Round Whatever. The Other Games.

[DavidSSS]

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 don't write the rules, but, unlike you, I can read them.

I don't care what excuses the powers that be have for the mediocre adjudication of the game, the word intent is in the rules and the umpires are interpreting intent. Unlike you, even the incompetent umpiring fraternity can interpret intent from what the player does, at least that is the implicit assumption of the rule.

So, either the rules are a lie, or you're full of it.

DS

 

[Willo]

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?

Castagna would need an exemption

 

[leon]

Yep. We owe our last three flags this rigged competition. Thanks Gil!!!

Another cheap shot. The Tigers beat the system and kept doing it. Dimma's game plan and the players' incredible connection, effort, commitment and spirit was so great that it overcame the hurdles, like the annual negative differential in frees, rule changes, rip-offs for BEllis et al. How can the best side in the comp, often featuring younger and with smaller/lighter players continually lose the 'umpires' discretion count', week after week almost, even allowing for some careless players sometimes (all teams probably have these).

We were really only favorites for the 2019 flag most likely. AFL would have loved a Cup for their GWS creation. Pretty obviously, we spoiled the planned AFL premiership party for Ablett, Duckwood and Dangerflog in '20 ... because they so deserved it as 'ornaments' to the game. Thus leading to unprecedented and hastily introduced rule changes to deconstruct our system for once and all. Look at SHockings's attendance at our training sessions up there in the hub prior to. You aren't able to deduce 'nuthing' from the consistent sycophantic AFL media's campaign to discredit and undermine RFC, including that harpie, Caro?

Try looking more closely at the game and AFL policies and practices before your eyes and stop being so gullible. Just have a look at MRP and suspensions: compare treatment and penalties for our players to Geecheat's.

Next you'll be telling me Trump was just misunderstood and Morrison is a seer!

 

[leon]

View attachment 13149

Thanks for this reply. As I posted, seeing as this game looked decided, I switched over from Kayo to Ch.7 coverage of top-of-the-table clash. If I had of known what bore-fest this would be ...!
But how can a Q go that long? Were there unusual stoppages due to injuries etc? Any idea?

Looks quite suss to me.

 

[AngryAnt]

Next you'll be telling me Trump was just misunderstood and Morrison is a seer!

Certainly won't be doing that.

 

[eZyT]

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?

that's the whole point of the absurdity and frustration.

for the umps to adjudicate the rules,

they need to do this.

any rule with a subjective judgement should be scrapped, and may be adjudicated by an objective rule.

unrealistic attempt, could be called when its in the back, or blocking, otherwise, let players dream big.

dangerous tackle becomes in the back, holding the man, or too high. alternatively call it a sling.

insufficient intent is either scrapped, or the Out On The Full rule just become the Out rule. I wouldnt mind if they played an Out Rule, just in the D50. By removing the subjectivity, it can only really be umpired consistently, in theory

objectivity has to replace subjectivity.

 

[leon]

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

But isn't the point that the clever, careful wording leaves it totally up to the umps' discretion to interpret 'intent'? IOW they can almost do what they like, hence some of the highly dubious calls like the Castagna one where he attempted to kick the ball forward but mis-kicked (showing no knowledge of his tendencies!).
The wording makes is just another rule like Stand, HTB, ITB and 'not 15' that is completely arbitrary to provide umps with a high degree of game control or heavy influence. The rules are intentionally subjective, not objective. This is a key enabler of AFL intervention/manipulation in game performance and results.

An objective rule would turn it into basketball or soccer, where last touch team loses possession. But that's not AFL, although I suggest it's where AFL might want/plan to take it with next gen of rule changes. Would loathe it, but at least less interpretive. But just more tedious video stoppages to check who touched it last.

It's been especially easy for AFL and umps in '21 to get away with so many suspect decisions with no crowds, to get away with anything.

 

[bigwow]

Thanks for this reply. As I posted, seeing as this game looked decided, I switched over from Kayo to Ch.7 coverage of top-of-the-table clash. If I had of known what bore-fest this would be ...!
But how can a Q go that long? Were there unusual stoppages due to injuries etc? Any idea?

