Round Whatever. The Other Games.

[Redford]

Why does that Gulfis chick, or whatever her name is, always sound like she’s yelling across a valley ? Ffs…does she ever shut up ? Have the broadcasters been asked to turn up the volume on her mic ?

 

[zippadeee]

Collingwood 2nd last
what a bag of *smile* Buckley has left McRae

 

[fastin bulbous]

Whats so scary about melbourne is how young they are.

7 players in last nights side 21 or under and most of their other quality in their mid 20s...

Very good chance they are the next dynasty , given how much i hate them hopefully i am wrong!

Yes I understand but the best way to get around that is to visualise Selwood and danger holding up the cup or Zorko and Robinson, the bow and arrow guy from port etc etc. works a treat for me.

 

[AstuteTiger]

Who have had an unprecedented charmed run with injury this year. Let’s see how they go when some of their better players are afflicted with the injury curse.

Spot on! They are one Petracca or Oliver or both, from falling in a heap. One can only imagine if they had the injuries we had.
say, Petracca, Gawn, Lever, May,. There were times we had 7-8 players out with 4-5 out of the midfield and the same from the backline.

 

[tha8ball]

The fact Essendon are playing finals and we aren’t - it sickens me.

 

[zippadeee]

The fact Essendon are playing finals and we aren’t - it sickens me.

They will be with us, just 7 days late.

 

[DavidSSS]

It's not wrong at all, your intention is determined by the outcome. If you send the ball out of bounds the umpire makes a decision based on what he sees happen, he doesn't call you over and ask you to explain what you were trying to do.

Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS

Well I went and looked up the rule.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/821e4724-d9f4-48b5-8210-aba038553024/2021-Laws-of-the-Game-WEB.pdf

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS
18.10.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.

The following is the only thing I could find about how sufficient intent should be interpreted. It explicitly states that a skill error is not to be penalised. So unless there is an updated interpretation then think you are right David.

Show intent, or pay the price: AFL

League reiterates strong stance on deliberate out of bounds rule

www.afl.com.au

Chamberlain explains what umpires look for with deliberate out of bounds

Ray Chamberlain believes the naming of the rule may just be wrong.

www.sen.com.au

And here is a two minute discussion. About the same thing where it seems like it’s been changed behind closed doors again.

I think TBR needs to show where the AFL changed the way it is meant to be adjudicated and make skill errors redundant as that has been explicitly called out as false .

This stuff is a joke to be honest. Why should we find out how a rule works from interviews? Insane.

 

[MD Jazz]

We don't umpire intent?

Nice sentiment but completely wrong.

The rule states:



We do umpire intent, it says so in the rules.

Out on the full is irrelevant because the word "intent" does not appear in that clause.

DS

Thanks DS, I was going to look up the rule as TBR just makes it up as it goes to fit his narrative. He’s done it again. Zero credibility.

 

[MD Jazz]

Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS

Won’t happen and don’t bother DS. He’s never been wrong when it comes to umpires.

 

[MD Jazz]

I think TBR needs to show where the AFL changed the way it is meant to be adjudicated and make skill errors redundant as that has been explicitly called out as false .

He’s still looking for the handball rule change he said happened from 10 years ago. Don’t hold your breath. Just ignore his umpire posting, his other stuff is generally pretty logical. He must have been an ump once and has PUSD.

 

[RoarEmotion]

He’s still looking for the handball rule change he said happened from 10 years ago. Don’t hold your breath. Just ignore his umpire posting, his other stuff is generally pretty logical. He must have been an ump once and has PUSD.

He changed my mind on holding the ball because I went and read the rules. So 1 out of 2 for me. But I’m someone who is always open to new evidence. He has made some fair points that we have players that give. Away undisciplined frees too as being part of the reason we are well down the free kick ladder. Vlaustin and Pickett not good in this space.

But I still feel we get way less ‘for’ free kicks than we should per other data provided. Have no idea to root cause so will stick with corrupt afl

not sure what the handball one is.

 

[pete and tys]

It's not wrong at all, your intention is determined by the outcome. If you send the ball out of bounds the umpire makes a decision based on what he sees happen, he doesn't call you over and ask you to explain what you were trying to do.

