Round Whatever. The Other Games.

[DavidSSS]

A reasonable prospect they were trying to find a team mate?

Looks like intent is being adjudicated here, as the rule says, and that is not the action determining the adjudication but the intent.

You say that intent is too hard to adjudicate, but now we are to adjudicate "reasonable prospect"?

Wow, way to make it even more vague.

DS

 

[tigertim]

A reasonable prospect they were trying to find a team mate?

Looks like intent is being adjudicated here, as the rule says, and that is not the action determining the adjudication but the intent.

You say that intent is too hard to adjudicate, but now we are to adjudicate "reasonable prospect"?

Wow, way to make it even more vague.

DS

yes, I think someone has painted themselves into a corner re umpires not determining intent. Until they do…but they don’t….

 

[MD Jazz]

How do you know what his intent was? How do you know he didn't look up and see only a loose defender ahead of him so he deliberately skewed the ball sideways to get it out of bounds?

Now you're getting ridiculous. You say intent isn't in the rule but it is. You say its the action not the result, but maybe its a bit of both.

Now you say Castagna's disposal is that good he can deliberately skew the ball off his foot?? That's a step too far.

 

[MD Jazz]

yes, I think someone has painted themselves into a corner re umpires not determining intent. Until they do…but they don’t….

It's a moving target tim,

 

[DavidSSS]

How do you know what his intent was? How do you know he didn't look up and see only a loose defender ahead of him so he deliberately skewed the ball sideways to get it out of bounds?

When you strip it back to basics, what he did was kick the ball sideways, directly across the boundary line, with no other team mate in the vicinity.

Given his responsibility isn't to try and not put the ball out, but to actually try and keep the ball in, then how can't that be a free?

If the reason it shouldn't be a free kick is it was a mistake and he didn't mean it then we may as well scrap the rule and every other free kick as well.

But the action - the ball went out so, working backwards and ignoring what the rule says as you suggest, clearly his intent was to not keep the ball in play since the result was the ball did not stay in.

Sorry, I may have little respect for the rule-makers in AFL, but they actually did put the word "intent" in the rule. Since they put it there it must have been their intent to include "intent" in the rule as that is the action they took.

You can criticise the rule for asking umpires to interpret the intent of players, what you can't do is to ignore the fact that this is what the rule says.

DS

 

[leon]

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.

You are such a lightweight 'fluffer'. This particular exchange began with your sarcastic response to my #435 post. Gave you 3 chances to back it up with some intelligent counter-arguments. Not up it, not once. Beyond you. Nothing but pathetic evasions.

Forever weak and pigeon-like to me now: in heart and mind.

 

[MD Jazz]

I'm not ignoring it at all, David. I'm not disputing the law or questioning it includes intent, it's the way intent is determined that is the issue here.

My point all along has been we umpire actions, not intent. In the eyes of the umpire your actions determine your intent because that is the only reasonable way they can do it.

What are you blabbing on about? You think because you write a whole series of irrelevant nonsense it strengthens your point?
You write like you are speaking as an umpire. But you’re not. You really need to admit when you’re wrong.

 

[tigerdell]

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.

.....

I think TBR has consistently said that skill errors are not considered.
In other words the umpire is to assume no skill error and the player intended for that result.
Whether skill error should be considered or not is another argument.

 

[tigerdell]

.....

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.

.....

David we had an example of adjudicating holding the man early in the gws game. Just as you have been calling for it.
The player,s jumper held off the ball. Just for a second but it was a hold. Free kick was given, against big Tom Lynch just as Jack,s kick was going through the sticks.

Is that really what you want?

 

[DavidSSS]

TBR, how can you spend 4 paragraphs trying a convoluted claim that the umpires interpret action as intent on DOOB but look for intent in marking contests, and then talk about how all of this simplifies the rules? Simplification by ignoring what the rule states is just silly and a recipe for inconsistency.

Yes, I want consistency, where did I ever say I agree with intent? I'm just saying that is what the rule states and that is what the umpires should be adjudicating, and that means, if it is a skill error, then the intent is different to the action and should be adjudicated accordingly. How can you assume no skill error when adjudicating intent?

You want to simplify the rules take out the intent. I would go for a rule which pays a free for deliberate out of bounds. The current rule is too vague - insufficient intent to keep the ball in play - too vague. Then again, unlike the AFL, I don't have a problem with more boundary throw ins.

