Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

[Throughandthrough]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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]

Re: Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

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...