Kevin Barlett, the Damage Controller
April 28th 2008 02:18
In all sports around the world umpires and referees regularly implement common sense into their officiating. And I have never seen, or heard of, an official being castigated, lynched or “burnt at the stake” for doing so. In fact, more often than not, officials are appreciated and applauded by the majority when a fair and just outcome is decided.
Commentators like Kevin Bartlett preach that “we” should want games to be umpired to the letter of the law. But just because something is law, doesn’t make it right. For instance, there are many laws that govern our country which could easily be argued to be vastly out of synch of being fair and just. Unfortunately, too many instances are reported whereby abhorrent criminals are given soft sentences. And when there is strong community outcry, then the community would hope that the law-makers are making an effort to correct the balance of justice.
A case in point is speeding offences. Motorists are given a 3km lee-way to the speed limit. So if you are caught doing 52km in a 50km zone, you will not be fined. I think we can all agree that if you were fined for doing 1km over the speed, it would not be seen as being a fair and just punishment. A warning would suffice.
So in sport, situations consistently arise in that a rule or law has been broken but the umpire decides to use common sense, and only warn the player rather than penalize them. You’ll hear umpires say things like “don’t do that again or you’ll give away a free”, “That’s silly, next time I’ll pay a free” etc. etc.
Kevin Bartlett argues that the same rules should apply all over the ground. In actual fact, rules within football already set a precedent for not “being the same”. Just have a look at how drawn games are tackled. Within the regular season, a drawn game is the end of the game and points are shared. During the finals, if the scores are level at full-time then extra time is played. And a drawn Grand Final is replayed! And the rule related to kicks from marks is another example of “not being the same” around the ground. If a player marks within distance the umpire considers being a reasonable goal-kicking opportunity then he allows that player more time to kick than if that same player were to mark the ball around the ground. And let’s talk about standing the mark. In majority of play, the spot the ball is marked is the spot the opposing player can stand. However, if a player is kicking on the boundary, near the fence, the umpire calls for the player on the mark to move back from the actual marked spot. The final example I will make is the “play on” call. Within the boundary lines, if the umpire calls “play on” then the player with the ball becomes immediately “active” can be tackled. However, if that same player is taking his kick from outside the boundary line and the umpire calls “play on” he does not become immediately “active” because then it would obviously be considered out of bounds and thrown in.
Now let’s talk about the logic behind the “hands in the back” rule, the reasoning why the rule was brought in, and ask why something similar isn’t applied to over-exuberant taggers.
Rule-makers argue that the “hands in the back” rule is vital because players should be allowed to make a marking attempt without being unfairly impeded. Opposing players attempting to stop their opponent from marking should do so legitimately, in an effort to spoil the ball. To put it simply, go for the ball, not the man. Don’t touch his back, don’t touch his arms, don’t put your hand on his shoulder, and don’t tunnel. DON”T!
Using that logic – go the ball, not the man – why are taggers not treated with the same distain? Coaches appoint taggers with specific roles to impede a gun player from being able to play his natural game. Taggers regularly ignore the ball and concentrate on the man. Taggers scrag, elbow, push, block, hold, bump without being penalized. In fact, on many occasions the player being tagged is penalized because, out of frustration, he retaliates. Further restrictions need to be imposed on taggers, not just because it impedes a player but, more importantly, it denies the viewing public of seeing great players doing great things on the field. It denies us the excitement factor for which we pay good money to see.
So now we get to the current hot topic of the moment: Ray Chamberlain paying a free kick against Carlton’s Jarrod Waite for “time wasting” and thus gifting Adelaide a goal. Mr. Bartlett argues that umpires should not employ common sense - they should officiate to the letter of the law. And, in this case, that’s exactly what Ray did. The ball was in flight, over the line for a goal, when Jarrod Waite punched the ball away. Rather than warn the player, the umpire chose to follow the letter of the law. Commentators weren’t quite sure what was going on, and the crowd certainly had no idea. Only after a replay of the incident did Kevin Bartlett realize what had occurred, and then went into his usual damage control mode of defending the decision and the rule. But would Kevin have been so passionate to denounce the umpire if he had NOT penalized the player for time wasting? I doubt it. In fact, put it in the bank that he would not have ushered a whisper.
If this happened in a grand final and was directly responsible for a team losing, there would be uproar. No doubt about that, either. Kevin would be feeling like a very lonely man.
And such ridiculous imbalances – that the punishment does not fit the crime - is the reason why laws and rules need to evolve, alter, change; to be corrected appropriately so that they are within the boundaries of being “fair and just”.
Those who defend decisions because “it is law” only serve to make the problem worse. When a rule is blatantly wrong, obviously unfair, then rule makers should work towards improving the rules. Kevin Bartlett, that is all we ask.
