James Hird

[Charlie]

Originally posted by lizz
I think that the AFL has become a bit precious about some things and its ongoing refusal to acknowledge that umpiring is not always perfect and needs to continue to improve as do many other aspects of the game.

But, what Hird said on TFS was not about the overall standard of umpiring nor even about the umpiring in just that game. He pretty much accused the umpires - and one, named umpire in particular - of deliberately having it in for Essendon. He may not have used the word "cheat" but that was the impression I got from his comments.

Even if players and officials were allowed to make some comments on umpiring in the media, I think Hird's comments would have been unacceptable. As it is, they were in flagrant breach of the AFL rules as well as highly discourteous.

I'll agree that the specific mention of the umpire's name should have been done behind closed doors. I didn't get the impression that Hird was suggesting McLaren was deliberately giving Essendon a bad deal, more that there was a problem with his interpretations that existed that could be worked upon. I will not, however, agree that the cover-all ban on criticising the AFL and umpires is in the best interests of a) the game, b) the clubs, c) the supporters and d) the umpires and AFL themselves.

It's not in the best interests of the game, because it presents the AFL as having something to hide. Why can't it resolve issues in public? It's about the most public non-government institution in Australia, I'd say. So when there's an issue like this, it hits the back pages of the newspapers and the public wants to be kept informed as to what's going on. But nothing can come between the AFL and its image of a corporate giant with complete and utter control over all branches of its empire.

It's one thing to argue that complaining behind the scenes is more effective. But why should it be? Why, in a competition as highly scrutinised as the AFL is in any case, should things be made out to be state secrets? Why should there be censorship in a game where 95% of the participants are making a heck of a lot of money for the time they put in? I saw somewhere that goal umps get $800 a game... well, for that sort of money, the fool at the Gabba on Thursday night deserves to cop a baking when he stuffs up so obviously.

I wouldn't be too bothered if Hird copped a fine - and not some ridiculous figure like $50,000 either - for mentioning McLaren's name. But suspending him? That would be a sign of a statutory authority that's drunk with power and thinks that they are the important ones, not the legislative powers that put them there in the first place.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by j s
You are totally wrong Charlie. You won't get respect at lower levels unless it is also seen at the highest.

By your logic Charlie the captain of the Woop Woop U13 team should be able to say what he like about the umpires. That is just ludicrous. The rules protecting the umps from PUBLIC criticism must be applied at ALL levels. Hird should NOT be exempt.

Yes, the umps should be accountable, but via the appropriate channels NOT on the footy show.

So we're all supposed to pretend that the umpiring is perfect and there isn't any problems? Come on, mate, we all know that isn't true. What is so wrong with speaking the truth?

And realistically, the role of James Hird as captain of the Essendon Football Club is very different to that of the captain of an under-13s team. In the under-13s, I would imagine that the coach and president/secretary of the club would have the real leadership roles, and would be the correct ones to take an issue with umpiring to the league. A situation in a country league has none of the national interest that the AFL attracts.

This is more than Hird and umpires. It's about a body set up to administer a league that has come to believe that it is the sport itself.

[Bear]

Originally posted by Charlie
I had every expectation that the majority here would disagree with me.

Can I just ask though, why is the image of the AFL more important than the actual role it is intended to have? Why is the AFL now in charge of the administration of the entire sport, rather than just the specific league whose name it bears? Why do they own the intellectual property of the clubs, such as names, logos and jumpers? Why has football become so bureaucratic?

Does anyone truly believe that James Hird criticising an umpire is going to lead to 10,000 umpires quitting? What will cause people to quit umpiring is if the culture of going to the footy to heckle the umpire doesn't change. But if a club believes an umpire is giving them a raw deal, if theres an issue with how the competition is being run, what the hell is the problem with saying so?

Why can there be no criticism of the raging stallion that has broken from its stable?

I'm not anti-AFL, and I'm not anti-umpiring. But this whole farce shows just how much the AFL has lost its focus. The AFL exists for the clubs. The clubs don't exist for the AFL.

