Round 1 (2022) - other games

[Smoking Aces]

Are you going to pay a goal instead of a point because it is obvious the player was trying to kick one?

Decisions aren't based on what you tried to do, they are based on what you did. He kicked the ball, it went pretty firmly and directly to the line and there was no team mate close to it. If that's not paid then the whole rule would be defunct, which I know some people advocate.

Sorry TBR but not even you can spin this to justify that decision.

 

[spook]

A bright note after last night's dark: at least Higlet ain't our problem. Butler flaky.

M King though. Love the way he plays.

 

[craig]

A bright note after last night's dark: at least Higlet ain't our problem. Butler flaky.

 

[DavidSSS]

Are you going to pay a goal instead of a point because it is obvious the player was trying to kick one?

Decisions aren't based on what you tried to do, they are based on what you did. He kicked the ball, it went pretty firmly and directly to the line and there was no team mate close to it. If that's not paid then the whole rule would be defunct, which I know some people advocate.

That is a ridiculous comparison and you of all people know this.

I know that you know this because you continually point out that there is no such thing as "deliberate out of bounds". As you yourself have, correctly, pointed out on many occasions, the rule is actually insufficient intent to keep the ball in play.

The StKilda player was trying, under pressure and in a hurry, to kick the ball along the ground to where a team mate could get it and move it closer to goal. The ball took a wild bounce, as an Australian Football is wont to do, and went out of bounds.

Intent is the point with this rule, and is not the point when scoring. We all know this.

Geez, if you are going to defend the decisions at least pick ones that aren't howlers.

DS

 

[TigerForce]

Hey TBR, if you've had a few drinks by now, please tell us.

 

[fastin bulbous]

Come on man
They drove past Punt Rd don't make it out they are like Michael Roach and Kevin Bartlett.
They wouldn't give a flying ... about us.
Just ask what Brendan lade thinks of us.

What does Brendan Lade think of us?

 

[TigerMasochist]

Spot on. Which is why its worrying that Dimma may be out of his depth without the Intel around him.

Yep. No Fly blown Leppacella n we're totally *smile* after one game. Them blokes carried us for four years n that ex Essendrugs pretender is gunna be exposed as being a dud coach n having no game plan at all.

 

[TigerMasochist]

There's no spin required, it is a simple easy decision, you just have to know what you are looking at.

This is the sort of rule people always call for in other areas, nice and uncomplicated.

Here's the formula:

Did the player kick or handball or force the ball over the line? Yes/No

Did they punch the ball over the line in a marking contest? Yes/No

Is there a team mate close by where the ball went out? Yes/No

Were they trying to score? Yes/No.

If you get yes, no, no, no, then it is a free kick. Any other combo and it's not. No mind reading, no judging skills or pressure, game situation or anything else.

You can argue the rule is wrong and should take those things into account and that's a different argument, but the way the rule stands that is exactly how it is applied and there is no possibility of arguing that decision is incorrect.

Run that criteria over every out of bounds decision you see and you'll soon see that it's correct.

What! Four simple, clear n concise points to evaluate, interpret n adjudicate a decision. Where's the spirit n feel of the game bit gone? *smile* umpires, rules, rules n more rules when we want feel good instead.

 

[TigerMasochist]

The StKilda player was trying, under pressure and in a hurry, to kick the ball along the ground to where a team mate could get it and move it closer to goal. The ball took a wild bounce, as an Australian Football is wont to do, and went out of bounds.

Considering that footballers these days can curl the pill around corners n then get it to finish off with four bounces n crazy leg break through the goals that Warnie would be proud of. The pointy football, wild bounce theory is fairly invalid in the modern game.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

What does Brendan Lade think of us?

Loves us.

 

[tigertim]

What! Four simple, clear n concise points to evaluate, interpret n adjudicate a decision. Where's the spirit n feel of the game bit gone? *smile* umpires, rules, rules n more rules when we want feel good instead.

Hard to believe umpires are mentally running these 4 questions through their head in determining decisions.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

A bright note after last night's dark: at least Higlet ain't our problem. Butler flaky.

M King though. Love the way he plays.

Seriously how was he ever a 1st rounder?
Plays like a VAFL under 14's player

 

[ToraToraTora]

That is a horrendous take.

He has a book coming out.

 

[AngryAnt]

There's no spin required, it is a simple easy decision, you just have to know what you are looking at.

This is the sort of rule people always call for in other areas, nice and uncomplicated.

Here's the formula:

Did the player kick or handball or force the ball over the line? Yes/No

Did they punch the ball over the line in a marking contest? Yes/No

Is there a team mate close by where the ball went out? Yes/No

Were they trying to score? Yes/No.

