Free kicks

[Thunder Shaker]

but I don't think bias is the main problem. I think the way the rules have been rewritten is far too interpretive. The rules were very simply written in previous versions but in the last 10-20 years the AFL has been changing rules and writing much more complicated and open rules. for instance the term 'INCOORECT DISPOSAL'. There is not any simple explanation of what exactly that means in the new rules. In the old rules it was simple. If you did not handball, handball was explained or kick the ball, a real kick was explained, you were deemed to have incorrectly disposed. But now with the introduction of PRIOR OPPORTUNITY, this is also in doubt. How long is PRIOR OPPORTUNITY? One second? 5seconds? 5 minutes? This is not explained in the rules either. I could point out 20 other rules that have been changed that are so interpretive. The head high rule is confusing due to new ducking interpretation. The sliding rule is being umpired differently than when first introduced. A push in the back is no longer a push in the back if you are a forward but the slightest touch from a defender gets a shot at goal. Rules applied to only some players are against the spirit of the game. all these rules are interpretive. Players are allowed to throw the ball if they are top mids. Top mids can get away with anything, including ducking, bending legs etc. There are far too many interpretive rules and each umpire interprets them differently. This does not allow for consistency when you have four different interpretations.

You're not wrong. The rules definitely require a lot of interpretation.

One example is "deliberate out of bounds". That turns umpires into mindreaders. It's nonsense.

Going too far without bouncing the ball (travel). How far is 15 metres exactly when a player is running hither and thither while dodging opponents?

Prior opportunity. How long is "prior"?

The rules should be overhauled to replace opinions with facts.

Deliberate out of bounds? Get rid of that. Introduce some kind of last touch on kicks, handballs, hitouts and tap-ons, but the player receiving the free cannot kick the ball back into play unless the ball was kicked out of bounds or put out in a ruck contest. This needs some tweaking as described. Bound to be controversial, but no more controversial really than requiring the umpires to be psychics.

Travel: count the steps the player takes. After 15 steps without a bounce, blow the whistle.

Prior opportunity: 2 seconds or two steps, whichever occurs first. No opinions, no interpretations, just facts.

[Bloods05]

You're not wrong. The rules definitely require a lot of interpretation.

One example is "deliberate out of bounds". That turns umpires into mindreaders. It's nonsense.

Going too far without bouncing the ball (travel). How far is 15 metres exactly when a player is running hither and thither while dodging opponents?

Prior opportunity. How long is "prior"?

The rules should be overhauled to replace opinions with facts.

Deliberate out of bounds? Get rid of that. Introduce some kind of last touch on kicks, handballs, hitouts and tap-ons, but the player receiving the free cannot kick the ball back into play unless the ball was kicked out of bounds or put out in a ruck contest. This needs some tweaking as described. Bound to be controversial, but no more controversial really than requiring the umpires to be psychics.

Travel: count the steps the player takes. After 15 steps without a bounce, blow the whistle.

Prior opportunity: 2 seconds or two steps, whichever occurs first. No opinions, no interpretations, just facts.

This is all very well, but there is no getting away from interpretation in the application of the rules. It's just the nature of the game. Some rules could be tightened up as you suggest, but interpretation will always be a part of our game. Take the push in the back for example. A player is tackled, and the tackler rolls him to one side. At what point does the roll have to commence? Right at the start of the tackle? Half-way through? Just before he hits the ground? There are lots of things in our game that we can't possibly be precise about. Good umpiring is about making reasonable interpretations. The problem is that some umpires are sometimes manifestly unreasonable. The concept of reasonableness is central to our legal system, so there's no reason(!) why it shouldn't be central to the interpretation of the laws of our game.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I think you mistaken - I regard what is being labelled "interpretation" is the single greatest blight on the game.

Umpires taking time to interpret player interactions is what allows time for the game to get clogged up. Your in-the-back scenario is a really good example of entities being multiplied unnecessarily - the umpires should carry both a whistle and Occam’s razor. They should use both with decisiveness.

Interpretation is intrinsic to the game, but vacillation is not – and the two are being confused, worse the latter is being excused because it is being misidentified as the former.

Football is a game, what happens inside the boundary is an artificial construct – it's not reality. It has simple rules that are manifestly there to swiftly penalise unfair behaviour, so completely unlike our legal system.

And those simple rules of the game actually work really well. Unless they are impeded by umpires that are afraid to act decisively, and administrators that tolerate it. The last thing the game needs is for the rules themselves to be further impeded by lawyerly obfuscations.