The protected area is the most frustrating rule change since the sub, writes Mark Robinson
WITHOUT doubt it is the most mind-boggling, frustrating and unfair change introduced by the AFL since the farcical sub rule. MARK ROBINSON is not a fan of the contentious protected area.
Mark Robinson
Don't miss out on the headlines from Mark Robinson. Followed categories will be added to My News.
WITHOUT doubt it is the most mind-boggling, frustrating and unfair change introduced by the AFL since the farcical sub rule.
Sydney’s Daniel Hannebery being penalised 50m for being in the exclusion zone in a play at the SCG on Thursday night was the worst decision of the season.
It even tops last weekend’s report of Adelaide skipper Taylor Walker, which he successfully challenged.
FOOTY FUTURE: WHEN SHOULD AFL BRING IN NEW RULES
BUCKENARA: EVERY CLUB’S SEASON ANALYSED
FOOTY FUTURE: WHAT FOOTY WILL LOOK LIKE IN 2019
At least Walker invited a smidgen of scrutiny by thrusting an arm into West Coast’s Luke Shuey chest after Shuey punched/slapped him five times before Walker retaliated.
Hannebery invited zero scrutiny. He was punished for doing everything correctly.
In that instance, the umpire did not have a feel for the game.
From a stoppage at the 11th minute of the tense final quarter - the scores were Geelong 54, Sydney 52 - Sydney’s Luke Parker hacked a kick inside 50m.
As expected, a pack formed to contest the mark.
As he should have, and as he would have been taught since he was a little tacker, Hannebery placed himself front and square for any potential crumb.
RODNEY EADE, JASON CRIPPS, SAM LANDSBERGER AND DANIEL HOYNE DISCUSS THE LOOMING RULE CHANGES FOR 2019
As it happened, Geelong’s Jack Henry took the mark, which made Hannebery’s role obsolete.
As Henry backed back to take his kick, his teammate Jake Kolodjashnij, who was on the left of Hannebery, skirted around the back of Henry looking for a handball.
Hannebery’s mindset changed in a moment, from a potential offensive play to defensive accountability.
He was 5m from Kolodjashnij when he started to run. He raised his arms twice to signal to the umpire he was not trying to obstruct Henry, but when he ran behind the Swans player the umpire blew his whistle for the 50m penalty.
What else could Hannebery do?
Click his fingers and disappear?
The exclusion zone became the exclusion zone when only Henry took the mark, and immediately Hannebery looked for an opponent and started running.
In this case, do the rule makers want Hannebery to run to his left, towards the boundary line, and abandon his instincts to defend?
Surely, the rule was not introduced for situations like the one in which Hannebery found himself.
The rule itself has merit.
In past years, opponents have restricted the player with the ball, which restricted the ball being moved east-west or into the corridor.
As a method to help improve the flow of the game, it has worked.
But this was overkill. We have lost sight of the rule’s intention.
From being ridiculously adjudicated in Round 1, it virtually disappeared by Round 10, but strict adjudication has returned in recent weeks. Little wonder the football community is confused and angered by the lack of consistency in interpretation.
In essence, players not impacting the contest, or not forcing players with the ball to alter their decision-making or movement, are being penalised incorrectly.
The “spirit of the game’’ is important. It has no official place in the rule book, but we ask our players to play in the “spirit of the game’’.
We also expect our umpires to do the same, although the controlling umpire in the Hannebery decision has an out - he was doing his job according to how the AFL wants him to adjudicate.
Still, players, coaches, commentators and fans are perplexed and, if you get the chance, have a look at Hannebery’s incredulous reaction.
Almost everyone had the same reaction when, a couple of minutes later, another Sydney player ran around a Geelong player who had the ball but no penalty was forthcoming.
Geelong champ - and AFLPA president - Patrick Dangerfield told Fox Footy after the game the exclusion zone ruling was a “real challenge’’.
“We as players try to play the game,’’ he said. “Both clips you showed … you’re not showing players trying to disrupt the play.
“It (the rule) is potentially something to look at for 2019 and beyond.’’
On the same telecast, commentator Cameron Mooney said: “I don’t have any idea of the rules at the moment.’’
He added: “It’s destroying our game.’’
The 50m penalty is far too harsh when territory is so important in today’s game.
Maybe when the AFL reviews the rules at the end of the season, it will consider a penalty of 20m
Better still, just penalise players running into the inclusion zone and not those running out of it when a contest is won.
What’s happened to common sense?
Mooney’s commentary was strong and reflective of feeling, although the big fella might have missed the mark himself when he awarded his votes for the game.
He gave Tom Hawkins one, Tim Kelly two and Mitch Duncan three.
Where was Joel Selwood, who was extraordinary in the second half?
With almost everything in footy, including the rules and giving votes, it’s all about one person’s interpretation.
Watch every match of every round of the 2018 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. SIGN UP NOW >
‘In games we give up’: Flag hero savages Dons as board war looms
‘We are no longer feared, we’re certainly not respected’ – Essendon premiership player Paul Weston has had enough. He tells MARK ROBINSON exclusively about his plan for change.
‘We’ve got champions who are zombies’: Mitchell’s plea for help
Last Monday, at just 58, Barry Mitchell was lying in Epworth Hospital wondering if the game he loves had almost killed him again. This is his confronting story the footy world needs to hear.