AFL gets it half right

Common sense and common stupidity have both made an appearance in the AFL's guinea pig, the NAB Cup, with four new rules brought in to confuse fans even more in the build-up to the season proper.

Two of the AFL's new rules make complete sense and will most likely be adopted in the season proper, if not this year then in the very near future. But the other two simply complicate the officiating of the game and will make the umpire's job harder and players and fans more frustrated.

Let's cut the AFL some slack and start off with the positives.

The advantage rule has been a generally well-accepted addition to the rules over the past 20 years. Much the same as happens in most other football codes, a team should not be disadvantaged by an infringement being played in their favour.

The one issue with it is that the determination of what may be an advantage and what may not has fallen to the umpire. When an umpire may not see a clear advantage, a player (and fans) may and the sense is that a team is punished because of the umpire's failure to read the game.

Under the rule change being trialled in the NAB Cup, the onus is now on the player who takes possession in an advantage situation to determine if they are in a better position to pump the ball forward than the person or position where the free kick would have been taken. Now the players are accountable for their action and the umpire is relieved on making a decision on what is advantage and what isn't.

The game has increased dramatically in terms of speed in the past 10 years and momentum is crucial when going forward. If a team feels like that momentum has been halted because they have won a free kick, then it is not an advantage. If a team decides to play on and turns it over, it’s just bad luck.

The extension of the 'no go' zone behind umpires at stoppages also makes sense. Umpires need to be able to back into a safe zone after bouncing or throwing the ball up and it ensures the contest stays in front of them, hopefully reducing holding at stoppages.

The common stupidity comes in two forms. The first is the extension of powers to enable boundary umpires to rule on holding at stoppages. Obviously they won’t be ruling on boundary throw-ins as their backs will be turned to the play, so those ball-ups which happen to take place within range of the boundary will be the only ones under scrutiny.

And what happens if one of the field umpires sees an infringement to one team and a boundary umpire sees another contest with an infringement? Given the amount of holding which goes on at stoppages this could easily happen.

Here's a plan. Why not get the people who are best equipped to make the right decision, i.e. the field umpires, to officiate the game and leave the boundary umpires to throw the ball in and determine if a ball is out or not? In fact instead of getting a fully-qualified field umpire to waste his time throwing a ball up, get one of the four boundary umpires on to do that and the field umpires can keep an eye out