Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

[bornadog]

Link (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-03/deliberate-interpretation-becoming-ridiculous-lewis)

THE DELIBERATE out of bounds interpretation is bordering on "ridiculous" and it should be reviewed immediately, experienced Melbourne midfielder Jordan Lewis says.

The ruling, which the AFL tightened at the beginning of the season, has caused plenty of conjecture as players are being penalised more harshly than ever before.

The four-time premiership Hawk said the stricter ruling had created more problems than solutions.
"I personally think it's become a little bit ridiculous to be honest," Lewis said on Wednesday.

"It needs to be looked at because sometimes players don't have any other options."

Both Jake Stringer and Tom Boyd were penalised for deliberate out of bounds in the Greater Western Sydney-Western Bulldogs game at Manuka Oval on Friday night.

Boyd's kick out of defence bounced at an unusual angle across the boundary line, while fellow Bulldog Stringer was pushed as he kicked the ball towards the wing from the centre square.

Lewis said the ruling had become too unpredictable.

"You look at the Jake Stringer one, you look at the Tom Boyd one," he said.
"The ball has literally bounced at right angles and we're playing with an oval ball that can bounce wherever – it's not predictable.

"So I think it certainly needs to be looked at.
"I sit at home as a viewer of the game and I get frustrated.

"I'm sure there's others out there like that and I don't support the last touch out of bounds is a free kick either."
The deliberate out of bounds rule is expected to discussed when the AFL's Laws of the Game Committee meets on Thursday.

AFL football operations manager Simon Lethlean said on AFL Exchange last week ahead of round six he thought understanding of the new rules, which also includes the tightening of the deliberate rushed behind rule and a new interpretation of head-high tackles, was improving each week.

"The holding the ball (call) is the hardest. I think the deliberate out of bounds and rushed behinds are starting to take shape. Everyone realises it is going to be harshly interpreted and it is having the right effect keeping the ball in," Lethlean told AFL.com.au.

[bornadog]

The Boyd one cost us a goal, in such a tight game. The Greene real deliberate OOB, would have given us the ball with minutes to go.

[jeemak]

Simon Lethlean has said it's getting better so I guess we'll just take his word for it.

[bornadog]

Simon Lethlean has said it's getting better so I guess we'll just take his word for it.

All I have heard all week is the fans want to see the ball keep moving and not get rushed through goals or kicked OOB.

I say BS, the fans want to see the game they love and not meddled with.

[ledge]

It's got lost in the interpretation "deliberate ", easy fix Is was it intentional ?? I thought that was the rule . Was it the intention of the player ?

If it was the intention it's a free . Obviously the two examples are it wasn't intentional . The GWS one I saw where the player did a little kick was intentional.
Change the rule to " intentional" and get rid of deliberate. That covers both and also doesn't give frees to pressure kicks with an oval ball.
Also If a player kicks a ball 40 metres and it bounces twice it should automatically not be intentional as it's an oval ball.

[chef]

They are just preparing us for the inevitable. Who ever touched it last gives away the free.

Which goes against their banning third man up to save rucks, this will kill them off.

[ratsmac]

Obviously we weren't looking at those shit deliberates with one eye bulldog glasses. All though I think everyone wears 'I hate GWS' glasses so its hard to tell if they were a fair call or not.

[Go_Dogs]

They are just preparing us for the inevitable. Who ever touched it last gives away the free.

Which goes against their banning third man up to save rucks, this will kill them off.

Any clear handball or kick, or intentionally not taking possession when you have the opportunity to - outside of that I think you'd still have spoils and spills that create boundary throw ins.

[hujsh]

They are just preparing us for the inevitable. Who ever touched it last gives away the free.

Which goes against their banning third man up to save rucks, this will kill them off.


That'll sure be shit.


Any clear handball or kick, or intentionally not taking possession when you have the opportunity to - outside of that I think you'd still have spoils and spills that create boundary throw ins.
So would that.

[Go_Dogs]

That'll sure be shit.


So would that.

Not saying I like it, but I can see it heading that way and it would have consistency (maybe) over what we have at the moment.

[jeemak]

All I have heard all week is the fans want to see the ball keep moving and not get rushed through goals or kicked OOB.

I say BS, the fans want to see the game they love and not meddled with.

I liken it to supermarket chains telling us that consumers continually tell them they want cheap groceries, so their entire strategy and the way they treat stakeholders is geared towards delivering that at the expense of other values. The end result is a commoditised experience, that is overall poorer than the original one.

