Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

[mjp]

Oh yeah - and last touch vs last possession are not the same thing. The example you gave above is last possession whereas last touch would cover all those times in a contest when a ball bouncing around ends up oob or a player is pushed/tackled over the line...

[mjp]

Bob was speaking about the rule, and the potentially evolution of the rule on SEN.

He thought that the response from the players to having stricter deliberate OOB, or making it last touch rule - would see players strategically kick the ball out of bounds if faced with the option of going to either the boundary or to the middle of the ground where they are exposed to a more likely score against.

So instead of risking the corridor - you just kick the ball out of bounds in the most time-wasting way that you can, and set up your defensive zone.

100%. Which is why players are kicking it wide already. Which goes to my point about the team doing the work/getting numbers to the ball/applying pressure etc wins by forcing the error but for too long have been penalised by the other team receiving a 50-50 opportunity (or greater depending on their rbi proficiency) for being beaten in a contest.

[bornadog]

See - I thought that WAS deliberate and the free kick was fair enough. Who was he kicking it too?

So he aimed to make the ball bounce at right angle?

[Topdog]

Oh yeah - and last touch vs last possession are not the same thing. The example you gave above is last possession whereas last touch would cover all those times in a contest when a ball bouncing around ends up oob or a player is pushed/tackled over the line...

yeah good call. when i said last touch before I meant last possession

[soupman]

So he aimed to make the ball bounce at right angle?

I don't necessarily agree with MJP but using his line of reasoning it probably worked better for us that Boyd's kick bounced out and they were given the free than if it bounced straight and their loose defenders picked it up and sent it straight back in.

I do like the pov that the rule rewards high pressure teams.

As for the look of the rule, I think there are three big unintended consequences of it, especially if it gets worse:
-The media and public reaction is dead against it and means that every time the ball goes remotely close to the boundary you have half the supporters screaming for deliberate and then whenit is paid the other half (including the receiving tema supporters) shaking their heads in bewilderment.
-As Murphy has said, soon players will realise that they will be penalised anyway so why not kick the ball into level three, which is going to look incredibly stupid for the sport.
-For all their protection of ruckmen this year has seen an even further move away from them already, and if you continue to reduce the amount of ruck contests in he game soon there won't be a single ruck on the field, just two tall blokes that contest the centre bounce then run forward. Guys like Tom Lynch, Joe Daniher, Tom Boyd will be clubs starting FF and starting ruck.

[bornadog]

I don't necessarily agree with MJP but using his line of reasoning it probably worked better for us that Boyd's kick bounced out and they were given the free than if it bounced straight and their loose defenders picked it up and sent it straight back in.

That free kick resulted in a goal. One kick deep into the forward line and Lob marked the all.

[soupman]

That free kick resulted in a goal. One kick deep into the forward line and Lob marked the all.

Fair point however you'd take the free kick scenario over the alternative in that situation. At least it gives you time to setup

[hujsh]

No. But I think it would make the whole thing a lot simpler. You might be able to talk me into last possession (Si,liar to how a kick in after point is adjudicated) but I am not keen on last touch as it would discourage players from running at the ball.

I just think that treating players who are under pressure as special cases when they exit kick wide is wrong. What they are experiencing is good play by the opposition...who should be rewarded if they can't find a team mate (or don't even try to).

I think we too often view rewarding good play as paying a free kick. Reward for a good tackle or good team pressure can also be forcing a 50-50 contest.

I'd rather see less free kicks in a game and just let the players play the damn thing. I don't care if it slows down somewhat or or there more contested situations. Games can be high quality with lots of close contests and low quality games can be free-flowing. Just let the game be played by the players and save the frees for penalising poor play such as high tackles instead of using them to shape the play.

[GVGjr]

You said standard of the game - did you mean that exactly, or are you referring to standard of umpiring?

If Gil is saying the standard of the game is better - then I agree with him. The football has been fantastic this season.

The umpires aren't the problem, the AFL have made it vastly harder for them to make decisions and it's become an almost game show type scenario where the crowd wait for the dramatic call.