Looks quite suss to me.

I have no idea, was just checking updates to see the battle for 4th/5th. and the time was ticking by.

Not sure if there was an injury or other delay, or game just went on until, Lions % got above the Bulldogs.

Siren did sound pretty quickly after McCarthy's point. Cameron's goal was after the siren.

 

[DavidSSS]

But isn't the point that the clever, careful wording leaves it totally up to the umps' discretion to interpret 'intent'? IOW they can almost do what they like, hence some of the highly dubious calls like the Castagna one where he attempted to kick the ball forward but mis-kicked (showing no knowledge of his tendencies!).
The wording makes is just another rule like Stand, HTB, ITB and 'not 15' that is completely arbitrary to provide umps with a high degree of game control or heavy influence. The rules are intentionally subjective, not objective.
An objective rule would turn it into basketball or soccer, where last touch team loses possession. But that's not AFL, although I suggest it's where AFL might want/plan to take it with next gen of rule changes. Would loathe it, but at least less interpretive.

It's been especially easy for AFL and umps in '21 to get away with so many suspect decisions with no crowds, to get away with anything.

Interesting point.

Yes, the umpires are being instructed to interpret intent, that's what the rule says.

There is certainly an argument to make it clearer, the fact they put the onus on the player to keep the ball in play means it is easier to pay a free for insufficient intent. But it certainly is a grey area and, as we see, inconsistently interpreted.

It certainly isn't some black and white rule with no judgement of intent as some maintain

In the back I don't think is so difficult, remember it is a push in the back. If your hands don't move forward you are not pushing.

15m I would have thought was not arbitrary at all, 15m is 15m. You don't expect perfection, but you also don't expect 8m kicks to be paid a mark while 20m kicks aren't and we've all see examples of both.

Holding the ball/holding the man has always been a problematic one. To some extent it has always been a balancing act between rewarding the player who goes after the ball and the player who tackles. My main beef with this rule is that the player who wants to go after the ball is illegally interfered with just about all the time these days and the umps just let it go.

Would be nice to have things more spelled out and a hell of a lot more transparency from the AFL, but hell would freeze over before the AFL actually thinks fans have a right to know how the game we fund is run.

DS

 

[leon]

I have no idea, was just checking updates to see the battle for 4th/5th. and the time was ticking by.

Not sure if there was an injury or other delay, or game just went on until, Lions % got above the Bulldogs.

Siren did sound pretty quickly after McCarthy's point. Cameron's goal was after the siren.

Really sus. Not even convinced it was a point.

[What's interesting to me, in how I view the AFL, is how they have jumped off the Bulldogs. After winning free-kick counts all year (and often prior years too), suddenly got hard done by this game. Probably decided they are little chance to actually win the flag this year. So discard! After ensuring their hopeful but battling members stay on board for '21 and, in hope, beyond?]

 

[AngryAnt]

Yep, they send a hand-coded message by carrier pigeon from AFL house to the umpires saying "we are off the Bulldogs this week because we reckon they are little chance to win the flag now, make sure they lose the free-kick pls thnx gil"

Of course if I don't buy into this theory I'm gullible and naive

 

[TT33]

A player can intend to kick the ball to his team mate but it may unintentionally " go off the side of his boot" & yet an umpire will call it as "lack of intent" how can that be a correct decision. The umpire cannot look inside a players head or read his mind...

I know when I played, many times I intended to kick or handball to a team mate & it didn't hit the target. (That was mainly due to a lack of skill, but I still intended it not to be)

When an umpy stuffs up a bounce of the ball, he/she doesn't intend to but it happens, he/she gets the chance to throw the ball up. Or when he/she calls an incorrect free kick or pays a nonexistent mark they don't intend to (****) but it happens & that's what sometimes happens to players.

It's really just a poorly worded & adjudicated rule

 

[Harry]

why do the umps call out "insufficient intent"?

they should call out "you kicked the ball and it dribbled out of bounds without a teammate being near it"

 

[mrposhman]

Didn't watch the game, what stage of the quarter?

