WEEK 2 FINALS 2021

[AngryAnt]

Razor said that they're instructed to determine whether players demonstrated intent to keep the ball in play.

Daniel didn't look towards the boundary or kick the ball towards the boundary, but the umpires reckons he didn't show enough intent to keep the ball in play.


Chamberlain explained how umpires have been told to officiate the rule and how it goes beyond deliberately attempting to get the ball out of bounds.

“So, the guidelines that we’re given now is that the player with the football, or who’s handballing the football, knocking the football, kicking the football, they have to demonstrate a sufficient intent to keep the ball in play,” he said.

“The guts of it is if they’re looking to kill the ball, they put themselves in a position where they could incur a free kick."

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

Yep... so the umpire has to be a mindreader. Pharken stupid rule.

 

[year of the tiger]

Next week it’s the Power and Dees to lose. Without the pre finals bye, they get a massive heads start For the preliminaries.

 

[AngryAnt]

It’s actually “Hear Hear” - it means “Listen to him!” or “Hey, everyone should hear this!”

Don’t normally correct people (though every “your” instead of “you’re” or that Americanism “lay” instead of “lie” annoys me) - but this common error really aggravates my goat

my favourite is "they are making an escape goat of him"

 

[AngryAnt]

As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.

Yep, that's all fair TBR. I just don't like the rule, it's still way too subjective - a risky action (soccering) vs a less risky action.

 

[tigerman]

Yep... so the umpire has to be a mindreader. Pharken stupid rule.

Just another of Shocking's shocking rule changes. What was wrong with the deliberate out of bounds.........nothing. Now it it's insufficient intent, as you say the umpire has to be a mind reader.

 

[tigerman]

I don't give ****, when I'm at the footy I'm stilling calling out "deliberate !!!!!", they can stick their "insufficient intent !!!!" where the sun don't shine.

 

[Jake]

Just another of Shocking's shocking rule changes. What was wrong with the deliberate out of bounds.........nothing. Now it it's insufficient intent, as you say the umpire has to be a mind reader.

Remember back in the day it was bit of a skill to hit the boundary, what does *smile* me is players on the other team appealing for the free kick and it's not even out of bounds.

 

[eZyT]

Free kicks aren't not paid on a we can see what you were trying to do basis.

unrealistic attempt?

they could blow the whistle on Joe Daniher, or Dangerfield the moment they run onto the ground for a final.

 

[DavidSSS]

Just another of Shocking's shocking rule changes. What was wrong with the deliberate out of bounds.........nothing. Now it it's insufficient intent, as you say the umpire has to be a mind reader.

Yep, the rule is silly, but that is the rule at the moment. You and I are just fans/club members so our opinions are just ignored by the AFL. I would far prefer a deliberate out of bounds rule, easier to adjudicate and clearer. More throw ins, but so what.

DS

 

[eZyT]

so The AFL has booked Burswood Oval for the Grand Final on September 25th.

But the Preliminaries are 10th and 11th September.

is my maths wrong, or is that 2 weeks between preliminaries and the GF?

Is that to give maximum time for a Covid outbreak in Perth?

so you can get concussed in a prelim, and still play the GF?

what's the thinking?

also, why are Dogs going to Perth before they play Port in Adelaide?

can anyone tell me anything that makes sense?

 

[CarnTheTiges]

unrealistic attempt?

they could blow the whistle on Joe Daniher, or Dangerfield the moment they run onto the ground for a final.

Don’t leave Gary Rohan out of that.

 

[Legends of 2017]

As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.

Hey TBR. Don’t agree that that should have been a free kick but that’s not why I’m on here. If it’s about insufficient intent can you explain why teams don’t get penalised when a player deliberately punches the ball over the boundary. By that I mean like when players go up for a mark and the bloke behind has absolutely no intention of marking , just spoiling by punching. There are numerous times during each game where you can see quite obviously the defender’s only intent is to make sure the ball goes out of bounds. They actually punch the ball 45 degrees at times. Do you know why that is never penalised? It’s quite obviously ( most times deliberately) “ insufficient intent” to keep the ball inside the field of play.

 

[spook]

Next week it’s the Power and Dees to lose. Without the pre finals bye, they get a massive heads start For the preliminaries.

So they should.

 

[TT33]

As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.

If thats the "intention" of the rule then I'm afraid the rule is an absolute ass & should be rescinded. An umpire should not be put in the position of trying to read a players mind or what he intended.

 

[tigertim]

As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.

The lengths you go to to defend and “explain” bad decisions is commendable, I reckon if an umpire shot a player dead on the field you’d defend it.

 

[AngryAnt]

Hey TBR. Don’t agree that that should have been a free kick but that’s not why I’m on here. If it’s about insufficient intent can you explain why teams don’t get penalised when a player deliberately punches the ball over the boundary. By that I mean like when players go up for a mark and the bloke behind has absolutely no intention of marking , just spoiling by punching. There are numerous times during each game where you can see quite obviously the defender’s only intent is to make sure the ball goals out of bounds. They actually punch the ball 45 degrees at times. Do you know why that is never penalised? It’s quite obviously ( most times deliberately) “ insufficient intent” to keep the ball inside the field of play.

I believe that in marking contests the rule doesn't apply... that's explicitly called out in the rules somewhere.

As for the logic of this, who knows.

 

[AstuteTiger]

 

[tigertim]

Rhys “The Barometer” Mathieson didn’t take the loss very well:

More than a Game ❤️ | More than a game ❤️ Cam consoling a distraught Matho as they watch on from the stands last night #Uncaged | By Brisbane Lions | Facebook

274K views, 2K likes, 1.5K loves, 904 comments, 211 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Brisbane Lions: More than a game ❤️ Cam consoling a distraught Matho as they watch on from the stands last night...

fb.watch

 

[Legends of 2017]

Rhys “The Barometer” Mathieson didn’t take the loss very well:

More than a Game ❤️ | More than a game ❤️ Cam consoling a distraught Matho as they watch on from the stands last night #Uncaged | By Brisbane Lions | Facebook

274K views, 2K likes, 1.5K loves, 904 comments, 211 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Brisbane Lions: More than a game ❤️ Cam consoling a distraught Matho as they watch on from the stands last night...

fb.watch

Touching from Rayner
But suck *smile* mathieson you flog

 

[craig]

Is it bad that I have got so much enjoyment out of last nights result??