Staging crackdown

[LostDoggy]

Come on Ernie, humour us

[LostDoggy]

OK. Probably a bulldog player. We are always the first to get stuffed by a new rule/tribunal decision.

The funny thing is they introduce this rule after Matthew Lloyd retires.

[The Adelaide Connection]

The spin on the staging crackdown is that it will be something that will be picked up on the video and a player will be charged from there. The rule hasn't been changed as such, they are just saying they are conscious that it happens and they will start throwing around fines to players that offend.

I am all for this because although the cost of the fines are really just mixed lolly money to the average AFL player, the naming and shaming side of things would carry a lot more weight. No one wants to be labelled a cheat and have their good name tarnished, not even if it gets you to a world cup (Just ask Mr. Henry).

The only concern is if umpires decide to be on the lookout for it in their special "my jocks are too tight and therefore I am desperate to react" kinda way. It is a grey area in the moment (when it's live and you get one look at it) but something that is usually pretty obvious when you have the chance to review it from 700 angles in slow motion etc.

So fingers crossed it does go down this kinda track, where umpires aren't going out of the way to find the offenders but rather pay the obvious ones and let the video review guys drag the others through the mud.

Postscript: Isn't it funny that you can almost pinpoint the individual games that cause certain reviews/changes of the rules eg 2008 GF for the rushed behind, 2009 Prelim for the staging rule.

[AndrewP6]

Not a fan of this one. Far too difficult to prove, and extremely subjective. The monkeys have enough trouble with the current set of rules, let's not further confuse them by adding more.

[LostDoggy]

Postscript: Isn't it funny that you can almost pinpoint the individual games that cause certain reviews/changes of the rules eg 2008 GF for the rushed behind, 2009 Prelim for the staging rule.

I don't think they changed the rule because of the 2009 prelim. The umps, its leader and therefore the AFL think the riewodlt decision was correct. Its more about not trying to look like soccer.

[LostDoggy]

The only concern is if umpires decide to be on the lookout for it in their special "my jocks are too tight and therefore I am desperate to react" kinda way. It is a grey area in the moment (when it's live and you get one look at it) but something that is usually pretty obvious when you have the chance to review it from 700 angles in slow motion etc.

I think it will have the opposite effect. Umps won't be bothered to question with someone is staging or not as they will be dealt with later. Just like what has happen with reports.
Think that something is even close to a free even though it might be staging then pay it.

[Sedat]

I don't think they changed the rule because of the 2009 prelim. The umps, its leader and therefore the AFL think the riewodlt decision was correct. Its more about not trying to look like soccer.

I agree with your general sentiment that this rule change is designed to provide a point of difference against soccer, but if the Riewoldt decision really was correct, why didn't Shane McInernay get a gig in the GF when he was voted the most outstanding umpire for the season? Surely if he made the 'courageous and correct call', he would have been rewarded with a GF berth. It will never be admitted publicly by the AFL, but I have no doubt that behind closed doors they know it was a rotten decision hence their star umpire for the season was dropped for the GF. What that pinhead Gieschen says in his pressers after a match to defend the indefensible is nothing more than window dressing for the public record. The reality is that it was an utterly garbage decision, whether it happened in a prelim, in a NAB Cup match, in Round 1, or on a suburban ground, and as sure as my arse points to the ground such a decision will never be paid again.

The absurdity of the staging free kick rule is that it has been introduced purely as a reaction against other recently introduced rules that have incentivised the practice of staging ('hands in the back' is a classic example). These new rules have given a gilt-edged opportunity to reward to the stagers who can get away with the practice and benefit their team in the process. That is why you get a 100kg giant like Riewoldt, who can keep his feet under the fiercest of pressure in a pack of 6 gorillas, falling over as if he has been shot when barely brushed by his opponent directly in front of goal at a critical moment of an extremely tight cut-throat final.