Maybe only 3-5 mins into the start of the quarter.

Received the ball, facing down the ground, realised there was nothing there, was tackled by Brayshaw, Atkins turned to the boundary line, managed to squeeze an arm free (was maybe 5m from the boundary line in his D50 at this point) and dropped the ball on his boot and kicked it straight out.

Commentators were rabbiting on about HTB, but had clearly got a disposal away, but for me it was the clearest DOOB I've seen all season.

Umpire called for the ball to be thrown in.

 

[shad]

Yeah just watched, definitely deliberate for mine. Umpire says 'I could not see' to the arguing players so maybe that was why. The other Richo was on to it in the commentary though.

He said that in regards to dropping the ball.

 

[MD Jazz]

Vicinity of the ball to the goals I guess.

Guess being the operative word. You guess a lot when it comes to rules and umpires.

 

[leon]

Yep, they send a hand-coded message by carrier pigeon from AFL house to the umpires saying "we are off the Bulldogs this week because we reckon they are little chance to win the flag now, make sure they lose the free-kick pls thnx gil"

Of course if I don't buy into this theory I'm gullible and naive

Was hardly going to bother replying when I saw this a few hours back. I give you a raft of points over 3 paragraphs and you avoid any relevant rebuttals in the form of cogent argument, but resort to 'hand-coded message(s)' and 'carrier pigeon(s)' ! Bit ordinary. Hardly much point me making any effort back if that kind of puerile tripe posing as invective is all you've got. But in a test of faith, here's just some more grist for your trite mill, glib dismissal.

- Bulldogs last 5 matches, W/L, FKD (free kick differential), opponent:
Rd. 23, L , -8, PA. / Rd. 22, L, -3, Haw. / Rd. 21, L, +3, Ess. / Rd. 20, W, 20 ea., Crows. / Rd. 19, W, +14, Dees.

I call that just 'interesting'. You may say, capricious, no real pattern. Or, given the Dogs well out in front for positive FKD all clubs until end of season, like a worm has turned perhaps. 'Interesting' given that only 5 games back they comfortably beat flag faves Dees by 20pts with a FKD equal to having an extra good player, but played battling crows, then loss to Bummers who were regarded as unlikely to play finals then. After that, out of favour.

Look at Q4 replay of Lions v WCE game. Lot of 'interesting' decisions late. Did you think the very high kick Berry marked 15m? That the extra free goal-shot he then received for a very mild bump from Cole was justified (in this crucial game!!)? That the vital point later was definitely a correct decision? But no review required at all on WCE's behalf, even though they use it for checking if the ball was kicked OOBs?

Then there was the amazing length of this Q, plus the disputed lost time which was crucial to the outcome. According to Morris, has happened several times before but apparently no reform of AFL practice. Funny that.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

Take our recent game against GWS. I knew it was not going to be a game we could win when the umps ripped 2 goals off us early Q1 with highly questionable FA. Not saying that GWS did not outplay us to deserve their win. Just that, like Q4 of our season turning game against WC, certain dubious decisions made a win for us look highly unlikely. Harsh, dubious decisions I also believe can demoralise one team, and boost the other.

I don't trust the AFL whatsoever, I am highly skeptical of the umpiring dept. of protected but highly paid 'professionals' that highly controlled AFL media are never allowed to question or criticize any more - same for coaching staff, and even public really on air.

I have no idea what their agenda could possibly be overall, like for all/many games. Just have some speculative ideas. However, do I trust them to not be interventionist at all through means such as the umpiring dept? No *smile* way.

[BTW - Think you should leave the pigeons alone. Lot of crap and germs that might affect your brain.]

 

[DavidSSS]

If you could put aside your frustration with the umpires and by extension with me for a moment, you would be able to see you have just written exactly what I said.

The action determines the intent and together they determine the free kick, but the action is the key.

So if the action is sending the ball over the line with no team mate in the vicinity, the umpire interprets your intent was to do so, or at least that you didn't try hard enough to prevent it, hence insufficient intent.

