Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

[hujsh]

My oh my that call with 30 seconds left......

In retrospect I'm not sure it was AS bad as people thought (incuding myself).

Sending the ball over the boundary with 30 seconds left when you only see 3 Dogs around you and you can reset for a throw in set play isn't a bad idea.

I wouldn't pay it as deliberate if I controlled the rules but going by the precedent set so far this year it probably is a free kick. More than Stringers last week.

[Twodogs]

Anything could have happened from a throw in - we will never know, however 2 minutes earlier Bob laid a great tackle and the there was incorrect disposal resulting in a crucial goal. Richmond can't complain, but yes deliberate is bordering farcical.

Yep precisely. It was a long way short of the worst decision of the night.

It's like us complaining about Toby Greene's the week before with just over a minute to go. Ultimately it's pointless.

[GVGjr]

The AFL is ruining the game and this is a poor rule. They've made it nearly impossible for the umpires to adjudicate this correctly.

I hope commonsense prevails here but I fear it won't.

[Sedat]

Again we are all talking about a few isolated questionable decisions with this new rule and ignoring the literally hundreds of incorrect disposal and HTB missed frees through the course of this round. Was glad that Hardwick raised this issue in his presser - umps have to process 5 different factors to come up with a decision on one rule. HTB and illegal disposal remains a complete and utter mess that is affecting the game far more than other more talked about rules.

[ratsmac]

Live I thought it was the correct decision. It looked like open handed shove across the line, to not let several defenders clear it. The replay showed otherwise, granted, but the field umpire was in a great spot to call it. His view would've been hard to argue not paying 'insuffient effort to keep the football within play'.

I thought the same thing. Live it looked deliberate even with the 10 year ago interpretation. But in slow mo you can see him fumbling the ball. Change the rule back to how it was when we would only complain about it once every 6 games instead of 6 times a game and it would be better for everyone.

[Topdog]

Again we are all talking about a few isolated questionable decisions with this new rule and ignoring the literally hundreds of incorrect disposal and HTB missed frees through the course of this round. Was glad that Hardwick raised this issue in his presser - umps have to process 5 different factors to come up with a decision on one rule. HTB and illegal disposal remains a complete and utter mess that is affecting the game far more than other more talked about rules.

Honestly I think people have given up on trying to interpret HTB and particularly incorrect disposal.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Honestly I think people have given up on trying to interpret HTB and particularly incorrect disposal.

I thought we were very stiff with HTB on saturday. Richmond got away with quite a few where we got done for pretty much the same thing. I thought i was pretty clear on the interpretation but now i'm getting a bit lost.

I thought:

If there is no prior opportunity then it's not holding the ball provided that the player makes a realistic attempt to get rid of it. However if the player throws the ball then HTB can be paid (although in this case it's not really HTB, it's a throw).

If there is prior opportunity then the player must dispose the ball legally. Otherwise it's HTB.

That seems pretty straight forward to me, but it's no longer being called that way. The last goal to Richmond (their last 2 were from free kick calls/non-calls so those fans whinging about the deliberate are focusing on 1 call) where Murph tackled Lambert was a blatant throw and i thought holding the ball. The HTB might be contentious but the throw was clear as day.

[bornadog]

In retrospect I'm not sure it was AS bad as people thought (incuding myself).

Sending the ball over the boundary with 30 seconds left when you only see 3 Dogs around you and you can reset for a throw in set play isn't a bad idea.

I wouldn't pay it as deliberate if I controlled the rules but going by the precedent set so far this year it probably is a free kick. More than Stringers last week.

Live at the game it looked deliberate, so I can't blame the umpire, but on the replay and in slo-mo, it was a fumble. Richmond Fans, get over it.

[Sedat]

Honestly I think people have given up on trying to interpret HTB and particularly incorrect disposal.

The AFL and the rules committee certainly have. Funny thing is, it's quite an easy rule to fix- no proper kick or handball and you're gone. Prior opportunity is a load of bollocks that has only come into the game in the last 15 years - if the legitimate tackle is instantaneous then it is a ball up, but every other situation it should be a free against. Move the ball on and get rid of all the rolling mauls, packs and endless stoppages. Bonus points for Paul Roos not liking it.

[Topdog]

The AFL and the rules committee certainly have. Funny thing is, it's quite an easy rule to fix- no proper kick or handball and you're gone. Prior opportunity is a load of bollocks that has only come into the game in the last 15 years - if the legitimate tackle is instantaneous then it is a ball up, but every other situation it should be a free against. Move the ball on and get rid of all the rolling mauls, packs and endless stoppages. Bonus points for Paul Roos not liking it.

Agreed, its not difficult to fix or at the very least IMPROVE.

[Sedat]

One of the more rubbish blokes going around. Love the breathtaking hypocrisy of not mentioning the COLA allowance of 10% that allowed Roos to have the depth on his list AND retain marquee players of the calibre of Barry Hall.

Oh, and great timing on the article when Buddy kicks a lazy 8 goals on the weekend and Melbourne yet again under-perform in the spotlight. Roos is a shit bloke and history revisionist.

OOPS - WRONG THREAD. Mods, can you please move this to the Roos thread?

[Sedat]

Agreed, its not difficult to fix or at the very least IMPROVE.

They did actually improve this in the first 2 rounds, but Longmire's post-match whinge against us put paid to that.

[Ozza]

Again we are all talking about a few isolated questionable decisions with this new rule and ignoring the literally hundreds of incorrect disposal and HTB missed frees through the course of this round. Was glad that Hardwick raised this issue in his presser - umps have to process 5 different factors to come up with a decision on one rule. HTB and illegal disposal remains a complete and utter mess that is affecting the game far more than other more talked about rules.

Thought that this was not only a good point, but also a fairly classy answer from Hardwick - who wouldn't be drawn into any discussion around being 'robbed' due to a deliberate OOB decision. I don't mind Hardwick, think he is very genuine. You'd never see him take the snide approach that the Scott's or Longmire do towards umpiring or other clubs.

Off topic a bit, but where is Chris Scott's focus if he is making comments about Rodney Eade and the Suns' dealings with the umpires boss during the week. Maybe focus on the game Chris! Glad they got beaten up there, copped his right whack.

[Bulldog4life]

Yep precisely. It was a long way short of the worst decision of the night.

It's like us complaining about Toby Greene's the week before with just over a minute to go. Ultimately it's pointless.

That was the worst deliberate out of bounds of the season and it wasn't paid. Too many changes of the rules continue to ruin our great game. Do other sports have a rules committee?

[G-Mo77]

Live it looked so deliberate. Richmond got called for one earlier in the night that was worse.