Well, now we have seen it, one incorrect decision changes the outcome of a game. But what do we see in the media? A cover up.
There is no way you can interpret the rules to not give a 50m penalty to Prestia. The rule ( 19.2(e) ) clearly states that a 50m penalty will be awarded when the opposing player:
has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the Mark or Free Kick;
There is no discretion here, it is very very clear. That was a 50m penalty and it should have been awarded and the umpire's incompetence changed the result of the game. The game was not over as the umpire had not raised his hands to say it was over, therefore, the 50m should have been paid. Plus, there are arguments about the 50m rule being all about time wasting, That is simply wrong, the 50m rule states:
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner
Simply not good enough.
The umpiring was weird last night but I actually think there is another aspect we should be looking at. There have been complaints here about too many free kicks being awarded. Now, it is clear that some of the free kicks were ridiculous, that prohibited contact against Dan Rioli was farcical, and the fact they paid a couple of those last week, got roundly criticised, and then decided to double down this week is revealing. The game is ruled by the morons at AFL House and they will do what they like. But, what really gets me about the high free kick counts in a few games of late is that it isn't so much the number of free kicks but the influence they have. I remember the days when 80-100 free kicks a game was normal. But the difference is that those high numbers of free kicks did not have the influence that 50-60 has today. Part of this is the 50m penalty which is now awarded for very minor infractions and is simply too big a penalty for the infraction, but something else must also be going on because the influence of the umpires has increased even with lower numbers of free kicks paid. Personally I reckon they should pay every free kick they see, but that is not a popular view. Part of this opinion is that if you don't pay them all, how do you decide which frees you don't pay? If there is an infringement pay the free kick, if you think the action should not result in a free kick, change the rules. Plus, the more free kicks are paid the less each bad decision matters because it is 1 bad decision amongst, say 90 free kicks paid, as opposed to 1 bad decision amongst 40 free kicks paid.
Something needs to change. The rules are too complicated and discretionary (even when the actual rule has no discretion, the interpretation seems to allow for discretion, I simply fail to see how kicking it into the crowd is returning the ball on the full). The rules need to be tightened up and simplified. Umpires need to be employed full time and have more training. The current situation is simply a farce.
Before anyone jumps on this, Dimma was right, it should not have come down to that last decision, we should have won regardless given we were ahead by 33 points earlier in the game. But that does not alter the fact that the result of the game changed because of a wrong decision by an umpire at the end of the game.
DS
