Let's be clear and honest, cycling does not enjoy the finest reputation of a fair and clean playing field. In fact, apart from athletics and body building, its tough to see any sport that can compete with the amount of lying and cheating that occurs in cycling. Being a cyclist myself, many cynics question the physical feats that professional cyclists achieve. And despite trying to justify the results, I find myself agreeing with them more often than ever.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Come on, umpire
Recently, the AFL has been pushing for spectators of junior and club football to lay off the umpires, employing Nick Riewoldt to get the message across. In the television ad, a "dad" of one of the young kids playing in a game voices his annoyance at an umpiring decision. All the players and the umpire stop playing and Riewoldt steps in, asking fans to give the umpires "a fair go". Strategically placed in the background are other AFL identities who nod their approval at the message.
It is not uncommon to hear of fans beginning fights and running onto ovals to complain about an umpire's decision. Having played footy for Kew Junior Football Club, Carey Baptist Grammar School and Old Carey Grammarians, I know all about being on the receiving end of a dodgy umpiring call. It is frustrating and often, in the heat of the moment, you can say things you don't mean or regret later on. These decisions are usually followed closely by a harmonic wail from the sidelines as the spectators chip in their two-cents worth. However, how much of a detrimental effect is it having on the grassroots game and what are the flow-on implications for the AFL?
Umpiring Aussie-rules is an immense challenge, from Under-9's to the AFL Grand Final. So many of the rules are open to interpretation by the individual umpires and they don't always agree. What one umpire sees as prior opportunity, another might see as none and thus two different opinions are the result. I'll give an example:
On the weekend, during the Collingwood-Western Bulldogs game, Adam Cooney took a mark on the wing. A Collingwood player was closely tagging him and, just after Cooney marked the ball, made (very slight) body contact so that Cooney would not try to play on. Umpire Ray Chamberlain immediately blew his whistle and awarded a 50-metre penalty to Cooney, bringing him into scoring range.
"Razor" Ray had been quick on the whistle all night, giving players of both sides absolutely no latitude whatsoever. Put aside the fact that I'm a Collingwood supporter, it is impossible to say that every umpire would pay that as a 50-metre penalty. In fact, they didn't. Again, on the weekend, in the match between Adelaide and Fremantle, an Adelaide player marked inside their forward line, but on a tight angle from the goal. Their Fremantle opponent put their arms around them briefly after having completed the mark in order to stop them from playing on, improving the angle and improving their chance of scoring a goal. Yet no 50-metre penalty was awarded for such contact.
It seems the problem fans seem to be having with umpires is inconsistency and this problem is compounded by the myriad rule changes that Adrian Anderson and the AFL seem to be imposing. The rules of the game are constantly under scrutiny and very often are changed on a knee-jerk reaction by the AFL to some outcry from the media. The new rushed behind rule which has become somewhat controversial being the obvious example. There were outcries by media personalities over Hawthorn's use of rushing behinds to reset their backline structure on their way to winning the 2008 premiership. These rules have a flow-on effect to the lower levels of football as less skilled umpires officiated games with less skilled players, it is made more difficult in an environment that does not protect the umpires anywhere near as much.
At AFL level, no players, coaches or club officials are allowed to speak out over umpiring decisions or performances without the risk of copping a fairly hefty fine or suspension. Yet grassroots football spectators can say or do whatever they like to voice their dissatisfaction with the umpiring. It defies belief that any young kids would consider taking up umpiring at all when they often have to begin in a more hostile environment than the elite of their profession operate in. On the flip side, why can AFL coaches or players cop so much scrutiny whilst complaining about shoddy umpiring calls is now taboo? For improvement to happen, the constructive criticism has to be a two-way street. Umpires must acknowledge their shortcomings when they are brought up and accept the comments as constructive criticism, not as a slight against their person.
Remember James Hird on The Footy Show a few years back? He had a go at Scott Mclaren (admittedly after some prodding and poking by Sam Newman) after a poor umpiring performance. And the result? Mclaren issued a statement soon after, saying he was "surprised and disappointed by the comments he made. This has deeply affected my family and friends..." Hird was subsequently slapped with a $20,000 fine and ordered to spend 3 years promoting umpiring. Admittedly, the circumstances in which Hird criticised Mclaren's performance were inappropriate but I find it hard to justify such a penalty. James Hird spoke his mind, criticising Mclaren's performance, but not criticising the man. It seems as though AFL umpires are too touchy on this subject and take too much to heart.
In a time that is seeing the game under constant evolution, as teams try to copy the most successful tactics of other teams, it is important the AFL boosts the attractiveness of umpiring. This needs to come about in a number of different ways, chief among which is the way they are viewed in the top flight. Let the players and coaches speak out about umpiring, albeit in a responsible and appropriate way, so that the umpires can learn from their mistakes. People get called out for their mistakes in their professions all the time, fix the problem and move on, so it is baffling to think umpires should be treated differently.
