Unfortunately it's hitting the online community of AFL fantasists harder than crack cocaine in the 1980s.
https://footyredraft.com/
G'day Slowbro. Love that line about there being no real AFL journalists. I might pilfer it for a future piece.
Haha, yep, I'm familiar. Sarge has done a great job. I've not played it yet because I'm scared it'll consume my life.
It’ll fill the massive hole in addiction until I finally manage to develop my AFL based roguelite deckbuilder based on former St Kilda forwards: Slay the Spida
Thanks for the great article Mateo.
I think most of the rule problems come from over-rewarding the tackle and the multitude of interpretations required stemming from that.
The other major factor is player intent. How would the umpire know what the player intended? They miss set shots from 10 metres out yet deliberately kick it out of bounds from 70 metres with a right angle bounce. I know that this is no longer the issue it used to be since the rule change but it is indicative of the thinking.
I agree concussion is the really big issue creeping up and I reckon it will kill bumps and tackles as they try to change the rules to make dangerous collisions less likely.
One rule change not getting any coverage is the change to the draft which sees the bottom 5 clubs get an extra pick at end of first round/start of second round (it’s the same thing!) if they are bumped a spot due to f/s or academy selections. It’s interesting that North Melbourne would have received more ‘assistance’ from the AFL under this rule than it did from its combined draft ‘concessions’ over the last 6 seasons where it’s been on the bottom 5. Good luck to all the clubs who get to avail of the rule, I guess its unfortunate for North that their one lean patch in the last 26 years came between the windows of giving away priority picks for fun and giving away top 20 picks for free. No doubt in 5 years we will be hearing all about how Essendon and Richmond, with the help of a number of these extra top 20 picks, climbed the ladder without ‘assistance’ unlike those beggars at North.
Great read Mateo, very well written. I tend to agree about the system, it’s a monopoly and with that there comes some questionable governance fuelled by the absence of competition. Or a lever to drive better standards nevertheless; complacency can be hard to shake.
I do have a slightly contrarian view on some of what you’ve described, or maybe it’s a tangent, or pivot, either way you’ve compelled me into a piece for Tuesday.
There’s a couple Chris Scott quotes that come to mind.
Thoroughly enjoyable piece 👍
You mention the point about AFL House holding a monopoly over the game, and I think that's relevant to the constant tinkering with rules. Cricket Australia can't change the LBW law halfway through an Ashes series. The same can be said of the FFA, Rugby Australia and to a certain extent even the NRL (though they aren't immune to tinkering). While it's great to own the game and not be subject to outside international forces I'm not sure that it promotes great long-term decision making. Arguably it needs a moderating influence (an AFL Senate?) to look out for the game itself, divorced from the commercial interests of actually running a competition day-to-day.
Hi Hugh, thanks for the comment. I almost included a section about this exact subject, but ended up cutting it for space/time reasons. The AFL's dual role as administrator and custodian is somewhat unique. The ICC and IFAB are, for example, nominally independent to the governing bodies of those sports. In practice, it's a bit fuzzy, and the major US sports have endogenous rule-making capability, but even that's a little different (in the NFL, for example, I believe you need a supermajority on a quasi-separate Rules Committee to significantly change the rules of the sport. Would be really interested to see a constraining influence on the AFL – what does the Commission do, for example?? – even if the average punter might just see it as another layer of bureaucracy.
It's interesting how little the US sports have changed, even though like the AFL they control the whole game. Realistically the only major changes to NFL have been with regards to player safety/concussion (tightening rules around roughness, helmet contact etc). Likewise NBA. And yet the AFL has made a number of tangible changes this year alone - the bounce, lasso, bench size to name just a few. I think this is where a lot of angst comes from, the constant desire to improve something that has actually worked pretty well for 100-odd years. And it does seem a pretty uniquely AFL thing.