Melbourne’s Jacob Van Rooyen has his legs taken from under him by Carlton’s Alex Cincotta. Picture: CHANNEL 7

Americans exposed to Australian football have often remarked that in Aussie Rules, the only rule is that “there are no rules”.

It sounds incredibly naive to those of us who grew up with the game and who know that, not only are there plenty rules, the AFL is forever adding to them And tweaking and redefining them.

Yet a visitor to the MCG last Saturday night could have been forgiven for adopting the “no rules at all” stance.

Consider that with less than three minutes left and the game in the balance, Melbourne forward Jacob Van Rooyen took possession near the boundary line in the forward 50. Carlton’s Alex Cincotta pitched himself towards Van Rooyen’s ankles and swept his legs from under him.

Little could demonstrate the hypocrisy of the AFL more than the fact nothing has been made of the umpire’s decision after that incident to settle for a boundary throw-in.

Hypocrisy? Yes, because despite all the talk about harmful tackles, the sanctity of the “noggin” and player welfare, Cincotta’s lunge went unpenalised despite its potential to cause serious injury.

Then Sydney star Dan Hannebery’s 2016 grand final ended when a below-the-knee lunge by the Western Bulldogs’ Easton Wood left him with a strained medial ligament. The difference in that case was that Wood actually won possession, and Hannebery’s leg was briefly trapped under Wood’s body.

Only luck ensured that something similar did not befall young Demon Van Rooyen. As Hannebery later remarked: “If both players are standing on their feet and someone gets hurt, that’s bad luck. But if someone slides in and chops the legs out, no matter who it is and no matter where it is, it has to be a free kick.”

In this instance, all four umpires ignored one of the oldest rules in the book, against tripping one’s opponent. Perhaps they also missed viewing the official AFL video about the ban on “forceful contact below the knees”.

There were many more such non-decisions on Saturday night, particularly those not rewarding the tackler for failure to properly dispose of the ball, which justifiably angered supporters of both teams at different times.

Max Gawn, too, was blocked off the ball as he strove to make one last marking contest in front of goal in the dying seconds. All in the spirit of “putting the whistle away” in a game of finals-like intensity.

But what really riled me was what happened at Marvel Stadium the following afternoon.

Consider the free kick which led to Max King’s fourth goal for St Kilda when his Saints took on the Tigers. It came from a simple contest with Richmond’s Dylan Grimes 24 minutes into the second quarter.

As King followed the ball’s flight, Grimes, approaching from an angle, made contact with an arm intended to impede King.

The contact itself was so fleeting that from one view it wasn’t discernible. From another angle, there was the merest hint of a jumper tug, but none of this would warrant a penalty in basketball. Yet it was paid a free kick, directly in front of goal near the goal square. Such a “gimme” the umpire could have kicked it himself.

But once you start examining umpiring inconsistencies, there are always more. Early this year, with the AFL determining dissent to an umpire’s decision was intolerable, a 50-metre penalty could be imposed for little more than a raised eyebrow. Certainly two arms held out in a “what was that?” gesture was a guaranteed penalty. Until it was not.

PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE TO THRIVE BY BECOMING AN OFFICIAL FOOTYOLOGY PATRON. JUST CLICK THIS LINK.

In the same round as the Van Rooyen and Grimes-King decisions, Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard performed a master class in dissent. Not without cause perhaps, after Geelong star Jeremy Cameron was awarded a mark seemingly taken about three rows of seats behind the fence.

Nonetheless, Maynard turned it on in various ways, an expression of disbelief in the immediate aftermath followed by an encore seasoned with outrage on viewing the replay. He even had teammate Nathan Murphy chime in with a supporting role. Back in autumn, this was a certain penalty. Not so now.


Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard disputes the mark awarded to Geelong’s Jeremy Cameron. Photo: AFL MEDIA

Carlton suffered multiple penalties for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play in those frenetic last minutes on Saturday. But a couple of weeks ago that rule appeared to have been shelved after several unfortunate decisions where players were penalised because the ball bounced awkwardly from a regulation kick downfield.

Surely everyone associated with the game knows the oval ball plays tricks. Had everyone forgotten the “Milne bounce” in the 2010 grand final?

After a series of over-zealous interpretations, it seemed “insufficient intent” underwent a rethink. At least last Saturday night it has to be said, the umpires had it right. But why so many rules of our game are from time to time deemed optional is the real issue.

It is not good enough to demand respect for the officials and yet allow the rules to be applied inconsistently. Other codes do not have this issue. Of course, if there were fewer rule changes from year to year, unforeseen consequences, and their subsequent adjustments, would be unnecessary.

The problem in part is the AFL’s multiple roles. It is the self-appointed guardian of the game, while simultaneously administrator of the game’s elite competition. As the game has professionalised on the back of television exposure, the AFL is also in the entertainment business with a product to sell. (The success of the Matildas, incidentally, will only increase the pressure on “the product”).

Among its guiding principles for the laws of the game the AFL states: “Continuous and free flowing football is encouraged ahead of repetitive short passages of play.”

This is where the AFL’s concerns around entertainment cut in, but it has meant long-held and well-understood rules about proper disposal of the ball are overlooked and the thing called “prior opportunity” is subject to regular rethinks. As is the old “hands in the back” rule. Keep this up and the game’s inherent credibility will be undermined.

The AFL needs to ask itself how it wants the game officiated and impose that standard, not shift it within seasons, or from week to week, or, as we saw last week, within the duration of a single round.

Surely, we should not accept games between teams with finals on the line being umpired differently. There should be one standard for all umpires to aspire to, at least. And instead of gagging comment on officiating, outright howlers need to be owned, publicly and openly, so a standard is recognised.

Ian Munro is the author of ‘Between The Flags – Making Sense or 57 Years of Heartache’ which covers the period from Melbourne’s golden era to its drought-busting 2021 premiership, including the impact of country zoning on the VFL. www.betweentheflags57.com.au