Talking Footy

Why aren't Swans protected?
Comment by Tim Morrissey
May 11, 2007 12:00
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/ ... 23,00.html

AFL umpires boss Jeff Gieschen released his "protected species" list this week and, not surprisingly, there were no Sydney Swans players on it.

West Coast captain and Brownlow medallist Chris Judd is on the list to be granted special protection from taggers by the umpires this season.

So is Port Adelaide midfielder Shaun Burgoyne, Adelaide halfback Andrew McLeod, Brownlow medallists Robert Harvey and Simon Black, West Coast midfielder Daniel Kerr, Kangaroos goal-hunter Brent Harvey and Geelong forward Gary Ablett Jr.

Even 19-year-old Collingwood rising star Dale Thomas, who has barely been in the AFL long enough for a cup of coffee to go cold, is now considered a protected species.

But not Swans dual Brownlow medallist Adam Goodes – despite the fact defenders wear him like a glove.

And what about Swans spearhead Barry Hall? Even Geischen has admitted in the past that his umps weren't giving Hall a fair go in the free kick department.

Despite claiming to have addressed this situation it still appears defenders can often get away with using blunt force trauma to stop the Swans' menacing centre half-forward.

The only way Goodes or Hall would make a protected species list is to lobby the World Wildlife Fund.

Gieschen's justification of certain players receiving special treatment from the umps is pretty flimsy.

"All those pure ball players who are often the subjects of very close checking," Gieschen said this week. "Where that close checking becomes an infringement we want the umpires to award free kicks to the ball players. If a tagging player is playing close and tight we don't have a problem with that.

"Last year and this year umpires have got a lot better at paying free kicks to ball players who are being held off the ball by opponents."

The AFL and Gieschen might claim that all players are equal but it's becoming increasingly clearer that is not the case.

Gieschen is virtually declaring war on taggers who try and get an unfair advantage by infringing the rules.

But bad luck if, like Goodes or Hall, you are not one of the chosen players on the protected species list.

You're not as important as a Judd or a Kerr so the umps won't be paying you the same attention when it comes to looking at any infringements from the defenders.

And the AFL wonders why coaches blow up about double standards and inconsistencies when it comes to umpires.

Umpire boss admits Hall's raw deal
By Jenny McAsey
June 04, 2007
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html

UMPIRES manager Jeff Gieschen has admitted to Sydney Swans that its spearhead Barry Hall is getting a rough deal under the new rule interpretations.

On Saturday night Hall, who was double-teamed by Essendon's Mal Michael and Dustin Fletcher, was heavily penalised in 50-50 contests for the ball.

He had four free-kicks awarded against him and has now become the most penalised player in the AFL, with 21 against him for the season compared to 10 in his favour.

As he did in 2004, Gieschen has told the Swans Hall has had unwarranted free-kicks paid against him, while not receiving enough protection from the umpires.

Sydney coach Paul Roos said yesterday Gieschen made the admission three weeks ago.

The Swans had sought an explanation from Gieschen following the round seven game against St Kilda in which Hall was penalised for pushing when his opponent James Gwilt fell out of contests for the ball.

After Saturday's 11.8 (74) to 11.7 (73) loss to Essendon when Hall kicked just one goal, Roos said it appeared no action had been taken.

"We spoke to Jeff a couple of weeks ago about the situation. He said he was disappointed and said, 'Yeah, we are aware of it and there should have been a few more free-kicks (for Hall)'. But nothing has changed," Roos said.

Hall's treatment was first raised with the umpires department in 2003. The issue has now become embroiled in Roos' general disappointment with new rule interpretations, which he says are reducing the level of physical contact in the game. He was scathing after Saturday's match about the new "hands in the back" interpretation.

"This issue is not isolated to Barry. What I am trying to get across is that it is unfortunate where the game is heading, regardless of whether it is Barry Hall or Richmond's Matty Richardson or whoever," Roos said.

"Maybe the AFL wants Gaelic footy, so just let us know because we are going to have to change the way we recruit and coach."

Roos said the SCG crowd, who booed for more than five minutes after the game, summed up the frustration. "It is going to drive people out of footy and that is the bottom line," he said.

AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson denied the league wanted to take the physicality out of the game.

"The interpretation is designed to encourage great marking contests rather than players pushing. And if you watch the ferocity of contests at ground level, it is far from a non-contact sport," Anderson said.

But on Saturday, to the loud frustration of the 26,000 people at the SCG, it appeared soft contact penalties were being awarded in 50-50 contests, rather than umpires letting it go.

Several times players were rewarded by the umpires after they were pushed in the side or when they went to ground in a fight for the ball. Essendon's James Hird received four free-kicks, mostly around the stoppages.

Hall, an exciting power forward when he is in full flight, was penalised for what appeared to be only hip and shoulder contact against Michael, and on another occasion was denied a goal after he and the Essendon player grappled in the goal square.

Michael fell away from the contest, while Hall kicked a goal. However the umpire ruled Hall had pushed Michael out and he was given a free-kick and 50m penalty.

The contact interpretations also concerned some of football's best judges, premiership player and coach Malcolm Blight and former Brisbane captain Michael Voss.

After Sydney's Adam Goodes was penalised for a slight body nudge on his opponent Mark Bolton (which resulted in a goal to Bolton), recently retired champion Voss lamented the current rules on body contact.

"It doesn't promote strong bodies. It promotes you to fall over," Voss said during his television commentary.

Blight added: "You are allowed to lean on people. It is a contact sport."

Hard-headed Swans midfielder Jude Bolton said, from his close-up vantage point, the physicality of the game was being reduced.

"Quite often the whistle is blown and you just don't know exactly what it is for," Bolton said.

"I would prefer to see really physical contests and sometimes you think that is diminishing."

Bolton said he had told an AFL Players Association meeting at the start of the year he was worried he was going to be part of an era where the sport got softer. "You just want to see two big forwards going hell for leather at the ball and I don't want to see it go out of the game," he said.