So many questions, but so little time to answer them all. Suffice to say that the AFL WAS in fact put in place to take a lead on these sorts of issues and make independent decisions for the benefit of the whole competition, and yes THE BROADER GAME OF AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL. This is entirely appropriate and essential.

I'm not sure where you got your information re the "supposed role of the AFL", but it is plain wrong.

The clubs clearly demonstrated they were not able to run the competition due to their self-interests and bias.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bear
So many questions, but so little time to answer them all. Suffice to say that the AFL WAS in fact put in place to take a lead on these sorts of issues and make independent decisions for the benefit of the whole competition,

Correct. But where does the ultimate control over the direction of the clubs' league by the clubs come into effect? If the AFL is overstepping its designated power, as I believe it would be in depriving Hird his right to speak for his club, then shouldn't it be reined in? As I said, I'm not anti-AFL. I'm not anti-police, either, but would you like police to have a free rein to not only enforce the law, but implement it and impose it as well? Ie, would you like a state where where the police have all power without question? That's what this Hird issue has shown me that the AFL has become.

and yes THE BROADER GAME OF AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL. This is entirely appropriate and essential.

Are you sure? Remembering that we are talking about 1985, when the AFL was the VFL and still a regional league, which was theoretically on the same level as the SANFL and WAFL. I'll have to look it up to be sure, and to be honest I'm not sure where'll I'll find it, but I believe there was still a national association of football leagues in the 1980s that had a mandate to direct the sport itself, which was as it should have been, and really, as it should still be.

I'm not sure where you got your information re the "supposed role of the AFL", but it is plain wrong.

How? Are you disputing that the AFL was established by the old VFL board where the clubs had direct control? The AFL Commission was supposed to create a semi-independent administration, still indirectly controlled by the clubs. Instead, we have semi-independent clubs indirectly controlled by the Commission. Can you not see that things are the exact opposite to what they were meant to be???

The clubs clearly demonstrated they were not able to run the competition due to their self-interests and bias.

Yes, they have, as the Victorian mafia's intifada against the zones and player retention allowances shows. But ultimately, the clubs which make up the league MUST have control of the league. I'm not saying we go back to the old days of each club having a member of the VFL board, or however it worked before 1985. But they do need to have the power to rein in the AFL when it gets too big for its boots.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Nico
The umpires should be treated like they are in Soccer - untouchable.

You ain't been to South America then mate! (Insert quote from the wild man from Buenos Aires, Diego)

JF ;-)

[Bear]

Originally posted by Charlie

How? Are you disputing that the AFL was established by the old VFL board where the clubs had direct control? The AFL Commission was supposed to create a semi-independent administration, still indirectly controlled by the clubs. Instead, we have semi-independent clubs indirectly controlled by the Commission. Can you not see that things are the exact opposite to what they were meant to be??? [/B]

No. I am saying that your version of events that "The clubs were supposed to remain the legislative authorities" is wrong - i.e. I'm not sure where you got THAT version of events from. The AFL IS the designated power on the key issues involved with running the game. It's that simple.

The Commission was set up after the failed system of the clubs directly running the game. Like all good systems though, the AFL clubs have recourse should the AFL abuse its power.

The AFL therefore has to take a strong lead on these issues and, to use your words, reign in the raging stallions, who are actually the clubs and individuals around the game who have their own, rather than the game's best interests at heart.

[SWANSBEST]

We all get upset with umpires from time to time but I think the continual whingeing from Collingwood and Essendon is deliberately designed to undermine the crebibility of the AFL, but for what purpose ? I consider the Patrick Smith article is well balanced and insightful.


PATRICK SMITH



It's better for champ to be seen and not 'Hird'

April 12, 2004
JAMES HIRD was breathtaking on Saturday night. In the real sense that he took your breath away. You gasped as he resisted West Coast in defence, gained possession at stop plays and won the match with a goal in the last minute. In one quarter of football he had 15 disposals.

He was breathtaking in the sense that he winded the Eagles every time they huffed and puffed in the final quarter. The Eagles would be set to win the match only for Hird to wrench it back off them.

Breathtaking in the sense he spontaneously hugged a young Essendon fan after he kicked his winning goal. That moment surely left the boy breathless.