Of course consumers want cheap groceries. But they don't want them at the expense to quality and choice to the extent we see now.

This is what is happening with the AFL. Do supporters want to see the players who play for their teams have to hand the ball directly to opposition players rather than clear space and regroup, just so they can continuously see the ball kept in play?

Of course they don't, that's just stupid. But that's what the AFL with its simplistic approach to taking on feedback is gunning for. Their narrow minded nonsensical agenda driven rubbish is only going to create problems for them, just like many of their changes to date have.

What does the AFL think will happen to congestion when the team within its defensive 50m arc knows that a clearing kick will just see the ball pumped into the 50m arc from repeated free kicks for out of bounds? Can they really see this clearing things up?

[jeemak]

While I'm on my soap box, moving the ball in quick transition requires teams to take risks, run to where the space is, kick it hard, long and flat because players are unbelievably good at closing down space.

Where is the space generally? That's right, around the flanks, on the wings - close to the boundary. Sure you can find it in the corridor, but as a rule this is the area most defended and generally opens up less throughout the course of a game.

What will teams do if they're punished for taking a risk? That's right, they'll stop taking them. What will that mean? That's right, slower play and more congestion.

Brilliant.

[hujsh]

Not saying I like it, but I can see it heading that way and it would have consistency (maybe) over what we have at the moment.

Didn't mean to imply you would like it. Just seems like an even worse addition that will see players forced to either concede a free or give it straight to the opposition if they're first to the ball but outnumbered on the boundary

While I'm on my soap box, moving the ball in quick transition requires teams to take risks, run to where the space is, kick it hard, long and flat because players are unbelievably good at closing down space.

Where is the space generally? That's right, around the flanks, on the wings - close to the boundary. Sure you can find it in the corridor, but as a rule this is the area most defended and generally opens up less throughout the course of a game.

What will teams do if they're punished for taking a risk? That's right, they'll stop taking them. What will that mean? That's right, slower play and more congestion.

Brilliant.

All this time I thought the AFL wanted to take football back to the 80s but it turns out they actually want the 1950's style of kicking it from pack to pack turning it back into a game of markers up

[bornadog]

While I'm on my soap box, moving the ball in quick transition requires teams to take risks, run to where the space is, kick it hard, long and flat because players are unbelievably good at closing down space.

Where is the space generally? That's right, around the flanks, on the wings - close to the boundary. Sure you can find it in the corridor, but as a rule this is the area most defended and generally opens up less throughout the course of a game.

What will teams do if they're punished for taking a risk? That's right, they'll stop taking them. What will that mean? That's right, slower play and more congestion.

Brilliant.

As I have said many times, the consequences of rule changes is never thought out by or friends in the ivory tower.

[Topdog]

AFL are now asking fans via an online survey if they want the last touch as a rule.......my goodness

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-03/your-say-is-it-time-for-a-last-touch-rule

[boydogs]

AFL are now asking fans via an online survey if they want the last touch as a rule.......my goodness

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-03/your-say-is-it-time-for-a-last-touch-rule

Some very leading questions and canned list of options

It's obvious that deliberate out of bounds needs to be a thing to stop time wasting, but last year's rule was fine

[jeemak]

Well the idiocy is at least progressing quickly. Nothing worse than slow burn idiocy (I mean, trickle down economics has been a form of idiocy that has permeated politics for at least 45 years and it's still undecided but truly tested).

[bornadog]

AFL are now asking fans via an online survey if they want the last touch as a rule.......my goodness

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-03/your-say-is-it-time-for-a-last-touch-rule

Why am I not surprised. Basically the end of Footy as we know it.

[hujsh]

Why am I not surprised. Basically the end of Footy as we know it.

Aussie Rules Mens Netball

[chef]

Zones will be next

[1eyedog]

AFL are now asking fans via an online survey if they want the last touch as a rule.......my goodness

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-03/your-say-is-it-time-for-a-last-touch-rule

It's clear they have no idea how to handle it and this was likely a highlighted line item on the agenda when the rules of the game committee met with the Commission today. The Commission seem ok with the 'player did not try to keep the ball in' rule but really have zero idea on the 'chaperone' over the boundary rule as coined by Dan Hennebery. Putting it out to punters as an EOI is amateurish and reactive. Clearly the AFL enjoy the theatre the rule generates and have no intention of changing it.

