Protected Species

[BigD]

I read an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today, entitled

"It's a Joke Swans left off 'protected species' list" by Tim Morrissey

The article said that Umps boss Jeff Gieschen released a list of players who were to be given special protection from taggers by the umpires this season.
Players mentioned on the list were Chris Judd, Daniel Kerr, Shaun Burgoyne, Andrew McLeod, Robert Harvey, Simon Black, Brent Hervey, Gary Ablett Jr & Dale Thomas. However, There was not one Swans player on the list. Morrissey specifically mentioned Adam Goodes & Barry Hall as Swans he thought could have been included and said "The only way Goodes & Hall would make a protected species list is to lobby the World Wildlife Fund".
Geischen's Explanation of the list refers to "pure ball players" and wanting the umpires to award more frees to these players if the taggers infringe.
The fact that no Swans player was considered worthy of "protected species" status with the umpires to me is just a further example of "anti Swans bias" from Melbourne.

[TheMase]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21707101-5001023,00.html

Cannot say that surprises me.

[Lucky Knickers]

What the statement was about was that the player trying to play the ball will be protected over a tagger. I actually think Gieschen's just stated the obvious and what we can all observe. The Swans game style under Roos relies heavily on tagging and we can all point to a lopsided free kick count.
What is of concern is that he named specific players. As Liam Pickering and Tony Shaw discussed on FLT last night is that there are around 800 league players, so I don't think you could call it a "swans bias".
Tony Shaw, and I'm not a big fan, was quite right in pointing out that the umps should call it as they see it. On the panel, old cranky pants David Parkin, was fully supportive as he said it's the Judd's etc of the game that we all want to see. And to be honest Big D, I'm leaning to Parko's argument. I don't really enjoy the heavily defensive game that's developed over the last few years and that the swans perfected in their premiership year. I'd far rather see some of the greats of the game be tag free and to see the player with the ball free to pay it. Whilst I agree that Morrissey could make a case for Goodes, Hall is a classic CHF and isn't the type of player Geischen's statement was referring to. If tagger infringes, I definitely want to see a free paid.
My want is simple...just apply the rules and laws as consistently as you can week in week out. It frustrates the hell out of me when the umps focus on one aspect, for example the Hands in Back rule, and pay that continuously and are inconsistent in their application of others.

[FootyontheBrain]

This statement by Gieschen is a real black eye on the game. To name specific players getting special treatment from the umps is a gross misapplication of the laws of the game, and does more to bring the game into disrepute than anything else I've heard this year.

For years the NBA has given special treatment to their star players(unofficially), but you would never hear an NBA executive outlining who those players were.

I agree the beauty of this game is the spectacle it creates, but conversely I love to see tackles like the one Schneids laid on Judd in the '05 GF where Judd had just laid hands to the ball in the Weagles F50 and was surely about to kick a goal, but ol' Schneids was right on his hammer. That's beautiful stuff.

Furthermore, Gieschen's comment about Goodes and Hall is reprehensible. The AFL ought to send his arse a please explain for those comments. The more I think about this the more heated I get. This hack has to be removed.

[liz]

Is this for real? Did Gieschen actually produce a list of names or is Morrissey taking a bit of poetic license?

If there is seriously a list of players that the umpires are instructed to umpire differently to everyone else, that is a huge blight on the game. If they want to crack down on scragging, then crack down on scragging, but the suggestion that umpires are instructed not to view every contest on its own merits and in the context of the laws of the game, but with some preconceived idea about the individual players involved, is staggering if true.

[stellation]

This was given a resounding round of boos in the Stella household.

The idea of producing a list is absurd, I don't like the idea that Judd could be held at a stoppage and the umpire will be paying special attention for that and award a free, but at the next stoppage Goodes may be held and the umpire has not been paying special attention. As Liz said, if you want to stop the scragging at stoppages then just stop it- don't just stop it for a select few because I can guarantee that those on the list aren't the only ones who are getting held.
If they really wanted to produce a list (which I think is absurd) then there should have been equality on the number of players from each team on the list; ask each club to provide the names of 2 players a piece at set periods through the year along with video evidence that they are being held at stoppages to assist in producing the list.

[stellation]

For years the NBA has given special treatment to their star players(unofficially), but you would never hear an NBA executive outlining who those players were.

