It is I think common ground among people who follow AFL that ‘holding the ball’ is the most controversial rule.  A decision on that rule effectively ended a preliminary final that was as good a game in any sport that I have seen.  For the purpose of this note, I will assume you know the moment and the discussion.  If you live in Melbourne, it would be hard to have missed it.

In any game as hard and tight as this one, where people are in an elevated zone of their own, that most of us never get near, the result is determined by chance – it depends on where you were when the carousel finally stopped turning, and put people out of their agony. 

And that comes after two hours of effort at the highest level of fitness, skill, endurance and character, and multitudes of conflicts that could have gone either way.  And of umpiring decisions that could have gone either way.  To pick one out as determinative, just because it happened on the bell, looks to me to be like saying if my aunt had wheels, she would be a bike. 

History may be said to be written by the winners, but the enduring fallacy to be avoided by those who record past events is to think that because something happened, it had to happen.  History turns on what people do, and so much turns on pure chance – from conception and birth to death.

But then came the post mortems – and the vitriol.  As usual, no one took a forensic approach.  What evidence do we have of the relevant events?  What are the rules that apply to this kind of play?  What is the conclusion to draw from looking at the evidence against the wording of the rule?

According to Wikipedia, the relevant rules are as follows.

• 18.6.2 Holding the ball: Prior Opportunity – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
• 18.6.3 Holding the ball: Incorrect Disposal– Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
  • (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football
  • (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
• 18.6.4 Holding the ball: No Genuine Attempt – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.

Now, when I saw the incident live, the umpire’s decision looked to me to have been correct – and its impact on the match and its result were not considerations that it would have been appropriate for him to consider.  In a forensic inquiry, those matters were simply not relevant.

Applying the rule, it looks to me that a player in possession of the football, who had not had a prior opportunity, did not make a genuine attempt to correctly to dispose of the football within a reasonable time when legally tackled.

If it matters, the state of play indicates a motivation not to dispose of the ball.

At least, such a finding was open to the umpire. You could not say no reasonable umpire could have so decided.

People said the decision was courageous.  But the umpire would have been open to be seen to be giving in to a partisan home crowd had the significance of the moment deterred him from doing his job.

The police have issued fines to people throwing bottles or cans at the umpires.  I would be prepared to allow some of my taxes to go toward giving them a week or so off, and not at the Pullman Hotel.  It was despicable and cowardly, and locking some up would seem to me to be a definitive case of deterrence.

But never follow the rugby example of allowing in-match reviews.  They have marred both forms of rugby and they do not put any end to partisan friction.  As it happened, the discussion of the AFL incident came when a penalty in Rugby League caused an umpire to be sacked.  Four commentators found it hard to reach a common view after protracted slow motion replays.  But the game is not played in slow motion, and in this instance, the replay was misleading.  They need to have something like the ‘umpire’s call’ in cricket.  And it would be unthinkable to stop play so near to the end.

Full disclosure – I am a Melbourne supporter who still has a lesion on his psyche over a decision by an umpire that cost Melbourne a final against Hawthorn in the dim and distant past (1987).  I still feel pain and shock when I look back upon it.

Well, although the drama is wonderful, footy is, after all, supposed to be a game, and we are brought up with it to learn how to deal with chance in the ups and downs of our small time on earth.

The oldest hath borne most: we that are young

Shall never see so much, nor live so long.