What most of us want is for the laws of the game to be governed with diligence as well as common sense.
It’s not rocket surgery.
Commentators like Kevin Bartlett preach that “we” should want games to be umpired to the letter of the law. But just because something is law, doesn’t make it right. For instance, there are many laws that govern our country which could easily be argued to be vastly out of synch of being fair and just. Unfortunately, too many instances are reported whereby abhorrent criminals are given soft sentences. And when there is strong community outcry, then the community would hope that the law-makers are making an effort to correct the balance of justice.
So in sport, situations consistently arise in that a rule or law has been broken but the umpire decides to use common sense, and only warn the player rather than penalize them. You’ll hear umpires say things like “don’t do that again or you’ll give away a free”, “That’s silly, next time I’ll pay a free” etc. etc.
Kevin Bartlett argues that the same rules should apply all over the ground. In actual fact, rules within football already set a precedent for not “being the same”. Just have a look at how drawn games are tackled. Within the regular season, a drawn game is the end of the game and points are shared. During the finals, if the scores are level at full-time then extra time is played. And a drawn Grand Final is replayed! And the rule related to kicks from marks is another example of “not being the same” around the ground. If a player marks within distance the umpire considers being a reasonable goal-kicking opportunity then he allows that player more time to kick than if that same player were to mark the ball around the ground. And let’s talk about standing the mark. In majority of play, the spot the ball is marked is the spot the opposing player can stand. However, if a player is kicking on the boundary, near the fence, the umpire calls for the player on the mark to move back from the actual marked spot. The final example I will make is the “play on” call. Within the boundary lines, if the umpire calls “play on” then the player with the ball becomes immediately “active” can be tackled. However, if that same player is taking his kick from outside the boundary line and the umpire calls “play on” he does not become immediately “active” because then it would obviously be considered out of bounds and thrown in.
Now let’s talk about the logic behind the “hands in the back” rule, the reasoning why the rule was brought in, and ask why something similar isn’t applied to over-exuberant taggers.
Rule-makers argue that the “hands in the back” rule is vital because players should be allowed to make a marking attempt without being unfairly impeded. Opposing players attempting to stop their opponent from marking should do so legitimately, in an effort to spoil the ball. To put it simply, go for the ball, not the man. Don’t touch his back, don’t touch his arms, don’t put your hand on his shoulder, and don’t tunnel. DON”T!
Using that logic – go the ball, not the man – why are taggers not treated with the same distain? Coaches appoint taggers with specific roles to impede a gun player from being able to play his natural game. Taggers regularly ignore the ball and concentrate on the man. Taggers scrag, elbow, push, block, hold, bump without being penalized. In fact, on many occasions the player being tagged is penalized because, out of frustration, he retaliates. Further restrictions need to be imposed on taggers, not just because it impedes a player but, more importantly, it denies the viewing public of seeing great players doing great things on the field. It denies us the excitement factor for which we pay good money to see.
So now we get to the current hot topic of the moment: Ray Chamberlain paying a free kick against Carlton’s Jarrod Waite for “time wasting” and thus gifting Adelaide a goal. Mr. Bartlett argues that umpires should not employ common sense - they should officiate to the letter of the law. And, in this case, that’s exactly what Ray did. The ball was in flight, over the line for a goal, when Jarrod Waite punched the ball away. Rather than warn the player, the umpire chose to follow the letter of the law. Commentators weren’t quite sure what was going on, and the crowd certainly had no idea. Only after a replay of the incident did Kevin Bartlett realize what had occurred, and then went into his usual damage control mode of defending the decision and the rule. But would Kevin have been so passionate to denounce the umpire if he had NOT penalized the player for time wasting? I doubt it. In fact, put it in the bank that he would not have ushered a whisper.
If this happened in a grand final and was directly responsible for a team losing, there would be uproar. No doubt about that, either. Kevin would be feeling like a very lonely man.
And such ridiculous imbalances – that the punishment does not fit the crime - is the reason why laws and rules need to evolve, alter, change; to be corrected appropriately so that they are within the boundaries of being “fair and just”.
Those who defend decisions because “it is law” only serve to make the problem worse. When a rule is blatantly wrong, obviously unfair, then rule makers should work towards improving the rules. Kevin Bartlett, that is all we ask.
What most of us want is for the laws of the game to be governed with diligence as well as common sense.
It’s not rocket surgery.
| 81 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
hahaaaaaa
Good post.
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
Jon's Bookmarks
Debate Battle
Orblepedia
Orble Notes
Sydney WeekendNotes
You may also need to add the email address admin -at- orblemail.com to your address book in order to receive Orble admin emails in the future.
Thanks,
Jon.
(Orble Admin)