So the losing coach, Alastair Clarkson, is not happy about changed rule interpretations in finals and offers it as the explanation for his team’s straight-sets exit.
The umps changed the rules on us.
That old furphy.
The usually slightly more rational coach cited the Hawks’ tackle count of 104 and the fact they won only three free kicks for incorrect disposal as evidence the Hawks needed to get with a new program.
“The game’s changed in terms of interpretation,” he said.
“How can you lay 104 tackles and not even 20 of them be done for holding the ball, for incorrect disposal?
“That’s where the game has changed a bit in terms of interpretation so we’ll have to get better in that aspect.
“That is a significant change in terms of how the game’s been umpired.”
So the Hawks now need to rethink their game style, the approach that delivered the previous three premierships.
Really? The darned umpires did that?
In footy a lot of rationalising goes on after the event.
In this case the received wisdom has been that the Hawks consistently lost the contested possession count—that is, their opponents were better at winning the ball in the first place—but were superior at turning it over through tackling pressure and then keeping it and scoring.
So Clarkson was saying that when the umpires suddenly failed to reward tackles, the Hawks’ game fell apart.
This is not the first time umpires have been accused of either unilaterally changing the rules or responding to secret instructions from the AFL.
It’s a constant theme through every season.
The umpires deny anything of the sort, of course, because it’s irrational, but that doesn’t stop the accusers from screaming “They’ve changed the rules!”
Despite appearances—and contrary to popular opinion—this is not what happens.
Last Friday night’s semi final was a compelling contest, especially in the ferocious midfield skirmishes, but while the Hawks lost the free kick count 14–19, I defy anyone to identify 17 incorrect disposal free kicks to Hawthorn missed by the umpires (I noticed only one, a non-call against Luke Breust in the first term).
Along with some hasty misinterpretation of the statistics by a coaching panel peering through the prism of defeat, I suggest that two factors are at play here.
Firstly, the higher the stakes of a game, the more the umpires seek to minimise their own influence.
Match officials in any sport want the players to decide the outcome, especially in season-defining games.
These umpires are at the pinnacle of their sport. No one wants to be responsible for a mistake, let alone a contentious call that may decide a final.
So they don’t want to have to overly insert themselves into the game (however it might look to the bores who constantly accuse them of doing so).
The result is that they tend to blow their whistles less.
Pure figures can never tell the whole story in a sport with so many variables, but this finals series the umpires have paid an average of three fewer free kicks per game compared with the regular season—a 16 per cent reduction.
Has this contributed to the intensely contested nature of the finals so far?
It feels that way.
Grand Finals are usually high-intensity pitched battles, in part because the umpires want to let the players play. They resist calling the incidental contact free kicks that break up play and pay only the blatant infringements.
Losing coaches have been blaming umpiring calls since time immemorial.
Grand Finals are almost invariably considered to be “well umpired”.
The second factor is that umpires also respond to the constant pleas—from all and sundry—for consistency.
“All we want is consistency,” demand coaches and fans of the officials whose job it is to interpret a game in which no two events are ever identical.
Whether the calls early in a game are lenient or strict on a particular infringement, the umpires instinctively strive to maintain that interpretation throughout.
It explains why in one game we might see, for example, seven deliberate out-of-bounds calls and in the next game none.
It’s not a question of changing the rules, but of umpires responding to the early play and trying to stay consistent.
If nervous umpires are quick to whistle for incidental high contact at the first contest, you can bet they will be red-hot on that for the entire game (and probably spoil the contest).
And if they let the early 50/50 calls go—as is their inclination in finals—they’ll let them go all game, too.
Now it’s understandable that in the aftermath of a historic defeat a coach is sensitive to every perceived injustice.
Losing coaches have been blaming umpiring calls since time immemorial.
But for Clarkson to suggest Hawthorn needs a new game plan based on the free kick statistics of one losing final is a big stretch.
He might be the coach of the millennium so far but he’s dropped the ball on this one.
In this week’s Brownlow Medal special of SEN Inside Football…
- We profile the top hopes to help you find the winner. Which games will they poll well in? When were they well held?
- Could there be a boil-over? Our Brownlow computer is predicting a night of drama and shocks.
- If your team can’t win the Grand Final, you may as well win the debates. Burkey provides you with your September argument starters.
- And Terry Wallace explains why the most successful clubs make the best recruiting decisions.
Check out www.aflplayerratings.com.au. The absolute form guide to every AFL player. If you want to check out the form of someone likely to be traded to your club or suss out your Brownlow pick this is the website for you.