If you get yes, no, no, no, then it is a free kick. Any other combo and it's not. No mind reading, no judging skills or pressure, game situation or anything else.

You can argue the rule is wrong and should take those things into account and that's a different argument, but the way the rule stands that is exactly how it is applied and there is no possibility of arguing that decision is incorrect.

Run that criteria over every out of bounds decision you see and you'll soon see that it's correct.

TBR that may all be true but the rules committee have then buggered it up - why does the umpire yell "insufficient intent" if intent is not a factor?

 

[BrisTiger24]

So sad to see Fly in Black and White. He's too good for that scum. Come back Fly

 

[tigersnake]

There's no spin required, it is a simple easy decision, you just have to know what you are looking at.

This is the sort of rule people always call for in other areas, nice and uncomplicated.

Here's the formula:

Did the player kick or handball or force the ball over the line? Yes/No

Did they punch the ball over the line in a marking contest? Yes/No

Is there a team mate close by where the ball went out? Yes/No

Were they trying to score? Yes/No.

If you get yes, no, no, no, then it is a free kick. Any other combo and it's not. No mind reading, no judging skills or pressure, game situation or anything else.

You can argue the rule is wrong and should take those things into account and that's a different argument, but the way the rule stands that is exactly how it is applied and there is no possibility of arguing that decision is incorrect.

Run that criteria over every out of bounds decision you see and you'll soon see that it's correct.

What happened to 'he kicked it firmly and directly to the line'?

 

[TigerForce]

Like I said, apply what I'm saying to the next 100 out of bounds free kicks you see and see what the percentages look like.



The intent part is definitely what confuses people because people take it beyond what is reasonable for an umpire to consider and into the realm of having to read the player's mind.

For example, people say why would he want it out of bounds when his side is going forward and wants to score? What if he'd seen Collingwood were set up behind the ball with two spares and a throw in was the best result?

The other one people say is the ball bounced towards the line. How many times do you see player's control the roll of the ball in the same manner when they are on the boundary line kicking for goal?

It's not reasonable to ask an umpire to determine those things so the intent part is that the player has to show intent to keep the ball in play. Not try not to put it out, but to keep it in play. Not even not put it out intentionally, but keep the ball in play. If you put the ball out then by definition you have failed to do that.

In that instance if he really wanted to keep the ball in play then he could have done things differently. For example there's a team mate a metre in front of him he could have tapped the ball towards with hand or foot.

This sounds more like coaching the player than umpiring the player. In this case, the Saints play messy and the player was not controlling the ball as better teams/players would. As I previously mentioned, he had a teammate running parallel on his own, while he was pressured closely by a Pies player, so he kicked it forward but it wasn't a good kick and trickled OOB.

 

[Scoop]

Are you going to pay a goal instead of a point because it is obvious the player was trying to kick one?

Decisions aren't based on what you tried to do, they are based on what you did. He kicked the ball, it went pretty firmly and directly to the line and there was no team mate close to it. If that's not paid then the whole rule would be defunct, which I know some people advocate.

It’s intent with the outbound rule. Completely different to goals and point. Shocking decision.

 

[fastin bulbous]

The idea that complexity is more valuable than simplicity has permeated everything and enough is enough when it is destroying the game. Simplify the rules afl it’s a horrible mess right now.

 

[tigersnake]

It goes directly from his boot, to the line. There's no other player near it, no-one touches it and it bounces off the fence which is at least 5 metres past the line.

Yes it bounced right, but it was close enough to the line that bouncing right meant it went out. Footballs bounce in lots of directions. If you want to make sure you keep the ball in don't let them get that close to the line going hard enough for the bounce to take it out.

Maybe he meant to kick it that way, maybe it was a skill error. The rules don't care if you make a skill error, the rules only care about what you actually do.

It does not go directly from his boot to the line. There are 6 players converging on the area, 3 of each. He is looking inboard, his kicking leg tees off inboard, before he's pushed off it but its still inboard even after that.

The umps do care if you make a skill error, umps make that call all the time on DOOB. Intent is a thing, you are wrong on that. ever heard the phrase 'insufficient intent' as Ant pointed out? Its clear that he has total intent, ie ample sufficient, to keep it in.

Umps only care what you do? How about touched off the boot 'marks' downfield? If that was the case it would be HTB every time, but the umps allow for every player, except Bachar, being deaf, so what they actually do is excused and they aren't penalised.

Have you seen it?

St Kilda’s Jack Steele penalised for ‘worst deliberate call’ in loss to Collingwood

‘It’s wrong’: Fans, commentators up in arms over ‘worst deliberate call’

www.foxsports.com.au