Yep, the best example being the 2006 finals series going down to the wire and Dwayne Wade winning it from the free throw line after a phantom foul was called.

[anne]

There definitely is a list. It first appeared in one paper/article and then a day or two later there was a follow up saying Geischen wanted a couple of extra players added to the list.

[ugg]

Is this for real? Did Gieschen actually produce a list of names or is Morrissey taking a bit of poetic license?

A bit of both. He listed a few names as examples of "pure ball" players, but this is hardly the definitive list. Definitely a quote taken out of context.

Ew, I feel so dirty having defended the Giesch.

[liz]

A bit of both. He listed a few names as examples of "pure ball" players, but this is hardly the definitive list. Definitely a quote taken out of context.

Ew, I feel so dirty having defended the Giesch.

I was so outraged by the notion presented and surprised there hadn't been a huge outcry that I went to look for other stories on this. I think the article Anne is referring to is this one.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21687424-11088,00.html

It presents a very slightly different view, one in line with Ugg's suggestion that Gieschen's list was not a definitive list of players who are looked after but more an indicative one.

Even with this slightly different emphasis, I still have a big problem with the concept of umpires not only having pre-conceived ideas about certain players but their boss apparently endorsing this and instructing them to think about the relative merits of various players ahead of games.

All of us who used to watch Plugger had a suspicion that he wasn't treated the same way as certain other players, but no, we were always told that umpires view each contest on its merits. And then Hall came north and it was deja vu - not Hall exclusively, but certainly an idea that he was one player who maybe didn't get the same 'protection' from hanging on and scragging that certain other forwards did. No we were told, you're wrong again.

While this article - and maybe Giesch's directive - is about midfielders rather than KPPs, I still think that the whole concept of umpires not blowing the whistle based on what they see, but on what they think they probably saw based on judgement of the individuals involved, is reprehensible.

[Glenn]

And here I was thinking that the umps judged each free on its merits, not who they are protecting.

[swansrock4eva]

Great post Liz. Totally agree. It essentially has the potential to place certain teams at risk of bias - how do we know the Swans with quite possibly no players on a list are going to get a fair go against the Eagles with possibly at least two players on that list? When you consider the results of the last 2 grand finals it certainly is concerning. From a Swans' supporters PoV (and discounting the @@@@house first half!) is there a chance that we weren't awarded a free kick that Judd may have been given simply because he's Judd (or an Eagle was awarded one that he might not have been awarded if the jumpers were reversed), and that cost us the match last year? From an Eagle's supporters perspective, in 2005 was a Swans player given a free that maybe he shouldn't have been simply because he was a "chosen one" at the time? The same could be said about every Swans-Eagles match of the last couple of years even! While I'm happy to cop the results as they've happened either way, it is concerning that maybe they have been influenced by the men who are meant to not influence the outcome of the match and just call it as they see it.

[swansrock4eva]

Great post Liz. Totally agree. It essentially has the potential to place certain teams at risk of bias - how do we know the Swans with quite possibly no players on a list are going to get a fair go against the Eagles with possibly at least two players on that list? When you consider the results of the last 2 grand finals it certainly is concerning. From a Swans' supporters PoV (and discounting the @@@@house first half!) is there a chance that we weren't awarded a free kick that Judd may have been given simply because he's Judd (or an Eagle was awarded one that he might not have been awarded if the jumpers were reversed), and that cost us the match last year? From an Eagle's supporters perspective, in 2005 was a Swans player given a free that maybe he shouldn't have been simply because he was a "chosen one" at the time? The same could be said about every Swans-Eagles match of the last couple of years even! While I'm happy to cop the results as they've happened either way, it is concerning that maybe they have been influenced by the men who are meant to not influence the outcome of the match and just call it as they see it.

[Mr_Juicy]

This game is becoming an absolute joke! @@@@ favoritism! Just umpire by the @@@@ing rules for @@@@s sake you @@@@ing imbociles!!!!!!

No wonder I'm becoming less and less interested in AFL

Jeff Geischen is ruining this game. The smarmy bastard needs to go back to teaching! Just so long as it's not my kids. After all, my kids might not be on Geischen's "likeable" list.

[elroy67]

(or an Eagle was awarded one that he might not have been awarded if the jumpers were reversed), and that cost us the match last year?

Yes. The HTB decision paid to Cousins against Tadhg comes to mind.