Tweet
The "incidental" is codified in the rule books, as NMW posted earlier today. The current interpretation seems to be in clear opposition to the written laws of the game. There have been a couple of frees paid in non-Swans games recently where a player literally brushed the hips of an opponent and was penalised. If umpires aren't capable of distinguishing that level of contact, we have a big big problem.
(Note - I'm not criticising the umpires for paying them in those games. That is what they've been instructed to do.)
But my concerns are more fundamental than those obviously stupid instances.
Footy is a game played by big men. Even the midgets of the competition - the likes of Bell and Phillips - are taller than me. They are big, strong men and the game is about combat. Taking a mark isn't meant to be easy. That's why you get a reward of a free kick at goal if you take one close enough. They are meant to be about battling gladiators using their own particular combination of size, strength, speed, agility, leap, hand skill, ball watching skill etc to nab the ball for themselves, pitted against opponents trying to stop them doing so or - even better - trying to mark the ball themselves.
I am not advocating a free for all where any contact is permitted. But wherever you have two or more guys genuinely contesting the ball rather than deliberately restricting their opponent with no regard for the ball itself, I would much rather err on the side of letting them get on with it than finding reasons to penalise each and every thing.
Another of my gripes is homogenisation. One of the things that attracted me to the game was the variety of skills, tactics, strategies. Bomb it long to a packed goal square. Kick to a man on a lead. Kick over the back of the defence and allow the player to run onto it. Dob it long from 50m. Bring the ball to ground and let the little blokes weave their magic. Or tie it up and let the very big blokes help out the very little blokes weave their magic.
The only justification I have read for the HIB rule seems to be to reward the man in front. Well why should we reward the man in front? What is intrinsicly better about always being in front? Sure, there are many times when it is an advantage but it seems to be implying that, in particular, the tactic of kicking over the back of a pack is an illegimate one. How boring would it be if everything was kick, lead, mark?
Matthew Richardson got pinged last week essentially because he read the ball better than Michael. Or more to the point, because his team mate saw where he was positioned and kicked it to his advantage. Michael was just too slow to read the play.
Similarly, although it wasn't a HIB issue, the first contentious free against Hall on Saturday arose because he was in the right position, Michael was scrambling to get into the contest, and Hall held his ground.
I have similar issues about the chopping of the arms. If a player forcefully knocks the lower part of an opponent's arm, preventing him marking and with no real intent to mark himself, fair enough, penalise. But once one player is behind, it is almost anatomically impossible to attempt to spoil without some arm contact occuring. Plenty of players can mark the ball despite this moderate contact. Riewoldt is a genius. ROK is pretty good too. Great, reward them for that attribute but don't allow all those who don't have good enough timing or strong enough hands to be pandered to.
There are no rights or wrongs about this. It is all about opinion of the kind of game we want to watch. I know what I want to see.
And based on the stated opinions of around 95% of players who have publically expressed a view on the matter, it is the kind of game they want to play too.
(Note - I'm not criticising the umpires for paying them in those games. That is what they've been instructed to do.)
But my concerns are more fundamental than those obviously stupid instances.
Footy is a game played by big men. Even the midgets of the competition - the likes of Bell and Phillips - are taller than me. They are big, strong men and the game is about combat. Taking a mark isn't meant to be easy. That's why you get a reward of a free kick at goal if you take one close enough. They are meant to be about battling gladiators using their own particular combination of size, strength, speed, agility, leap, hand skill, ball watching skill etc to nab the ball for themselves, pitted against opponents trying to stop them doing so or - even better - trying to mark the ball themselves.
I am not advocating a free for all where any contact is permitted. But wherever you have two or more guys genuinely contesting the ball rather than deliberately restricting their opponent with no regard for the ball itself, I would much rather err on the side of letting them get on with it than finding reasons to penalise each and every thing.
Another of my gripes is homogenisation. One of the things that attracted me to the game was the variety of skills, tactics, strategies. Bomb it long to a packed goal square. Kick to a man on a lead. Kick over the back of the defence and allow the player to run onto it. Dob it long from 50m. Bring the ball to ground and let the little blokes weave their magic. Or tie it up and let the very big blokes help out the very little blokes weave their magic.
The only justification I have read for the HIB rule seems to be to reward the man in front. Well why should we reward the man in front? What is intrinsicly better about always being in front? Sure, there are many times when it is an advantage but it seems to be implying that, in particular, the tactic of kicking over the back of a pack is an illegimate one. How boring would it be if everything was kick, lead, mark?
Matthew Richardson got pinged last week essentially because he read the ball better than Michael. Or more to the point, because his team mate saw where he was positioned and kicked it to his advantage. Michael was just too slow to read the play.
Similarly, although it wasn't a HIB issue, the first contentious free against Hall on Saturday arose because he was in the right position, Michael was scrambling to get into the contest, and Hall held his ground.
I have similar issues about the chopping of the arms. If a player forcefully knocks the lower part of an opponent's arm, preventing him marking and with no real intent to mark himself, fair enough, penalise. But once one player is behind, it is almost anatomically impossible to attempt to spoil without some arm contact occuring. Plenty of players can mark the ball despite this moderate contact. Riewoldt is a genius. ROK is pretty good too. Great, reward them for that attribute but don't allow all those who don't have good enough timing or strong enough hands to be pandered to.
There are no rights or wrongs about this. It is all about opinion of the kind of game we want to watch. I know what I want to see.
And based on the stated opinions of around 95% of players who have publically expressed a view on the matter, it is the kind of game they want to play too.
Comment