Many a thing contributes to the fate of a closely fought contest. A missed tackle here, a shanked shot on goal there. Seldom can one event be viewed as a determinant in isolation. But where human error on the part of players is recognised, even celebrated, as part of footy’s rich tapestry, we should be less accepting of it when it comes to adjudication.
Though a potpourri of events had led Geelong and Brisbane to where they were in the final moments on Friday night, the fact of the matter is umpire Rob O’Gorman’s horrendous non-call decided the match. Trailing by two points, the Lions should have been awarded a free-kick and a straightforward set shot for one of the most obvious holding-the-ball tackles you will see.
In the event Brisbane forward Zac Bailey went unrewarded, the ball was rushed through for a behind and the Cats prevailed by the narrowest margin the sport has to offer. Whether O’Gorman was blindsided – or, more likely, bottled it – is neither here nor there. Of less relevance is the truism umpiring at AFL level is a bloody hard job. We have known that for some time and it is only getting harder.
If anything, the scope for monumental, decisive error on the part of whistleblowers makes the argument for helpful intervention even more compelling. Not that either club will live or die by it, but the course of both Geelong’s and Brisbane’s seasons have been altered by Friday’s umpiring blunder. Imagine the head scratching were something like this to happen in a final or, worse still, a grand final.
It might well be time for the AFL to consider the implementation of a decision review system. What is the worst thing that could happen? It chews up time? It interrupts the flow of the match? The score review system achieves that and we seem happy enough to sit through the rock-and-roll of replays to (mostly) arrive at the correct decision.
The AFL’s umpiring department already conducts a forensic review of each round, so why not do it in real time if called upon? Dan Richardson, the AFL’s head of umpiring, is on record as saying O’Gorman got it wrong in Geelong. If the game is happy to accept such a ruling in retrospect, by rights we should demand it as and when a clear shocker is made.
1. gets pinged for holding the ball
— 7AFL (@7AFL) March 26, 2021
2. ump doesn't pay holding the ball for his tackle
Poor Zac Bailey... pic.twitter.com/Qh6v6L6u2K
The concept of an upstairs umpire would be repellent to purists of the sport, just as the DRS in cricket, VAR in football or the bunker in the NRL might once have been considered radical or even intrusive. But – love them or hate them, and the sentiment is mostly the latter – they are now part and parcel of their respective sports. In the AFL, the point would be to mitigate against the howler, not the 50-50 call that could go either way and is open to interpretation.
Where there are areas of grey, deference must always go the way of the on-field umpire’s call. The AFL’s approach to score reviews states “the reviewer must be clearly satisfied that there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to overturn a decision”. It is an ideology that can, and should, also be applied to adjudications made by field and boundary umpires.
By affording each team one review per game – or even leaving intervention solely in the hands of the video umpire – decisions that should be overturned, like the one that denied Brisbane a shot at victory on Friday night, would be overturned. At a time when the AFL is thinking outside the square in its approach to rules of the game, it could do worse than extend its progressive methodology to areas of the game’s arbitration.
O’Gorman’s blunder was not the only incident to pique the interest of AFL officials at GMHBA Stadium. Gary Rohan’s hit on Lachie Neale lit a fuse between the two teams, leading to a stand-off at quarter time between Lions players and Geelong coach, Chris Scott. It also provides an interesting contrast to Patrick Dangerfield’s brush with authority a round earlier.
Neale waved three fingers in Rohan’s direction after he was felled by the Geelong player in an off-the-ball strike, suggesting Rohan could expect three matches on the sidelines. Neale was a week out in his prediction, with the former Sydney Swans forward offered a two-game suspension by Michael Christian, the AFL’s match review officer.
Should Rohan accept his punishment – Geelong might yet elect to appeal the decision – it would represent a lighter penalty than the one imposed on Dangerfield for his bump on Jake Kelly that left the Adelaide defender with concussion and a broken nose. The MRO’s logic can be perplexing at the best of times, but Christian’s grading of the Rohan hit – intentional conduct, medium impact, high contact – will have raised many an eyebrow.
If Dangerfield got three games for an incident that at least could be argued was accidental, then Rohan should be facing similar for what can only be labelled a deliberate act of violence. Not that Scott sees it that way. “I had a pretty good look at what Gary did and I’m comfortable with it,” the Cats coach said, echoing his words in defence of Dangerfield one week earlier. At least Scott made sense when pressed on O’Gorman’s mistake: “It’s a hard game to umpire.” It sure is. Might it be time to help them?