Tigerdell, if grabbing another player's jumper (which was silly because that is all umpires appear capable of looking for) was paid every time it happens in that situation with Lynch, do you think he would have done it? You see, that is the mess we are in. They pay holding the man so seldom that players are very very surprised when they actually pay it - hence, players do it all the time as they know they will get away with it 90% of the time. Yes, I want that paid as a free kick, it is behaviour which will disappear in a big hurry if they pay it. I would add that Lynch holding that GWS player was really silly because it did not affect the play. What I really want to see paid is that players who grab an opponent who is attempting to grab the ball gets pinged for holding the man. If you hold an opposing player who is not in possession of the ball it is a free kick - this was simple for over 100 years until some idiot decided that they would only pay it some of the time.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

You are such a lightweight 'fluffer'. This particular exchange began with your sarcastic response to my #435 post. Gave you 3 chances to back it up with some intelligent counter-arguments. Not up it, not once. Beyond you. Nothing but pathetic evasions.

Forever weak and pigeon-like to me now: in heart and mind.

Sure, you can file your fantasy of me as a giant pigeon next to your fantasy of the AFL instructing the umps to jump off the Bulldogs because they can't win the flag.

 

[Aegean Tiger]

Again, it may well not be their actual intent but it is unreasonable to expect umpires to be mind readers beyond the point of simply aligning an action with a logical intent.

This is exactly the problem with intent when adjudicating the OOB rule. Way to difficult for the umpires and wrong for them not to consider factors like poor execution, ground conditions due to weather etc.

The current rule is too vague - insufficient intent to keep the ball in play - too vague.

Correct weight!

 

[RoarEmotion]

We have other rules that require the umpire to assess what the player is thinking (must attempt to dispose of ball in HTB being one, if a player heard an umpires request to move back Behind the mark or was drowned out by crowd noise etc). And many that don’t. (push in back / chop arms etc)


I don’t think it’s valid to argue that intent isn’t part of any rule.

On DOOB if the AFL has provided guidance on its interpretation to clubs and players you think it could also share it with its biggest stakeholder.

 

[MD Jazz]

Razor Ray on SEN this morning. Discussed the Brayshaw decision and then the rule in general. This is straight from a current umpire

- Insufficiemt intent the change from deliberate OOB
Has the player shown sufficient intent to keep it in? They analyse by assessing the following-
- has the ball gone up the line or directly at the line? (what angle is umpire can influence that)
- is it forcefully in a direct line towards boundary?
- is a teammate in vicinity?
- SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
- does it slew off the boot!
- did they show sufficient intent to keep it in

So result is not how it is judged!! The situation is taken into account. Just as DS and myself and others have argued.

TBR, please stop making stuff up.

 

[Harry]

what if the intent was to make it seem like the intent was to keep the ball in play but the player actually intended to miskick and get the ball out of bounds, making it seem like it wasn't deliberate but the intention was to waste time regardless of the fact that the there wasn't sufficient intent and the ball actually did skew off the boot on execution?

 

[jb03]

what if the intent was to make it seem like the intent was to keep the ball in play but the player actually intended to miskick and get the ball out of bounds, making it seem like it wasn't deliberate but the intention was to waste time regardless of the fact that the there wasn't sufficient intent and the ball actually did skew off the boot on execution?

Like when George is having a snap shot for goal?

 

[MD Jazz]

I'm going to bid farewell to you two gentlemen on that note, I'm afraid we are just operating on different plane of understanding when it comes to umpiring and the rules.

Life's too short, enjoy the footy.

Please listen to Ray with Gerard, I'm sure it will be available to listen to. It will help you understand the rule and how the umpires apply it.

 

[DavidSSS]

what if the intent was to make it seem like the intent was to keep the ball in play but the player actually intended to miskick and get the ball out of bounds, making it seem like it wasn't deliberate but the intention was to waste time regardless of the fact that the there wasn't sufficient intent and the ball actually did skew off the boot on execution?

Which is precisely why I would change the rule and make it harder to give away a free kick, intent is too hard to judge and too vague.

DS

 

[leon]

Sure, you can file your fantasy of me as a giant pigeon next to your fantasy of the AFL instructing the umps to jump off the Bulldogs because they can't win the flag.

Refer to my previous post. Waste of time bothering.

 

[AngryAnt]

Refer to my previous post. Waste of time bothering.

Sure was.