Round 1 (2022) - other games

[DavidSSS]

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?

But

Footballs bounce in lots of directions.

So, they have magical control over the ball or not?

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.

Actually, no, the rule states that a free kick is awarded if a player:

Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and
does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or

That's rule 18.10 (b) in the 2021 rules which are the latest on the AFLUA site, so good luck finding the 2022 rules, they're not there.

It is all about intent and the way I saw that incident in the game on Friday the StKilda player was trying to squeeze it past the Collingwood player to a team mate, almost succeeded too if not for the bad bounce.

DS

 

[craig]

Yep, it’s just a lottery.

Not when the RFC is involved

 

[Tigers of Old]

Tom Green with envy. Exactly what we need.

 

[DavidSSS]

Simple question for you David, if he kicked the ball hard enough to travel 2 metres, would it have gone out of bounds?

NFI because

Footballs bounce in lots of directions.

Plus, irrelevant because

Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and
does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or

It is all about intent to keep the ball in play as the rules state.

DS

 

[davidc0055]

Bad decision when Houston kicked for goal at just over 2 mins left. Kicked point but player on mark was moving everywhere. Would be 50 against Richmond.

The umpire hadn't called "stand" and then called play on when Houston moved off his mark. It wouldn't have been 50 for anyone

 

[MD Jazz]

Simple question for you David, if he kicked the ball hard enough to travel 2 metres, would it have gone out of bounds?

Almost impossible to do that in the position he was in.

It was clear what he was attempting to do. To everyone. It didn’t quite come off.

 

[MD Jazz]

Having intent to keep the ball in means you take the options with the low risk of it going out of bounds, not high.

Where does the tule state thst TBR? Is there some sort of footnote or appendix in the rules?

 

[MD Jazz]

Which ones? I just watched the last quarter again (at double speed so might have missed them) and I couldn't find any involving Wines apart from a little handball he did but there was a team mate there.

3rd qtr - soccer off ground that went about 25m out of bounds. No teammate in site. He chased his own ball.

 

[MD Jazz]

Having intent to keep the ball in means you take the options with the low risk of it going out of bounds, not high.

Oh and it’s not intent it’s sufficient intent - another rule open to a range of interpretations as to what is sufficient

 

[DavidSSS]

Yeah you do, David, you know the ball wouldn't have gone out if he'd kicked it 2 metres. Or 1 metre. Or paddled it with his hand. Or picked it up. Or chosen to shepherd the opposing player and leave the ball for the team mate right near to come and collect.

The whole point of the bouncing ball issue is if you put the ball close to the line at speed then you know there is a chance it can bounce out. How can that possibly be sufficient intent to keep it in when you had all of those other options that are much less likely to end up with the ball over the line and instead you try and boot it a long way forward which is clearly one of the more risky things you could do?

Having intent to keep the ball in means you take the options with the low risk of it going out of bounds, not high.

No, the player's intent was to get the ball to a team mate further up the ground. There is a chance the ball can bounce out, but do we want to encourage risk averse football?

In any case, it was bleedingly obvious what he was trying to do, and the ball took a bounce which sideways. The way the ball bounced was not the player's intent therefore, according to the rule, it was not insufficient intent.

If a player tries to kick a ball along the ground with no obvious team mate where the ball is being kicked you can argue that is insufficient intent, but the StKilda player was clearly trying to get the ball to a clearly identifiable team mate. If that is not intent to keep the ball in play what is?

DS

 

[Tigaman]

Pathetic woke rule ruining the game. STAND STAND STAND another one. Before STAND STAND equal contest with man on mark & player with the ball. Now favours the ball carrier. When SHocking hears the umpy call STAND STAND each time he must get a reaction & it must be
below his belt line

 

[Tigaman]

Geriatric moggies running true to early season form. My late father used to call them March Stars but no where to be seen in the night sky come September.

 

[shad]

I reckon North might go okay this year.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Super Satedey
To
Shithouse Sundey

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

What happened to the 400k Gilligan Qantas to Turn up this week.
Barely at 260k with only 3 of the shitest games to go....
And I love how the media blames covid.
Anyone been to Chaddy or Southland ...packed

 

[TigerForce]

CCJ's killing them with 1 disposal.

Dorks players asking questions but no 50. Doing it for Richmond!!

 

[tigertim]

It’s only rd 1 but this North v Hawthorn game has a look, feel and quality more akin to a rd 23 game between 2 also rans.

 

[Redford]

Seems there’s a completely different interpretation of dissent (Hardwick) and holding the ball (Nash tackle) compared to our game. How am I not surprised.

 

[tigertim]

Tom Phillips just got pinged a 50 metre penalty for manning the mark but coming from behind the mark to do it. So it seems he’s mean to run a wide arc from behind the the guy about to kick the ball around the front and then run in from the front.

yeah, makes sense….

 

[Redford]

Tom Phillips just got pinged a 50 metre penalty for manning the mark but coming from behind the mark to do it. So it seems he’s mean to run a wide arc from behind the the guy about to kick the ball around the front and then run in from the front.

yeah, makes sense….

That was just insane.