The umpire problem

by ESMOND PITT

The problem with the status of umpires is not of recent origin. It is in fact endemic to Australian Rules as run by the AFL/VFL.

The culture of the game has always regarded umpires as a necessary evil, rather than as the cornerstone of law, the fount of justice, and the final authority on matters of fact. This is manifested in a number of ways: The umpires have little authority. They have no order-off rule. They have a whistle, a report book, and Brownlow votes. They are apparently expected to keep out of player's way rather than vice versa. They are treated as witnesses rather than prosecutors at the weekly kangaroo court known as the tribunal. (Although the tribunal is administered by QCs it is a legal shambles, as numerous reports over the years have pointed out, and its continued existence in more or less the same form is astonishing to observe: there is no clearly defined prosecuting function; umpires are treated only as fallible witnesses.)

The authority of the umpires is literally divided. There are three field umpires (Kevin Sheedy wants five.) There are also two boundary umpires, two goal umpires, and, in effect, a "video umpire". Any of these personnel can write reports. The only possible effect of this system is to undermine the authority of the individual umpire.

On the other hand, one field umpire doesn't seem to be enough, although it was for a 100 years. In principle, the lack of an offside rule allows the ball to travel down the field as fast as it can be kicked, rather than as fast as the players can run while remaining onside. This implies that an umpire won't be able to keep up with the ball, any more than a player can. It's questionable whether three field umpires is really necessary, with its inevitable division of authority and confusion. (It is also questionable whether goal umpires are necessary at all. As far as I can see, having done it myself, goal umpires are located in the worst possible place to judge whether a ball has gone between the posts: the person who kicked it is in the correct position to judge that.

The rules of the game are not enforced. Interpretations vary from season to season and often from week to week. There are a number of reasons for this.

The rules are mutually contradictory: (i) a free kick or mark can be taken as a handball or a bounce-and-run ("play-on" rule); (ii) the "advantage" rule entitles an umpire not to pay a free kick at any time. (The presence of the play-on and advantage rules relate strongly to the lack of an offside rule, which contribute to the anarchy of the game and the difficulty of umpiring it. This is not to be taken as a recommendation for an off-side rule, just an analysis of the effect of its absence.)

Free kicks and marks could be required to be taken as kicks, as the name suggests. The advantage rule could be replaced by a free kick at the current location of the ball. Some of the rules are unnecessary. Consider the "charging" rule. A player with the ball he can be tackled: a charge is not a tackle. A player without the ball he can be shepherded if within 5 metres of the ball: charging is not shepherding. Therefore a charge is an illegal action because it is not permitted by the rules of the game. The actual rule against charging is therefore redundant. The player can be reported for unduly rough play.

Some of the rules, eg "round the neck", "holding the ball", "holding the man", are enforced very rarely in proportion to the dozens of infringements seen in any match. In effect, the AFL produces a "spectacle" rather than a contest with predictable rules which are easy to enforce. Most interventions by an umpire detract from the spectacle and hence are unwelcome to players and spectators.

Compare soccer in all these respects. Compare also billiards and snooker, which have the following marvellous rule: "the referee is the sole judge of fact". Compare also tennis, which, despite being a very highly-paid professional sport, and despite lapses by certain individuals, does manifest the underlying recognition that the game only makes sense if played according to the rules, rather than whatever you can get away with.

I don't know what can be done about all this, because so much of it is built into the game, which is an anarchic athletic spectacle rather than an exercise of skill within a tightly constrained framework: probably this is much of its undoubted appeal.

As a first step I'd suggest that the umpire's word should literally be law: as in soccer, he should have a yellow card, a red card, and an order-off rule. Reported incidents should be taken at the umpire's word, and should carry automatic penalties, for which the tribunal should only be an appeals body. The tribunal should be run by judges, probably retired, not by QCs.

All this works far better in soccer, which is the obvious model to follow. I'd further suggest that a good look at the rules is in order, as they really don't correspond to the game as it is actually played. I would also suggest that having five, or 18, umpires is obviously another step in the wrong direction.

23 May 2001

australianrules.com.au

Disclaimer