Commentators, almost to a man and woman, said they had not seen a player perform better in 30 minutes of football. He is one of the greatest footballers we have seen.

But football has confused Hird's actions on Saturday night with his words the previous Wednesday. His 15 disposals should not in any way affect the 15 words on The Footy Show that condemned Scott McLaren as an umpire who continues to officiate in a biased and unfair manner against Essendon. "We're not sure where he's coming from. We've had problems with him in the past." That's what Hird said. And he went on to name McLaren.

Hird's performance on Saturday night underlines the seriousness of his problem rather than dilutes it.

It is because Hird is so talented, so respected, has such a high profile and is capable of captivating all of us that he is fronting the commission on Thursday. The damage done to McLaren and his colleagues is amplified by Hird's status.

Hird faces suspension and that is appropriate. He did not merely criticise an umpire for a couple of bad decisions. That would warrant a fine and nothing more under AFL regulations. He faces suspension because, in his considered opinion, McLaren umpires Essendon with prejudice. That is premeditated intimidation of an umpire and his trade.

The commission should consider a four-match suspension and see if Hird and Essendon can prove otherwise. The fact that in the past four years they have made no formal complaint or submission on McLaren suggests that may be impossible. Whingeing and whining are not a credible defence.

That football commentators do not understand the issue is a concern. One wrote this yesterday: "It seems increasingly the football world is letting itself get caught up in the media exposure and supposed controversies, not actual consequences and repercussions."

But Hird's comments are all about consequences and repercussions. Hird's assessment of McLaren will affect the image of umpiring. Umpires will be less respected, harder to recruit and even harder to retain if they can be routinely denigrated on national television.

It is even more worrying that senior football officials have not the faintest understanding of the issue either. Said Carlton president Ian Collins on Saturday: "If it is okay for the media to criticise umpires, why isn't it for players and clubs?" The answer would seem as fundamental as Collins' logic is dumbfounding.

The lack of respect afforded umpires has been identified as the reason umpiring is in crisis all about the country. The AFL needs to send Collins another copy of the Bill Sanders report into umpiring because he clearly didn't receive the first one.

Criticism by players and coaches has the potential to devastate umpiring. Read the report, Ian, and you won't make such banal remarks.

Perhaps the greatest damage to Hird's case has been done by Essendon officials themselves. Take Sheedy's admission in his Sunday Herald-Sun column yesterday: "We know umpires are desperate to make sure we keep developing young umpires, but it is all a game. McLaren is a top bloke and Hird is a top bloke, so let them sit down in a restaurant and have it out."

So humiliating an umpire so intensely that he is considering legal action is just a game? A bit of fun? Oh, yeah, that's a scream, Kevin. When McLaren spoke of the devastation to family and friends he was hardly belly laughing.

Essendon continues to push for a meeting between Hird and McLaren. But that relationship is not the issue that confronts Hird. He has been ordered to show cause why he has not breached both the rules and regulations of the AFL. Hird must convince the commission he has not brought the game into disrepute.

Essendon chairman Neil McKissock said Hird did not deserve to have his reputation tarnished by a mistake. Sadly that was not a luxury Hird afforded McLaren.

McKissock said that there were a lot more serious issues confronting the AFL than Hird's savaging of an umpire.

Not even the Essendon chairman grasps the gravity of footballers attacking the integrity of umpires.

Hird was on television yesterday morning. He is yet to withdraw the comments that inferred McLaren was all but a cheat.

The Essendon great appears more concerned not with the potential damage he may have done to football but the position in which he finds himself.

That's breathtaking.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9252731%255E12270,00.html

[j s]

Originally posted by Charlie
So we're all supposed to pretend that the umpiring is perfect and there isn't any problems? Come on, mate, we all know that isn't true. What is so wrong with speaking the truth?

And realistically, the role of James Hird as captain of the Essendon Football Club is very different to that of the captain of an under-13s team. In the under-13s, I would imagine that the coach and president/secretary of the club would have the real leadership roles, and would be the correct ones to take an issue with umpiring to the league. A situation in a country league has none of the national interest that the AFL attracts.

This is more than Hird and umpires. It's about a body set up to administer a league that has come to believe that it is the sport itself.