[LostDoggy]

I agree with your general sentiment that this rule change is designed to provide a point of difference against soccer, but if the Riewoldt decision really was correct, why didn't Shane McInernay get a gig in the GF when he was voted the most outstanding umpire for the season? Surely if he made the 'courageous and correct call', he would have been rewarded with a GF berth. It will never be admitted publicly by the AFL, but I have no doubt that behind closed doors they know it was a rotten decision hence their star umpire for the season was dropped for the GF. What that pinhead Gieschen says in his pressers after a match to defend the indefensible is nothing more than window dressing for the public record. The reality is that it was an utterly garbage decision, whether it happened in a prelim, in a NAB Cup match, in Round 1, or on a suburban ground, and as sure as my arse points to the ground such a decision will never be paid again.

The absurdity of the staging free kick rule is that it has been introduced purely as a reaction against other recently introduced rules that have incentivised the practice of staging ('hands in the back' is a classic example). These new rules have given a gilt-edged opportunity to reward to the stagers who can get away with the practice and benefit their team in the process. That is why you get a 100kg giant like Riewoldt, who can keep his feet under the fiercest of pressure in a pack of 6 gorillas, falling over as if he has been shot when barely brushed by his opponent directly in front of goal at a critical moment of an extremely tight cut-throat final.

You might be right. I doubt this rule will discourage the Riewodlt type incidents and no one would dare punish that type of incident.
I think McInerney got dropped cos he encouraged Riewodlt to stage, add to that all the other crap on the night.

Please look at the AFL guideline incident on this, they are so obvious staging that the umps didn't give them a free and were penalised enough by looking like a goose.

[bornadog]

Is there a difference between staging and exaggerating, in other words, many times players make the free kick look obvious by exaggerating the fall or push etc, but the free was there anyway? How will these ones be handled, as I think Johnno falls into this category.

[The Adelaide Connection]

I don't think they changed the rule because of the 2009 prelim. The umps, its leader and therefore the AFL think the riewodlt decision was correct. Its more about not trying to look like soccer.

Well "changed the rule" is the wrong wording on this one (I meant it more for the GF example) but what that game did do was get a lot of people talking and there was a lot of debate about that incident. They came out and gave the angle that the correct decision had been made, but I don't think the average football fan would agree. Personally I was amazed at how many impartial people came up to me and were furious about it in the following days.

The timing of the new policy seems like a coincidence and, like with the rushed behind example, I am sure there are probably countless other examples where other incidents have occurred but this particular one was the one that got people talking.

[LostDoggy]

Well "changed the rule" is the wrong wording on this one (I meant it more for the GF example) but what that game did do was get a lot of people talking and there was a lot of debate about that incident. They came out and gave the angle that the correct decision had been made, but I don't think the average football fan would agree. Personally I was amazed at how many impartial people came up to me and were furious about it in the following days.

The timing of the new policy seems like a coincidence and, like with the rushed behind example, I am sure there are probably countless other examples where other incidents have occurred but this particular one was the one that got people talking.

It got people talking for a few days like incidents every week. It was forgotten by the football world quickly afterwards.

[The Adelaide Connection]

It got people talking for a few days like incidents every week. It was forgotten by the football world quickly afterwards.

Maybe so, but the bigger the game (and it's outcome on that game) the bigger the weight it holds. There were probably dozens of other "staging" incidents through the year but I contend that it was the prelim one that made them add it to the list of things to review.

FWIW I think that if the circumstances were reversed and we had beaten the flag favourite Saints then the fallout would be more than a couple of days. We were expected to lose and we don't exactly shift papers like some other clubs do. God help us all if Collingwood were the club it affected and they missed a GF spot

[LostDoggy]

I just heard on the radio that Kane Cornes has been officially warned by the match review panel for diving.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...0420-srpx.html

[comrade]

I just heard on the radio that Kane Cornes has been officially warned by the match review panel for diving.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...0420-srpx.html

Alan Didak just breathed a sigh of relief that he wasn't the first.

[mighty_west]

I just heard on the radio that Kane Cornes has been officially warned by the match review panel for diving.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...0420-srpx.html

He should have already been pinged in the NAB Cup when Aker brushed him with a feather.