I don't think the game is better, it's confusing for the crowd and the pressure is on the umpires to try and manage around untried rules.

[GVGjr]

See - I thought that WAS deliberate and the free kick was fair enough. Who was he kicking it too?

Why does he have to kick it anyone? A clearing kick to gain some time and space has been a big part of the game as long as I can remember.

To me the key thing to focus on here is the wording around 'deliberate'. If you hack the back out of the backline for example and it lands 5 mtrs from the boundary and rolls out with no player close by to me it's reasonable to assume the kicker was aiming for the safety of the boundary line. He and his team should cop the whack if the umpire makes the call.
If the same player hacks the ball out of the back line and it land 15 mtrs inside but does a big off break it shouldn't be considered as deliberate. Eliminate those examples and I think teams will work within the new rule and master it quickly.

All this should have been worked out and perfected in the JLT series and not changed during the season as appears to be the case now. I'm not against rule changes, some are good and some miss so I can live with that but this one has been rushed in before all the kinks have been ironed out.

The AFL are too quick to make changes and in tech terms 'go live' before they have tested and perfected.

[Twodogs]

I know that quite literally no-one agrees with me, but I love the way deliberate oob is being adjudicated. Players have been intentionally kicking the ball over the line for - literally - ever, and it is about time it was enforced.

If you hack the ball out of defence and it goes out, well - that's deliberate. If you hack the ball out of the centre square and it goes out, well - that's deliberate too. And in the case on Saturday night, well - that was DELIBERATE. Otherwise we have to start working out what's a fumble vs what's acting and - in the moment, it looked like it was either deliberate or a throw...it was a free kick. It was way LESS of a free kick than the Murphy chase-down tackle/holding the ball/incorrect disposal that preceded Riewoldts last goal of the night, but it was still a free-kick. If Richmond are upset, well, they should have been the team getting numbers to the contest rather than leaving an inexperienced player 3v1 near the pointy end of a close game.

As for the 'what else could he do' arguments, well, any number of things. No-one says you have to kick the ball when you are under pressure in the backline. Run around the pursuing tackler, create some time and space then spot up a team-mate. If you don't get around the tackler, there are consequences...there should be consequences for just blasting it out of there as well. In the case on Saturday night, I guess he was unlucky on some level but there is no doubt that his intention heading to that ball was to get it over the line, force a stoppage and allow the (yellow and black) cavalry to arrive...he did that and was correctly penalised for it.

You're the first person I ever heard yell 'boundary' during a game (apart from Ted Whitten)

(or greater depending on their rbi proficiency)

Whats a RBI proficiency?

[Twodogs]

Why does he have to kick it anyone? A clearing kick to gain some time and space has been a big part of the game as long as I can remember.

To me the key thing to focus on here is the wording around 'deliberate'. If you hack the back out of the backline for example and it lands 5 mtrs from the boundary and rolls out with no player close by to me it's reasonable to assume the kicker was aiming for the safety of the boundary line. He and his team should cop the whack if the umpire makes the call.
If the same player hacks the ball out of the back line and it land 15 mtrs inside but does a big off break it shouldn't be considered as deliberate. Eliminate those examples and I think teams will work within the new rule and master it quickly.

All this should have been worked out and perfected in the JLT series and not changed during the season as appears to be the case now. I'm not against rule changes, some are good and some miss so I can live with that but this one has been rushed in before all the kinks have been ironed out.

The AFL are too quick to make changes and in tech terms 'go live' before they have tested and perfected.

Yeah agree. it makes the AFL look like amateur hour.

[bornadog]

Well they changed the interpretation completely tonight. Not one deliberate paid and some kicks just the same as previous weeks when they were paid.

[bulldogtragic]

Well they changed the interpretation completely tonight. Not one deliberate paid and some kicks just the same as previous weeks when they were paid.

Still better. Maybe they can addresss goal line reviewing 4 hours ago too.

[Happy Days]

Still better. Maybe they can addresss goal line reviewing 4 hours ago too.

We already had "Deliberate" week; can't risk over-covering the story and losing the audience. Best move on to the next AFL Approved Controversy(tm) to stay in the headlines.