Sheer volume of words won't make you right Charlie.

And you obviously haven't spent much time around junior or country footy or you'd know the truth.

[CureTheSane]

Life is ful of rules and thing you can do and things you can't.

In football, and most other sports, teh umpires are off limits.

What will 'speaking the truth' do?

Well at worst the level of umpiring will drop because there won't be as many to choose from because they won't wanna take the crap.

Or maybe it will just make the game look bad.
A bunch of whingers after every game.
No thanks.

[GoBloods]

i read the patrick smith atricle in mondays 'australian ' and think that he has manged to sum up this whole saga perfectly. it is a shame other media types cant see the real point. And to those who think that james hird apology via the media yesterday will make it alrights. you are wrong . he must face discipline of sorts from the afl.

[TheHood]

I like the result of this (the fine and the umpiring community service) and I bet Smith is an advocate of Capital Punishment too. I reckon Austin, Texas is his kinda town.

The thing that is getting my goat is that Maclaren is still considering legal action after all this.

I mean seriously, he still has a job, he has his dignity, he has an apology (a sincere one at that) and yet he thinks it will improve his standing in the game and it will enhance the reputation of the game by leaving this bogey hanging over the game.

Do we need any more off-field dramas hanging over AFL right now?

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bear
No. I am saying that your version of events that "The clubs were supposed to remain the legislative authorities" is wrong - i.e. I'm not sure where you got THAT version of events from. The AFL IS the designated power on the key issues involved with running the game. It's that simple.

The Commission was set up after the failed system of the clubs directly running the game. Like all good systems though, the AFL clubs have recourse should the AFL abuse its power.

The AFL therefore has to take a strong lead on these issues and, to use your words, reign in the raging stallions, who are actually the clubs and individuals around the game who have their own, rather than the game's best interests at heart.

Sorry, think I've been taken out of context with the 'legislative' thing.

Obviously, the clubs no longer have responsibility for the day-to-day running of the league. They do, however, have to agree to any major changes to the leagues structure, rules etc. Examples: Brisbane/Fitzroy merger, concessions to the Northern clubs.

The AFL Commission, remember, did not start life as the AFL Commission. It was the VFL Commission. If you are trying to tell me that a state league body was supposed to have the control over the sport throughout the nation, then I think you need to reconsider your argument, because it is ridiculous. You really think that the SANFL and WAFL would be taking orders from the VFL??

The AFL Commission is an administrative body only. A statutory authority. When a statutory authority is using censorship and intimidation to control those they are supposed to serve, there is something seriously wrong. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an AFL Commission. I'm saying that the relationship between the Commission and the clubs is the wrong way around.

[Rizzo]

My take on the whole thing is this -

* Criticising an umpire on television is not the forum to have a greivance, legitimate or otherwise, addressed. This is the crux of the issue as far as I'm concerned. If Hird sincerely believes the McLaren's interpretations of the rules effected his club specifically the issue should have been raised through the appropriate channels. As it has happened, Hird's comments have been widely discussed, published, and intrepreted as a direct criticism of McLaren and that McLaren has a bias against the Essendon club. Hird as a public forum to push his point of view with his regular appearances on the footy show etc. The umps don't, nor is it appropriate that they do. There was enough controversy surrounding NRL ref Harrigan during his tenure over his public image.

* The $20K Hird is paying plus the volunteer work he has committed to seems the right sort of restitution for the AFL and AFL Umpires as a group.

* Hird's apology did seem sincerely however I feel McLaren has a right to feel upset and defamed. Whether legal action is the right way to deal with slander/demation is another debate but McLaren has every right to consider legal action. Hird made it personal, and as such, its a personal issue between the two of them.

[hardluck_harry]

Originally posted by Rizzo
image.

* The $20K Hird is paying plus the volunteer work he has committed to seems the right sort of restitution for the AFL and AFL Umpires as a group.

I'd suggest James probably earned his $20k to pay his fine yesterday with his half/hour's work on the Sunday footy show.

I doubt Ch9 would want one of their star panelists upset too long. Plus, he probably made them >$20k in ratings last week.

[CureTheSane]

Very good point.