Eventually a player will be seen to chaperone the ball over the boundary line 25 metres from goal in a Grand Final and the subsequent goal will determine the result and then there will be strife. I'm talking the burning down of AFL house strife.

[jeemak]

It won't happen in a GF 1ED, it will happen in a game 2/3 to 3/4 through the season between two teams not really fighting it out.

The AFL will stage manage the hell out of this one to get the result they want.

[jeemak]

Zones will be next

If they actually used GPS technology to do it properly via a 4th umpire system zoning would solve just about every congestion issue.

Unfortunately the luddites "strategically" directing the game won't invest the time and effort (or cost) to do it properly and will continue with the piecemeal stop gaps they employ time and again.

[bornadog]

If they actually used GPS technology to do it properly via a 4th umpire system zoning would solve just about every congestion issue.

Unfortunately the luddites "strategically" directing the game won't invest the time and effort (or cost) to do it properly and will continue with the piecemeal stop gaps they employ time and again.

Good - Zones suck.

[Happy Days]

I think that the current set up allows for phenomenal football to be played; Adelaide are putting up 25 goals a game, and pretty much any time that 2 of the top 6 or so teams play it's pretty much assured to be a great game. But the media share of the AFL as proportionate to the amount of content it has the capacity to produce lead to phenomenal overreactions to poor contests/skills/"issues" that aren't really there/etc. It's the magnification of the game, combined with an administration largely comprised of moronic luddites with CTE from having to suffer through the good old days of HIGH MARKING CONTESTED FOOTY YEAH~! that leads to the ridiculous over-corrections we see in the rules.

Can't make any content out of what's on the field? Change what's happening on it then. Will shut everyone up and get them talking at the same time. Footy is awesome and will always be awesome but there's really no escape in sight with the AFL leading the way.

There is no way to make a game between Carlton and Brisbane watchable, so stop tinkering to make it so. I wasn't there but I'm sure there were shit games back when footy was "good" too. The greater footballing public needs to accept this and take the awesome where they can get it.

[craigsahibee]

I think that the current set up allows for phenomenal football to be played; Adelaide are putting up 25 goals a game, and pretty much any time that 2 of the top 6 or so teams play it's pretty much assured to be a great game. But the media share of the AFL as proportionate to the amount of content it has the capacity to produce lead to phenomenal overreactions to poor contests/skills/"issues" that aren't really there/etc. It's the magnification of the game, combined with an administration largely comprised of moronic luddites with CTE from having to suffer through the good old days of HIGH MARKING CONTESTED FOOTY YEAH~! that leads to the ridiculous over-corrections we see in the rules.

Can't make any content out of what's on the field? Change what's happening on it then. Will shut everyone up and get them talking at the same time. Footy is awesome and will always be awesome but there's really no escape in sight with the AFL leading the way.

There is no way to make a game between Carlton and Brisbane watchable, so stop tinkering to make it so. I wasn't there but I'm sure there were shit games back when footy was "good" too. The greater footballing public needs to accept this and take the awesome where they can get it.

Happy Days, far too much common sense in this post for the internet. I fear the google machine may implode.

[Twodogs]

I think that the current set up allows for phenomenal football to be played; Adelaide are putting up 25 goals a game, and pretty much any time that 2 of the top 6 or so teams play it's pretty much assured to be a great game. But the media share of the AFL as proportionate to the amount of content it has the capacity to produce lead to phenomenal overreactions to poor contests/skills/"issues" that aren't really there/etc. It's the magnification of the game, combined with an administration largely comprised of moronic luddites with CTE from having to suffer through the good old days of HIGH MARKING CONTESTED FOOTY YEAH~! that leads to the ridiculous over-corrections we see in the rules.

Can't make any content out of what's on the field? Change what's happening on it then. Will shut everyone up and get them talking at the same time. Footy is awesome and will always be awesome but there's really no escape in sight with the AFL leading the way.

There is no way to make a game between Carlton and Brisbane watchable, so stop tinkering to make it so. I wasn't there but I'm sure there were shit games back when footy was "good" too. The greater footballing public needs to accept this and take the awesome where they can get it.


Man...

In the old days a shit game of footy was even shitter than it was today. You think players miss targets and mis kick the ball these days? Ian Dunstan and Peter Featherby used to kick helicopter passes in the forward line that would get tall forwards killed these days while they were waiting for the the 40 metres in the air pass to travel the 30 or so metres from the ball carrier to them. Then there was the mud. And one footy per game that could get a little waterlogged toward the end of the game.