If they adjudicated intent they would have to also determine skill errors, pressure, whether or not you were trying to keep the ball inside the line, game situation and any number of other factors which would be clearly impossible for someone to determine without knowing the player's thoughts.

So, if a player intends to kick to a team mate but stuffs it up and the ball goes out of bounds they are pinged for insufficient intent? Makes no sense at all, that's insufficient skill not insufficient intent, but it would be reasonable only if you adjudicate the result not the intent, which is clearly not what the rule says.

If that was the case then the rule would not include the word intent.

Not agreeing at all I'm afraid, the intent is what is written in the rule and what is expected to be adjudicated. It is also what the umpires tell the players when they ake a decision.

If they are adjudicating the action and not the intent then they need to change the rule. I suppose we could go to last touch out of bounds free kick, then again, maybe we could just have AFLX.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Was hardly going to bother replying when I saw this a few hours back. I give you a raft of points over 3 paragraphs and you avoid any relevant rebuttals in the form of cogent argument, but resort to 'hand-coded message(s)' and 'carrier pigeon(s)' ! Bit ordinary. Hardly much point me making any effort back if that kind of puerile tripe posing as invective is all you've got. But in a test of faith, here's just some more grist for your trite mill, glib dismissal.

- Bulldogs last 5 matches, W/L, FKD (free kick differential), opponent:
Rd. 23, L , -8, PA. / Rd. 22, L, -3, Haw. / Rd. 21, L, +3, Ess. / Rd. 20, W, 20 ea., Crows. / Rd. 19, W, +14, Dees.

I call that just 'interesting'. You may say, capricious, no real pattern. Or, given the Dogs well out in front for positive FKD all clubs until end of season, like a worm has turned perhaps. 'Interesting' given that only 5 games back they comfortably beat flag faves Dees by 20pts with a FKD equal to having an extra good player, but played battling crows, then loss to Bummers who were regarded as unlikely to play finals then. After that, out of favour.

Look at Q4 replay of Lions v WCE game. Lot of 'interesting' decisions late. Did you think the very high kick Berry marked 15m? That the extra free goal-shot he then received for a very mild bump from Cole was justified (in this crucial game!!)? That the vital point later was definitely a correct decision? But no review required at all on WCE's behalf, even though they use it for checking if the ball was kicked OOBs?

Then there was the amazing length of this Q, plus the disputed lost time which was crucial to the outcome. According to Morris, has happened several times before but apparently no reform of AFL practice. Funny that.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

Take our recent game against GWS. I knew it was not going to be a game we could win when the umps ripped 2 goals off us early Q1 with highly questionable FA. Not saying that GWS did not outplay us to deserve their win. Just that, like Q4 of our season turning game against WC, certain dubious decisions made a win for us look highly unlikely. Harsh, dubious decisions I also believe can demoralise one team, and boost the other.

I don't trust the AFL whatsoever, I am highly skeptical of the umpiring dept. of protected but highly paid 'professionals' that highly controlled AFL media are never allowed to question or criticize any more - same for coaching staff, and even public really on air.

I have no idea what their agenda could possibly be overall, like for all/many games. Just have some speculative ideas. However, do I trust them to not be interventionist at all through means such as the umpiring dept? No *smile* way.

[BTW - Think you should leave the pigeons alone. Lot of crap and germs that might affect your brain.]

You dismiss other opinions with ad hominems like "gullible and naive", and then serve up bizarre speculation about the AFL sending messages to umpires about which teams they should victimise so forgive me if I don't spend a lot of time on your rafts of cogent argumentation.

 

[MD Jazz]

It's like an LBW decision in cricket. The umpire has to use the batsman's action to judge if they were legitimately playing a shot at the ball or not. Action determines intent.

No, you are arguing result determines intent. Castagna wasn't trying to skew the ball off the side of his boot when he was penalised. His action was to kick the ball off the ground towards our goal. That was his intent. The result was a mis-kick that slewed out of bounds.