If the rule decides that the intention is decided by the outcome...then the rule is an ass.
That is not the way of life in any aspect and for very good reason.
Perhaps the rules initial intention (sic) was honerable, but the outcome is clearly not satisfactory.
So there you can see a beautiful example !

Very very clearly we see in multiple match review decisions that outcome does not determine punishment (intention) ie Hawkins elbows, pushes and tackles, Abbletts elbows to the head , Fritschs elbow to the head. etc etc.
Your explanation may be accurate but that only confirms the rule is wrong.

 

[Ridley]

Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS

Yeah just love the argument that states the umpires only judge outcome when the rule specifically states "intent". And when the umpires pay the free kick they say "insufficient intent".

 

[MD Jazz]

Yeah just love the argument that states the umpires only judge outcome when the rule specifically states "intent". And when the umpires pay the free kick they say "insufficient intent".

Yeh, to argue the Castagna one was the correct call is ridiculous.

 

[seven]

Yeh, to argue the Castagna one was the correct call is ridiculous.

I just thought the umpires believed no one at AFL level could be that bad of a kick and gave Castanga the benifit of the doubt.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I'd love to know how you think umpires establish intent then?

Stop the game for a quick interview? Quick lie detector test? Administer a quick dose of sodium thiopental? Maybe have Ron Iddles as the third umpire to pop out and do a quick interrogation?

I’ve said it before. Permit system. No one lies on those.

 

[tigertim]

My understanding of the rule comes from sitting in multiple rules briefings run by the AFL umpires and hearing them say if you put the ball out of bounds without either a team mate close by or inside forward 50 trying to score, then a free kick will be paid. They specifically say it is a black and white decision, no allowance is made for skill errors or pressure because it is impossible for them to judge.

When you watch the game through that lens, you will find that the deliberate out of bounds rule is the most consistent and least error prone decision the umpires make. It makes it a very simple decision. The two raised in the Geelong game are a perfect example. I've mentioned this before on here and there have been posters who have mentioned they could now follow the decisions and see the rationale for them.

I couldn't agree more with your last point though. If the AFL released the presentation the clubs get each year it would make an incredible difference to the way fans understand the adjudication of the game. I cop a lot of the frustration on here, and it is largely because people are ignorant about how the game is umpired. That's not intended to be insulting, it is just a result of the information not being available to the average punter.

This year is the first year in a long time I haven't been part of that process and I find things around the stand rule that I don't understand and wish I could hear the presentation from this year. Like everything in life, a lack of knowledge causes frustration and anger. The AFL could and should do better in this regard.

Right, so if you’re trying to score inside F50 but a poorly skilled disposal (and as we now know poor skills or a bad bounce has nothing to do with it) causes the ball to go OOB it’s a free kick?

How does the umpire know the intent of whether you’re trying to score or just bombing inside 50?

 

[tigertim]

Vicinity of the ball to the goals I guess.

Fair enough, they’re making a determination of intent.

 

[mrposhman]

My understanding of the rule comes from sitting in multiple rules briefings run by the AFL umpires and hearing them say if you put the ball out of bounds without either a team mate close by or inside forward 50 trying to score, then a free kick will be paid. They specifically say it is a black and white decision, no allowance is made for skill errors or pressure because it is impossible for them to judge.

When you watch the game through that lens, you will find that the deliberate out of bounds rule is the most consistent and least error prone decision the umpires make. It makes it a very simple decision. The two raised in the Geelong game are a perfect example. I've mentioned this before on here and there have been posters who have mentioned they could now follow the decisions and see the rationale for them.

I couldn't agree more with your last point though. If the AFL released the presentation the clubs get each year it would make an incredible difference to the way fans understand the adjudication of the game. I cop a lot of the frustration on here, and it is largely because people are ignorant about how the game is umpired. That's not intended to be insulting, it is just a result of the information not being available to the average punter.

This year is the first year in a long time I haven't been part of that process and I find things around the stand rule that I don't understand and wish I could hear the presentation from this year. Like everything in life, a lack of knowledge causes frustration and anger. The AFL could and should do better in this regard.

Have you seen the one that wasn't paid against Atkins in the 4th quarter of the Geelong game?