You're quite right. Shit teams and shit games and great teams and great games have happened every season since 1858. And in 1859 there would have been people saying "it's just not as good as it used to be."

[Sedat]

Deliberate OOB and 3rd man up are rules dominating the airwaves but they are such minimal problems compared to illegal disposal/HTB, which is a complete and utter mess that affects virtually every contest and stoppage. There might be 5 clear errors a round with the first two rules but there are probably 100+ issues every week of wildly differing interpretations with the latter. It was going ok in the first 2 weeks but Longmire's whinge after playing us has descended HTB/illegal disposal into farce.

[bornadog]

Deliberate OOB and 3rd man up are rules dominating the airwaves but they are such minimal problems compared to illegal disposal/HTB, which is a complete and utter mess that affects virtually every contest and stoppage. There might be 5 clear errors a round with the first two rules but there are probably 100+ issues every week of wildly differing interpretations with the latter. It was going ok in the first 2 weeks but Longmire's whinge after playing us has descended HTB/illegal disposal into farce.

Whilst I agree with you and you are right, there are more issues with umpiring, I still think deliberate OOB has become a farce, especially last Friday night. In 2015, to round 6, there were 25 Deliberates paid, in 2016 this grew to 85 and this year there has been 75. What a bloody joke - what was wrong with the previous interpretation????

I don't blame umpires, they have to remember so many different rules, it is just impossible to be perfect.

[Throughandthrough]

OK, we have the last touch rule in all grades in the SANFL, which means 90% of all out of bounds end up as a free kick paid. (whether it's from a kick or a handball, the intentional bit is irrelevant) The times it isn't paid is after smothers, contested possessions, etc. Allegedly it has sped the game up and less stoppages. Not sure one years research can be considered proof, but anyways. It's extremely frustrating to watch. Also. it made it harder to photo the game as no one went near the boundary lines. .The suggestion is that the CEO of the SANFL brought it in 18 months ago (without consulting the clubs...) in an effort to appease the almighty AFL gods.


It's generally hated by 90% of the fans.

[bornadog]

OK, we have the last touch rule in all grades in the SANFL, which means 90% of all out of bounds end up as a free kick paid. (whether it's from a kick or a handball, the intentional bit is irrelevant) The times it isn't paid is after smothers, contested possessions, etc. Allegedly it has sped the game up and less stoppages. Not sure one years research can be considered proof, but anyways. It's extremely frustrating to watch. Also. it made it harder to photo the game as no one went near the boundary lines. .The suggestion is that the CEO of the SANFL brought it in 18 months ago (without consulting the clubs...) in an effort to appease the almighty AFL gods.


It's generally hated by 90% of the fans.

So what then happens is the ball is constantly kicked in the corridor and the game becomes congested in the middle part of the ground because everyone is avoiding the boundary line. My god what morons to bring in stupid rules. I am afraid this is what the AFL wants.

[Hotdog60]

I wait for the moment when a player will just leave the ball alone and let it roll out when he has plenty of time to pick it up access and kick it.

[chef]

I wait for the moment when a player will just leave the ball alone and let it roll out when he has plenty of time to pick it up access and kick it.

They are already doing this.

[Throughandthrough]

So what then happens is the ball is constantly kicked in the corridor and the game becomes congested in the middle part of the ground because everyone is avoiding the boundary line. My god what morons to bring in stupid rules. I am afraid this is what the AFL wants.

At first, what happened is exactly what you said. Was more congestion than ever, Dunno if that was coaches instructions or the players being scared of the boundary line. It is now more open as they are aware of the way to play better.

[Throughandthrough]

I wait for the moment when a player will just leave the ball alone and let it roll out when he has plenty of time to pick it up access and kick it.

Happens nearly every match in the Sanfl. And then the crowd get stroppy.

[Before I Die]

Under the current rule interpretation I can see it degenerating into a rugby up and under situation where the defender kicks it as high as they can so that the backs can run forward and contest the mark then create a stoppage.

[Twodogs]

I wait for the moment when a player will just leave the ball alone and let it roll out when he has plenty of time to pick it up access and kick it.


You don't need to wait. It's happening 2 or 3 times in every game.

[Sedat]

We'll hear all about the Ward deliberate OOB in the media tomorrow but nothing about the 50+ terrible non-HTB decisions that happened in tonight's game. It is bordering on farcical how many obvious frees for HTB or illegal disposal are let go when legitimate tackles that should be rewarded are not. End result - repeat stoppages and ugly packs.

