Port Adelaide head coach Ken Hinkley and St Kilda steward Ross Lyon have sought clarity from the league's umpires following their Friday night arm-wrestle under the Marvel Stadium roof.

Both Hinkley and Lyon used their respective post-game press conferences to question certain forms of adjudiction in the wake of the old-fashioned hark back that saw one-on-one contests prove the order of the night.

Though the contest was one that Hinkley praised, claiming that both teams had a genuine crack, the veteran Port coach and his opposite number were left puzzled by decisions paid in both directions.

Crossing the border without a number of starting stars, the Power may have claimed a seven-point, against-the-odds win, but the final free kick count told a different story, with the visitors conceding 28 and earning just 14 back the other way.

Despite his side's ability to earn the rub of the green from the men in green, Lyon still had qualms, pressing that he remained confused about laws surrounding players stepping off their mark following marks or free kicks.

Twice on the night St Kilda's last line coughed up important goals after a Josh Battle kick was smothered by Port spearhead Charlie Dixon and Callum Wilkie was mown down from another short Battle kick.

Speaking to the media as the dust settled, Lyon sought further clarity for what he percieved to be a flexible interpretation of the rule.

โ€œI had a discussion with the umpires during the week about that stepping of the line - it didn't even look like he (Battle) stepped off it,โ€ Lyon was quoted byย News Corp.

โ€œI rang (umpiring boss) Dan Richardson during the week because there was one on Benny Paton (against Carlton last week).

โ€œIt's really interesting that half-a-step play on so, not that I'm bluing, I think we just need some clarity because it feels like it's really been tightened up.

โ€œAnd the rule is a bit old, so you're supposed to go line of goals from wherever you are on the ground, so I'd like that clarified because that hurt us.

โ€œThere were a couple last week in the Carlton game, there was probably seven or eight on both teams ... there was one I said, โ€˜He hasn't moved'.

โ€œWe're just trying to get our head around it a little bit.โ€

Ironically, Hinkley's headaches largely came at the same end of the ground, as his patchwork forward line were often appeared to be held off the ball or stimyed in marking contests.

Across the course of the opening seven rounds of the season, Port Adelaide have drawn the ire of the umpires, sitting -52 in free-kick differential.

Though conceding umpires had a tough gig, Hinkley too used his time at the lecturn to seek a two-way conversation with the umpiring community.

โ€œI'm not an umpire bagger or whinger about (umpiring), but at the moment we're a long way in front with the free-kick count against,โ€ Hinkley added.

โ€œIt would be nice to get some clarity from the umpires back to us if we're that poor at some of the things that we're doing, I'd just love to get that direction coming back our way because I don't want to go searching for it.

โ€œIn a two-way conversation I think it would be nice to feel why we've given away 20-plus more free kicks for holding the man in this competition six rounds in โ€“ that's a big number. A big, big number.

โ€œThat gives up 300-400 metres in a game of football. We're aware of it, we work at it, but we seem to keep on doing it so we must have something wrong with the umpiring of the game.โ€

Neither the league, nor Umpire's boss Dan Richardson, have issued any form of statement in the wake of Hinkley and Lyon's comments.

 

1 COMMENT

  1. it’s illuminating that the coaches do not know what the umpires are doing… and that free kicks are either given or not given seemingly in contradiction to how the coaches understand the rules of the game.

    I would suggest that the same is true for the fans who attend the games or watch them on tv – that is, those who actually pay for the game.

    It is also obvious that the players themselves do not know why free kicks are given (or not given) or why other “decisions” are made… but we should highlight that they are punished if they express this under the ridiculous “dissent” rule.

    With ALL other parties at odds with the umpires it is more than reasonable to conclude that the umpires have it wrong.

    Given the above – it would seem logical that rather than “clarification” what we really need is for the umpiring system to be completely reviewed and simply fixed….. from the Rule committee to the umpiring coaches to the umpires themselves.

    At the moment – it is simply too easy to assume that the umpires are corrupt, and are protected form scrutiny regarding that perception…. or that the afl is re-forming the game into a soap opera………

    The “dissent rule” and the gag on coaches/clubs criticizing the umpires (having to use the “we do not understand” approach) is ample evidence of this.

Comments are closed.