Gymnastics should not be an Olympic sport. Nor should diving, or dressage (obviously), or synchronised swimming. This isn’t anything personal against any of those spectacular, highly skilled, and eminently watchable activities (except maybe dressage, which is clearly ridiculous) but the outcome of all of those events is subjective. Subjectivity should have no place in competitive sport. There should be rules, they should be clear, and they should be enforced as efficiently as possible.
Grey areas cause trouble. Peter Nevill legitimately stumped a Sri Lankan batsman recently but received criticism because the action could have been interpreted as contrary to the “Spirit of Cricket”. What Nevill did fell within the laws of the game – laws every player taking the field should have been aware of. Why should anything else matter? There were two umpires on the scene, a third in the grandstand, and a match referee on hand to make sure the rules were being enforced. If there was an issue with the dismissal it’s in the rule itself and how it governs that circumstance, not its exploitation by Nevill.
Footy is burdened by on-field subjectivity. Umpires have an impossible job. So many of the rules they’re required to enforce are matters of interpretation, and they’re expected to do so in a split second, in front of thousands of people, within the context of the match unfolding before them.
The introduction of a stricter interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds rule this year has increased the volume of subjective calls an umpire is required to make. There are on average 1.4 deliberate out of bounds calls per game in 2016, compared to 0.5 per game in 2015.
I endorsed the rule’s success earlier in the season for speeding up play, and there has been a reduction in ball-ins from an average of 42 per game in 2015 to 34 per game in 2016. But as the campaign has progressed I’ve become increasingly concerned. Back in round one I viewed it in general terms; it was a mechanism at an umpire’s disposal to keep the game continuous. I now see it specifically, and worry that a subjective interpretation or two could shape the most open finals campaign in decades.
With only percentage splitting the top three, and two wins separating first from seventh, the margins at stake are wafer thin. It would be a travesty if a subjective appraisal of the bounce of an oddly shaped ball determined a final, or a grand final.
The AFL’s umpires coach Hayden Kennedy said this week: “if you had to put a percentage on it, we’re probably getting 70-80 per cent right”. We can only hope the 20-30 per cent of decisions that are incorrect don’t happen in the dying seconds of a close contest.
There’s no shortage of questionable subjectivity off-field either, a reality highlighted by the bye week airspace being filled by the merits of this year’s All Australian longlist. There is a fascination within footy for handing out subjective garlands that I’ve never understood (medals for home and away games? Really?). The All Australian team is debated so fiercely within the football community and with such finality you’d think something was actually at stake.
And now with such accessible data at our disposal these subjective views are taking on an objective slant. It’s no wonder the AFL Coaches Association’s All Australian 22 carried a press release with the line: “When it comes to the 2016 All-Australian team: everyone has an opinion but very few have an expert opinion!”
Photograph of the week
I’m going to miss Matthew Pavlich’s rhythmical kicking action – that effortless sweet thump of the ball and the momentum lifting his left foot off the ground.
Quote of the week
At the end of the day, AFL is a results-driven industry and we are simply not a competitive football team.
Bob Sharpless delivered the blunt reality of life in Brisbane on Monday after the Lions board voted to sack coach Justin Leppitsch. Leppitsch was an easy target as the face of a football operation that won only three times all season. But it’s clear there are major problems behind the scenes at Brisbane and until they’re resolved it hardly seems to matter who’s occupying the Gabba coaches box.
Bits and bobs
The absence of matches this weekend increases the room for trade speculation. Travis Cloke and Ty Vickery have generated plenty of headlines between them, but other than Dion Prestia nominating Richmond, the major dominoes have yet to fall. Prestia’s teammate at the Suns, Jaeger O’Meara, could be the linchpin of trade week. The former No1 draft pick has requested to leave Gold Coast and the Suns are talking tough about what they want in exchange. They’ve indicated a need for senior bodies, not draft picks, but how much is a player who’s missed two seasons of footy through injury really worth?
On the subject of O’Meara, Gold Coast chairman Tony Cochrane made plain his disappointment last week at his young gun’s desire to move away from Queensland. Cochrane implied the amount of medical care the club offered to rehabilitate their young star should have been a factor in O’Meara’s decision. But what else is a club going to do? Not help a star player recover from knee surgery? Early draft picks are investments, and Gold Coast were protecting theirs when they sent O’Meara to the UK for specialist treatment. In the professional sporting industry I’m not sure that can be viewed as a charitable act deserving of payback.
Another number one pick has been in the news this week and although the Lachie Whitfield situation is an awkward one for everyone involved, it’s interesting to note how long the story had been kept under wraps. In an industry not renowned for keeping secrets of this nature, that this one lasted over a year is eye-catching.