Mr Riewoldt has thrust a double-edged sword into mix in his appearance in the ad. On one hand, he's encouraging young people to take up umpiring and for over-zealous parents to back-off but, on the other hand, he has brought to surface some deep-seated issues with the umpiring system in the AFL. Time will tell on whether or not this campaign is a winner for the AFL.
It is not uncommon to hear of fans beginning fights and running onto ovals to complain about an umpire's decision. Having played footy for Kew Junior Football Club, Carey Baptist Grammar School and Old Carey Grammarians, I know all about being on the receiving end of a dodgy umpiring call. It is frustrating and often, in the heat of the moment, you can say things you don't mean or regret later on. These decisions are usually followed closely by a harmonic wail from the sidelines as the spectators chip in their two-cents worth. However, how much of a detrimental effect is it having on the grassroots game and what are the flow-on implications for the AFL?
Umpiring Aussie-rules is an immense challenge, from Under-9's to the AFL Grand Final. So many of the rules are open to interpretation by the individual umpires and they don't always agree. What one umpire sees as prior opportunity, another might see as none and thus two different opinions are the result. I'll give an example:
On the weekend, during the Collingwood-Western Bulldogs game, Adam Cooney took a mark on the wing. A Collingwood player was closely tagging him and, just after Cooney marked the ball, made (very slight) body contact so that Cooney would not try to play on. Umpire Ray Chamberlain immediately blew his whistle and awarded a 50-metre penalty to Cooney, bringing him into scoring range.
"Razor" Ray had been quick on the whistle all night, giving players of both sides absolutely no latitude whatsoever. Put aside the fact that I'm a Collingwood supporter, it is impossible to say that every umpire would pay that as a 50-metre penalty. In fact, they didn't. Again, on the weekend, in the match between Adelaide and Fremantle, an Adelaide player marked inside their forward line, but on a tight angle from the goal. Their Fremantle opponent put their arms around them briefly after having completed the mark in order to stop them from playing on, improving the angle and improving their chance of scoring a goal. Yet no 50-metre penalty was awarded for such contact.
It seems the problem fans seem to be having with umpires is inconsistency and this problem is compounded by the myriad rule changes that Adrian Anderson and the AFL seem to be imposing. The rules of the game are constantly under scrutiny and very often are changed on a knee-jerk reaction by the AFL to some outcry from the media. The new rushed behind rule which has become somewhat controversial being the obvious example. There were outcries by media personalities over Hawthorn's use of rushing behinds to reset their backline structure on their way to winning the 2008 premiership. These rules have a flow-on effect to the lower levels of football as less skilled umpires officiated games with less skilled players, it is made more difficult in an environment that does not protect the umpires anywhere near as much.
At AFL level, no players, coaches or club officials are allowed to speak out over umpiring decisions or performances without the risk of copping a fairly hefty fine or suspension. Yet grassroots football spectators can say or do whatever they like to voice their dissatisfaction with the umpiring. It defies belief that any young kids would consider taking up umpiring at all when they often have to begin in a more hostile environment than the elite of their profession operate in. On the flip side, why can AFL coaches or players cop so much scrutiny whilst complaining about shoddy umpiring calls is now taboo? For improvement to happen, the constructive criticism has to be a two-way street. Umpires must acknowledge their shortcomings when they are brought up and accept the comments as constructive criticism, not as a slight against their person.
Remember James Hird on The Footy Show a few years back? He had a go at Scott Mclaren (admittedly after some prodding and poking by Sam Newman) after a poor umpiring performance. And the result? Mclaren issued a statement soon after, saying he was "surprised and disappointed by the comments he made. This has deeply affected my family and friends..." Hird was subsequently slapped with a $20,000 fine and ordered to spend 3 years promoting umpiring. Admittedly, the circumstances in which Hird criticised Mclaren's performance were inappropriate but I find it hard to justify such a penalty. James Hird spoke his mind, criticising Mclaren's performance, but not criticising the man. It seems as though AFL umpires are too touchy on this subject and take too much to heart.
In a time that is seeing the game under constant evolution, as teams try to copy the most successful tactics of other teams, it is important the AFL boosts the attractiveness of umpiring. This needs to come about in a number of different ways, chief among which is the way they are viewed in the top flight. Let the players and coaches speak out about umpiring, albeit in a responsible and appropriate way, so that the umpires can learn from their mistakes. People get called out for their mistakes in their professions all the time, fix the problem and move on, so it is baffling to think umpires should be treated differently.
Mr Riewoldt has thrust a double-edged sword into mix in his appearance in the ad. On one hand, he's encouraging young people to take up umpiring and for over-zealous parents to back-off but, on the other hand, he has brought to surface some deep-seated issues with the umpiring system in the AFL. Time will tell on whether or not this campaign is a winner for the AFL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)