Round Whatever. The Other Games. | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Round Whatever. The Other Games.

How seriously bad are Freo? I don’t blame Cerra for wanting out. And if the Bombers don’t get over Collingwood they’re going to make the 8 with 10 wins.
 
Ridley said:
Freo being Freo. A chance to make the finals and they completely *smile* the bed and cop a 10 goal rogering.

What a shithouse and irrelevant club.
Click to expand...
Freo and Saints both similar. Inconsistent and never up when the challenge is there.
 
Freo are *smile*. And will always be *smile* with that doofus at the reins.
He isn't any better then Dew, Teague or the original doofus Neeld
 
So Essendon are a close group because 5 players had a photo taken Together doing finger signage.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
The Big Richo said:
I just had a look. The Selwood one is clearly not a free for mine, there's a Geelong player in the vicinity when the ball crosses the line that you can make a case he was trying to find.

The Brayshaw one is absolutely correct as well. He kicks the ball in a direct line to the boundary and there is no team mate in the vicinity. I don't think they are contradicting decisions, I think Selwood has a reasonable alibi and Brayshaw doesn't.

The 50 is an interesting one. Someone definitely says 45 out but the controlling umpire actually takes the 50 back himself without handing over to the next zone so he has obviously measure it to where he sees fit. Based on the 50 metre centre square, with the ball just past the middle when it goes out, I reckon he is pretty close but probably a metre or two short. Interesting though that Lever, who is a renown sook on the field, doesn't say anything even though he should be getting shot to win the game he can make the distance on, so you'd assume he felt like it was about right.
Click to expand...

I wish The AFL was as consistent as you :))

ok just for the purpose of the exercise, draw on previous experience and understanding of the game,

put yourself inside the players heads for a moment;

1. do you think Selwood intended the ball to go OOB?

2. do you think Brayshaw intended the ball to go OOB?

Ideally, a yes/no

we can agree Lever is a massive sook.
 
eZyT said:
Selwoods, while he clearly wanted the boundary, had a teammate under pressure he 'missed'. So possibly fair enough.


brayshaws was a soccer out of congestion, going i50

pretty much zero chance under any possible scenario he intended it to go out.

there was 60 seconds to go, theyre 2 points down, trying not to go to Adelaide, with heaps of demons i50

2 rulings on the same rule, by the same ump, in 10 seconds, contradicting each other.

Watch the last 2mins and tell me what you think. Listen to the umps instructions on the Lever 50
Click to expand...
I thought SELWOOD was clearly intentional while Brayshaw was a skill error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
jokershoppe said:
Also the rule is based on intentions which clearly was SELWOOD boundary, Brayshaw skill error.
Click to expand...

thats where im going with this.

intent, sufficient or insufficient. and surely context ties into intent.

If your husband is a gorgeous angel who meets your every need, and you hit him on the head with a backswung golf club,

your intent is obviously pretty different than if you clocked your horrible psycho addicted to meth and barracks for Geelong husband?

right now, I have really sufficient intent to go and open a frosty VB stubby and sit down and talk to some platypuses
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
jokershoppe said:
Also the rule is based on intentions which clearly was SELWOOD boundary, Brayshaw skill error.
Click to expand...
The rule has been flipped to be insufficient intent to keep the ball in. It was really anothger rule tightened or modified that the general footballing public couldn't care about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The Big Richo said:
I just had a look. The Selwood one is clearly not a free for mine, there's a Geelong player in the vicinity when the ball crosses the line that you can make a case he was trying to find.

The Brayshaw one is absolutely correct as well. He kicks the ball in a direct line to the boundary and there is no team mate in the vicinity. I don't think they are contradicting decisions, I think Selwood has a reasonable alibi and Brayshaw doesn't.

The 50 is an interesting one. Someone definitely says 45 out but the controlling umpire actually takes the 50 back himself without handing over to the next zone so he has obviously measure it to where he sees fit. Based on the 50 metre centre square, with the ball just past the middle when it goes out, I reckon he is pretty close but probably a metre or two short. Interesting though that Lever, who is a renown sook on the field, doesn't say anything even though he should be getting shot to win the game he can make the distance on, so you'd assume he felt like it was about right.
Click to expand...
LOL, who would have thunk that
 
The Big Richo said:
Didn't watch the game, Ezy so I have no idea what happened but I'll give you the general criteria for a DOOB.

Firstly, only judge the result. Not whether it was a skill error or under pressure. We don't adjudicate ideas, we adjudicate results.

So if you cause the ball to cross the boundary, there has to be a legitimate alternate option you were trying to execute. That can really only be scoring or having a team mate in the vicinity of the ball who legitimately could have received it.

If you apply those criteria then you'll have your answer as to the correctness of the decision.
Click to expand...
"We"? As in "we" the umpire fraternity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Drag Stanton out b y the hair from Carkton!!!

Should this be in the drunken posts thread?
 
The Big Richo said:
I see what you are saying and the answer to those questions is yes and no (although I'd prefer probably yes and probably no), but you are asking the wrong question.

We don't umpire intentions, we umpire outcomes. So you have to strip away everything apart from what actually happened. Both players kicked the ball and it went over the line. Only Selwood had a reasonable excuse in terms of a team mate there he could have been giving the ball to.

If the Brayshaw one isn't a free then we can say the next kick isn't a free either. He didn't mean to kick it out on the full, it just came off the side of his boot, so lets just throw it in to be fair. Or if a player grabs the ball in congestion and snaps a point then we need to give him a goal because he didn't mean to miss but the pressure forced him.

It really comes back to your yes/no matrix but with different questions.

Did the player cause the ball to go OOB? Both yes.

Did the player have a reasonable alternate option he was trying to execute? Selwood yes, Brayshaw no.
Click to expand...

all fair enough.

so change the umpire wording of the rule

and thered be much less angst.

insufficient intent, unrealistic attempt, dangerous tackle

implies intent, realism in relation to self-perception, and recklessness

its this subjective *smile* we hear, and it infuriating.

if we wanted to witness that crap, we'd go to the local magistrates court for free, rather than pay $100 to go to the footy to see a mangled product.

1 take the mikes off the umps, there audio exaccerbates their confusion and ours. And

2 for the benefit of the players, call it 'deliberate', or 'bad kick', 'in the back' and 'sling'
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The Big Richo said:
A good example of this was the Castagna one against Fremantle (I think) when he had a deliberate paid for a miskick.

Again if you strip it back to what actually happened, Castagna kicked it sideways and it went straight out of bounds. That's a free kick.

Did he intend to do it? No. But again, are we going to start giving players a goal because they didn't mean to miss?
Click to expand...
So the AFL need to get their minions to stop calling it deliberate out of bounce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
< A piece of history | Robbie Wiley >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom