Kevin Bartlett, the most prominent public voice of the AFL Laws of the Game Committee, says there is absolutely no confusion over the rule relating to rushed behinds. Anyone who is confused, says KB, hasn't bothered to study it closely enough. Of course he's right. The thousands of fans who still don't understand it should take a good hard look at themselves.

So should others with a professional responsibility to comprehend the rule. Scott McLaren, who has umpired more than 350 games, was confused by it on Saturday night at the MCG. He didn't "process it correctly" according to his boss, Jeff Gieschen. McLaren's been dumped from the umpiring panel this week.

Darren Glass is a premiership full-back, in his third season as captain of West Coast and soon to be a 200-game player. He was horribly confused at Subiaco on Sunday and cost his team a goal at an important time. Drop him too.

The game's most experienced media commentator, Mike Sheahan of The Herald Sun, is confused. He gave McLaren's decision the ultimate seal of approval, the Sheahan-tick. Oh well, a week on the sidelines will sharpen Mike up and give a young bloke a chance.

Even Gieschen himself is confused. He described McLaren as the "senior umpire in terms of games". Well, if a good umpire is an inconspicuous one, Hayden Kennedy must be the undisputed-greatest of all-time. Poor old Haydos has done over 470 games - more than anyone in history - and his boss hasn't even noticed.

Seriously, it's time someone acknowledged this rule for what it is and has been from its introduction: a stuff-up. More importantly, it's time something clear and concise was done about it. For almost a season-and-a-half, defenders have been enduring panic attacks weekly, trying to keep the ball in play lest they be free-kicked for taking it across the score-line. Meanwhile, the laws committee and umpiring folk have been assuring us it's as clear as crystal.

We now know it's not and never has been. You can watch the AFL's Laws DVDs, 2009 and 2010 versions, as many times as you like and still not be sure what is and isn't permissible. Consider the incident involving Essendon's Henry Slattery which Jeff Gieschen considers to have been incorrectly adjudicated. Scott McLaren was expected, in an instant, to consider the following criteria:

- What was Slattery's intention? At least that's something there's no argument about: it was to rush a behind.

- Was he contesting the ball? No argument there either. He had the ball, he was in control.

- What degree of pressure was he under? Well, having slipped Buddy Franklin's tackle, I reckon you could say - on a scale of 1-10, with 10 at the high end - 5 or 6.

- Was there a team-mate in the vicinity? No, although Slattery had some space and therefore had an option other than the line.

So what was Scott McLaren, or anyone else, to make of that? Points 1 and 2 condemn Slattery and support the umpire, and there is ambiguity on 3 and 4. Perhaps it's time to equip umpires with a manometer, a laboratory instrument for measuring pressure!

The 2008 grand final provided the final evidence that something had to be done to deter players from rushing behinds in a wholesale way. Any new rule, though, required a lot of thought and, most of all, clear definition. If the 2009 rule was clearly defined, how come players remain so uncertain about it six rounds into 2010? And if what was introduced is confusing to umpires, players, and commentators, all of whom have a professional interest in understanding it, what hope do the fans have?

If you're among the confused, though, don't despair. KB says all you need to do is ring the AFL and get your own copy of the Laws DVD. Take it to the game with your laptop and your worries will be over. It's that simple.