STUART WENN officiated 341 games between 1995-2014. He writes this column for AFL.com.au and the AFL Record.

OVER the past two decades, the professionalism of AFL football has grown exponentially. 

Football departments are better resourced with specialist coaches, nutritionists, sports scientists and psychologists.

But one area that has not been maximised is understanding the laws of the game and how this impacts a team's game-plan, tactics and skill execution.

I decided to look at how teams can improve by reducing free kicks 'against' and potentially increase free kicks 'for' to give players and their team an added advantage over their opposition.

After round 20, the average free kicks paid in an AFL game this season was 39.6.

The highest number was 63 in the round 18 clash between Adelaide and Geelong, while the lowest was 21 (Gold Coast v Geelong in round seven).

In the modern game of highly contested and congested football,  if every time a free kick is awarded is a potential opportunity to have next use of the ball, then knowing how best to exploit the rules to win them and knowing how to adjust your methods so as not to give them away, could be a significant advantage. So who are the saints and sinners?

Saints

1. Joel Selwood – Geelong

As many fans would expect, Selwood has received almost half of his free kicks from high tackles. 

But, contrary to popular opinion, Selwood does not receive them as a result of any action he takes. He does not duck his head and he rarely raises his arm to draw contact; rather he has adapted to the new rule interpretation introduced last season.

Nearly all his high-contact free kicks are the result of him putting his head over the ball when first to the contest or, when running or changing direction to avoid a tackle, his opponent poorly executes the tackle.

He also receives about 13 per cent of his free kicks from poorly executed tackles resulting in pushes in the back; again symptomatic of him being first to the ball.

Not surprisingly, he does not win many free kicks for holding the ball as more often than not he is first to the ball and the one being tackled.

2. Patrick Dangerfield – Geelong

Unlike his captain, the most common cause of Dangerfield receiving a free kick is being held when not in possession (36 per cent).

As a run and carry player who is not always the first one inside, opposition players often target this early in the contest and hold him before he has taken possession.

His strength in marking contests means he also receives many free kicks for holding as players guarding him for his running ability try to compete with him in the air.

Equal 3. Rory Sloane – Adelaide

Like his old Crows teammate Dangerfield, Sloane also receives more than a third of his free kicks for holding when not in possession. The majority of these are received at stoppages or boundary throw-ins.

Opposition teams are clearly aware of his ability to rack up high possession numbers and, in trying to negate his ability to win the ball at the contest, they are holding him before the ball is contested or before he takes possession.

Umpires are no doubt aware of this with a focus of the three-umpire system being to set up to look for these type of free kicks and tags.

In addition, almost a quarter of his free kicks are the result of his opponent being penalised for holding the ball. This shows his ability to be defensive at the stoppage and run both ways on transition.

Equal 3. Shane Mumford – GWS Giants

Not surprisingly given the position he plays, Mumford receives most of his free kicks when he competes in ruck contests with almost 60 per cent, or 25 of 42 free kicks, occurring in this situation.

The introduction of the one-metre separation rule at boundary throw-ins and field bounces mean the majority of his free kicks are blocks at throw-ups and holding the man at boundary throw-ins. 

The time delay from the boundary umpire releasing the ball to when it is contested means opponents have more time to engage Mumford to try to negate him.

Given his size and reputation as one of the tough men in the game, if Mumford simply focuses on contesting the ball, he will continue to receive many free kicks as opposition ruckmen look for ways to overcome his strength.

5. Stefan Martin – Brisbane Lions

Like other ruckmen we reviewed, Martin receives almost 67 per cent of his free kicks from ruck contests, with the majority occurring at boundary throw-ins.

He has a great ability to get to the front spot at the contest, meaning he is best positioned to receive any free kicks that may result from either intentional or clumsy contact.

When opponents realise they have been out-positioned and are behind, they often panic. This means they will initiate a hold or push Martin under the flight of the ball.

Martin also ensures umpires see any contact by subtly reinforcing it – but with the right amount of emphasis, he could never be criticised for staging.

Sinners

1. Shane Mumford – GWS Giants

Mumford is the only player who appears in the top-10 list of both saints and sinners. Again, given his role as his team’s primary ruckman, he gives away 43 per cent of his free kicks in ruck contests.

Many of these are at boundary throw-ins where he has time to engage his opponent and therefore contact is inevitable.

He also has a technique issue he needs to improve – he will place his arm on an opponent’s shoulder in ruck contests and some marking contests in an attempt to launch himself above his opponent.

As a result of his size, he also has a tendency to give away free kicks for high contact when opponents have their head over the ball. As we discussed earlier, players are aware of his size, so if he focuses on contesting the ball, especially in ruck contests, he is likely to reduce both the free kicks he gives away and increase those he receives.

2. Jackson Trengove – Port Adelaide

The nature of Trengove’s role in Port Adelaide’s structure means he gives away the majority of his free kicks – just over 60 per cent – in either ruck contests (33 per cent) or marking contests (28 per cent).

Unlike some other players we analysed, there is no area Trengrove must improve, other than he appears to give away more block free kicks at throw-ups or centre bounces and holding free kicks at boundary throw-ins.

Again, in marking contests, there is no significant pattern. He appears keen to physically engage opponents when free kicks are awarded against him, either by pushing, holding or front-on contact. 

Given his size, if Trengove is first to the ball in these contests, he is likely to draw free kicks as opposition opponents concerned with his height and size advantage attempt to negate him. 

Equal 3. Dustin Martin – Richmond

Despite a reputation as one of the toughest players in the game, the most common reason the Brownlow Medal favourite gives away free kicks is for holding the ball – 39 per cent are in this category.

Martin’s strength is that he likes to take the game on, run and carry and he has a signature ‘don’t argue’ fend off.

Once tackled, he often finds it hard to get a legal disposal away as his first instinct is to break the tackle, compromising his ability to dispose of the ball because of his body position.

I am sure Richmond wants him to continue this as more often than not it comes off.

He is also good at his trademark ‘fending off without going high’ technique, with only one free kick for a high fend off this season.

Equal 3. Clayton Oliver – Melbourne

Perception is not always reality and there is no better example than the rising Melbourne star.

Often maligned in the media as a player who is playing on or over the edge, an analysis of his free kick transgressions reveals that to be a little unfair.

With almost a third of his free kicks against coming from holding opponents at stoppages, it is likely he is still developing his timing in negating roles and how to disguise contact. 

This will no doubt come from experience and from continuing to work with senior players such as Nathan Jones.

He could also benefit from greater ball awareness when tackling. 

He gives away many free kicks from tackles that linger when the player has disposed of the ball or he assumes his opponent has taken possession before he has.

Despite a reputation for being a fierce competitor and attacking the contest, his free kicks don’t show an overly aggressive side. 

Equal 3. Luke Parker – Sydney Swans

Parker gives away 42 per cent of the free kicks due to poor tackle execution. It’s an area he will have to work on.

His enthusiasm to attack the contest means he will often go high when an opponent is upright or make contact to the head front on when the opponent is down low picking up the ball. 

There is no malice in his actions. A simple adjustment to go lower in the tackle and have a greater awareness of where players’ heads are when they are taking possession on the ground will solve the issue. 

This change could also increase the number of free kicks he receives, with his opponents being caught for holding the ball.

When gaining possession, Parker likes to take on the tackler – just as Dustin Martin does – but is often caught and penalised for holding the ball (25 per cent) on the second effort of the tackler or a follow-up tackle by an opponent. 

The Record acknowledges the assistance of Champion Data in compiling free kick data for this story.