The game is now on replay here on Sydney, and I just saw Bateman trying to force a behind and hit the behind post = free to the Cats.
That is bullshit, IMO. How often is this rule stupidly invoked by umps?
The game is now on replay here on Sydney, and I just saw Bateman trying to force a behind and hit the behind post = free to the Cats.
That is bullshit, IMO. How often is this rule stupidly invoked by umps?
The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.
I don't think it was BS at all he is try to rush a deliberate behind, unfortunately he hit the post and it was out of bounds. It was just unfortunate it wasn’t the wrong call.
I've actually been called for it while playing quite a few years ago.
Every time this scenario occurs.
Players know that if they attempt to concede a behind & get it wrong, the consequences are severe.
In attempting to concede a behind, the umpires are instructed to interpret the defenders actions as deliberate, consequently, if the ball goes out of bounds, the umpires must pay a free kick for a deliberate action that has caused the ball to go out of bounds.
I think it's a silly interpretation, but one well known, just seems very harsh.
No good blaming the umpires either, they just enforce the rules that are determined by the rules committee.
It was one of the things they implemented to try and stop people rushing behinds.
Get it wrong and you are in a lot of trouble.
That has always been my understanding of the ruling, I've been called for it playing as well.
I actually think its fair enough, by rushing a behind you are putting the ball out of bounds in order to regain possession. It adds the element of risk to that decision I suppose. then again, conceding the behind might be considered risk enough in itself. That's how I thought of it until in recent years where its become more and more common.
It was only Hawthorn and in particular Chance Bateman so who really cares.