Clearly this farce has been put in the too hard basket by the rules commitee.

[Topdog]

How the Geary tackle on Patton wasn't HTB I will never know.

[bornadog]

We'll hear all about the Ward deliberate OOB in the media tomorrow but nothing about the 50+ terrible non-HTB decisions that happened in tonight's game. It is bordering on farcical how many obvious frees for HTB or illegal disposal are let go when legitimate tackles that should be rewarded are not. End result - repeat stoppages and ugly packs.

Clearly this farce has been put in the too hard basket by the rules commitee.

Have you noticed the umpires are giving more time for the player with the ball to get rid of it. Dont worry the interpretation will change later in the year.

[hujsh]

I don't mind some leneincy with HTB. If anything I think they'd gotten too quick on the trigger of recent years.

It really annoys me when a player gets the ball, takes one step to kick it and gets tacked in the motion of kicking and a free is given. No prior but gets paid every time.

[Sedat]

I don't mind some leneincy with HTB. If anything I think they'd gotten too quick on the trigger of recent years.

It really annoys me when a player gets the ball, takes one step to kick it and gets tacked in the motion of kicking and a free is given. No prior but gets paid every time.
Can't disagree more. Players are given an eternity to get rid of it, and 9 times out of 10 it becomes another boring, scrappy, crowded stoppage. They should be pinged as soon as the tackle results in an illegal/incorrect disposal - there are moments where the tackle is almost instantaneous as the player gathers the ball (such as your scenario above), and in these cases umps should immediately call a ball up instead of waiting another 5 seconds for another 15 players to arrive. Giving the players an eternity, like they've done since R3, results in nothing more than endless congestion and over-crowding around the ball.

[Topdog]

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

[bornadog]

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

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.

[bulldogtragic]

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'.

[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? :o

[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.

[GVGjr]

I've just heard Gil McLachlan say the standard of the game has never been better and that too much is being made of two incorrect decisions. I have to say he well off the mark on this one. The standards of the game has slipped in the last 3 years and it's because rules are being implemented and then amended in the home and away season based on feedback. Why aren't these rules being sorted through in the preseason comp like we have done before?

I'll guarantee there will more amendments on the fly before the end of the season.

I'd love to have the chance to talk to these guys.

[Throughandthrough]

Do you guys have the zoning rule in your u18 IAC Cup?

Was trialed last year and is now heavily controlled in u16 and u18 SANFL


Sory, it's
"the new anti-density rule with the intention of preventing zone-style tactics at underage level"

[mjp]

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.

[Murphy'sLore]

If you set up a rules committee, they are going to feel the need to tinker with the rules to justify their existence. Otherwise they'd have very short meetings. 'All good?' 'Yep, all good, see you at the Christmas party.'

[bornadog]

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.

There was nothing wrong with the original interpretation before they meddled with it two years ago.

[Ozza]

I've just heard Gil McLachlan say the standard of the game has never been better and that too much is being made of two incorrect decisions. I have to say he well off the mark on this one. The standards of the game has slipped in the last 3 years and it's because rules are being implemented and then amended in the home and away season based on feedback. Why aren't these rules being sorted through in the preseason comp like we have done before?

I'll guarantee there will more amendments on the fly before the end of the season.

I'd love to have the chance to talk to these guys.

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.

[AndrewP6]

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.

Add me to the ones who don't agree! ;) There are far too many grey areas for it to be simplified to that level. When you say "hack", does that include getting a boot to it as you get tackled, to avoid giving away a penalty, and it goes off your boot as you are thrown to the turf? There's no way that can be adjudicated as deliberate. Just saying a defender has choices like running around a defender, makes it sound like the new AFL Evolution game. The real game just isn't that simple.

[Sedat]

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.
Whilst this rule is not perfect it is certainly contributing to more football in play, and definitely more corridor footy. I can live with a couple of howlers a week with this rule, rather than the 100+ errors every week in relation to the pathetic HTB and illegal disposal interpretations that allow players to get legitimately tackled with no risk of conceding a free for simply holding onto it or just dropping it in the middle of a pack.

We've had 4 tiresome and dead boring days of the media talking endless horseshit about the Jayden Short free - afer all this endless hot air, it is debatable whether or not it was even an error or a correct free (I'm leaning towards the latter). This rule has maybe 3-4 errors a round at most, and yet we allow HTB and illegal disposal to be a continued mess.

[mjp]

Add me to the ones who don't agree! ;) There are far too many grey areas for it to be simplified to that level. When you say "hack", does that include getting a boot to it as you get tackled, to avoid giving away a penalty, and it goes off your boot as you are thrown to the turf? There's no way that can be adjudicated as deliberate. Just saying a defender has choices like running around a defender, makes it sound like the new AFL Evolution game. The real game just isn't that simple.

Throwing the ball on the boot as you get tackled shouldn't be a 'free hit'. If it goes straight oob, then it was probably deliberate...you trying to say the players don't know where the boundary is? The player being tackled has a choice. Break the tackle and keep going. Get the ball to a teammate. If he kicks it to the boundary and it goes out, well, that is a damn sight better than being caught holding the ball! So rejoice, set up the defensive zone and defend the next opposition entry.

The player witht the ball always has a choice. The fact that none of those choices are great shouldn't detract from the fact that kicking the ball wide to the boundary under pressure means it is most likely intended to roll over the line.

[AndrewP6]

Throwing the ball on the boot as you get tackled shouldn't be a 'free hit'. If it goes straight oob, then it was probably deliberate...you trying to say the players don't know where the boundary is?


No, not at all. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily a conscious, "deliberate" decision. Being thrown/spun/slung as you kick is going to cause all sorts of difficulty to your normal skill execution, and no, I don't believe any player in that situation somewhere in the centre square is going to deliberately kick it to the sideline. If they do it under no pressure, facing the boundary, sure. But not in the situation mentioned.

Anyway, we disagree. That's cool.

[Topdog]

Throwing the ball on the boot as you get tackled shouldn't be a 'free hit'. If it goes straight oob, then it was probably deliberate...you trying to say the players don't know where the boundary is? The player being tackled has a choice. Break the tackle and keep going. Get the ball to a teammate. If he kicks it to the boundary and it goes out, well, that is a damn sight better than being caught holding the ball! So rejoice, set up the defensive zone and defend the next opposition entry.

The player witht the ball always has a choice. The fact that none of those choices are great shouldn't detract from the fact that kicking the ball wide to the boundary under pressure means it is most likely intended to roll over the line.

So long story short you want the last touched rule for oob.

[mjp]

So long story short you want the last touched rule for oob.

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).

[bornadog]

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).

The trouble is, when for example, Tom Boyd kicked the ball under pressure and cleared the ball out of the backline in the GWS game, the ball bounced right angles, and went out. GWS got the free for deliberate. a): this is not deliberate, and b): it becomes the same as last touch rule.

The trouble with our game is the ball is not round and once it hits the ground can go anywhere

[Ozza]

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.

[mjp]

The trouble is, when for example, Tom Boyd kicked the ball under pressure and cleared the ball out of the backline in the GWS game, the ball bounced right angles, and went out. GWS got the free for deliberate. a): this is not deliberate, and b): it becomes the same as last touch rule.

The trouble with our game is the ball is not round and once it hits the ground can go anywhere

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

[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) :D



(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.

[boydogs]

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

I don't see any issue with a goal umpire in the right position making a correct call for themselves

Marcus Adams was in two minds and ended up being a stepladder for McGovern to reach the ball, that's where your ire should be directed

[bornadog]

I don't see any issue with a goal umpire in the right position making a correct call for themselves

Marcus Adams was in two minds and ended up being a stepladder for McGovern to reach the ball, that's where your ire should be directed

Adams did the same last week, when Dahl's kick was touched on the line. He just stood there instead of trying to sheppard the ball through.

[Twodogs]

Adams did the same last week, when Dahl's kick was touched on the line. He just stood there instead of trying to sheppard the ball through.

But he knows to do the opposite at the other end of the ground. Different breed defenders.a bit like drummers.

[mjp]

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

Well...if you were to tell him that the ball is shaped like and OVAL and wouldn't necessarily bounce straight if he kicked a mongrel punt, I doubt that would be news to him.

[mjp]

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




Whats a RBI proficiency?

LOL. Supposed to be BTI proficiency.

Maybe it's a WA thing but players calling boundary for a kick wide to the boundary - and coaches calling it/preaching it - is not new.

[Twodogs]

LOL. Supposed to be BTI proficiency.

Maybe it's a WA thing but players calling boundary for a kick wide to the boundary - and coaches calling it/preaching it - is not new.

Nah. Us Victorians love playing corridor footy. It's not in our nature to kick the ball toward the boundary.