The Monday Soap Box - Round 3, 2025

[GVGjr]

Time to get on your soapbox for the round 3 games.

It was a real shame that Essendon won.

Does anyone have an opinion on how long score reviews are taking?

Are the Hawks the real deal?

[jazzadogs]

Time to get on your soapbox for the round 3 games.

It was a real shame that Essendon won.

Does anyone have an opinion on how long score reviews are taking?

Are the Hawks the real deal?

I'd prefer they took longer and got the decision right.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Time to get on your soapbox for the round 3 games.

It was a real shame that Essendon won.

Does anyone have an opinion on how long score reviews are taking?

No opinion on time taken but it's mystifying how little common sense there is. If it's not clear cut then umpires call. Reversing calls on blurry vision is amateurish. I think the Darcy one was touched but you can't say with 100% certainty so stick with the original call.

By the way how tight are the afl with not investing in 4k slow motion?

[Bornadog]

image.png
image.png
This was called as deliberate, or insufficient intent. Look where the ball is in the first pic, ie about 20metres from boundary in the air. In the second pic, the ball hits the ground about 10 metres from boundary, then rolls and rolls towards the boundary. FFS the ball is shaped oval, not round.
The Carlton player made no attempt to pickup the ball and in fact stood next to the ball as it ran out.

AFL are ruining the game.

[Mantis]

It was certainly a shame Essendon won, but it was equally nice watching Melbourne play like a busted ass against an impressive GC.

Hawthorn do look the team to beat at this very early stage of the season, but for me GWS's lack of pace through the middle continues to hold them back from being a bonafide contender.

[Axe Man]

image.png
image.png
This was called as deliberate, or insufficient intent. Look where the ball is in the first pic, ie about 20metres from boundary in the air. In the second pic, the ball hits the ground about 10 metres from boundary, then rolls and rolls towards the boundary. FFS the ball is shaped oval, not round.
The Carlton player made no attempt to pickup the ball and in fact stood next to the ball as it ran out.

AFL are ruining the game.

If there had have been nobody near the ball then I would be ok with the insufficient intent call. However I believe if any player could reasonably have been able to gather the ball rather than just let it go out of bounds it should not be called. They want to keep the ball in play but then reward the other team for deliberately allowing the ball to go out. It's completely counter intuitive.

[Bulldog Joe]

If there had have been nobody near the ball then I would be ok with the insufficient intent call. However I believe if any player could reasonably have been able to gather the ball rather than just let it go out of bounds it should not be called. They want to keep the ball in play but then reward the other team for deliberately allowing the ball to go out. It's completely counter intuitive.

That was an unbelievable interpretation. The player with insufficient intent was the Carlton player.

He could so easily have gathered the ball. He wasn't even under pressure from an opponent.

I also agree that the overturning on Darcy was too long and based on belief not evidence.

If they evidence isn't clear immediately just go with the goal umpire, although this was a call that should have come from the field umpire.

[Bornadog]

If there had have been nobody near the ball then I would be ok with the insufficient intent call. However I believe if any player could reasonably have been able to gather the ball rather than just let it go out of bounds it should not be called. They want to keep the ball in play but then reward the other team for deliberately allowing the ball to go out. It's completely counter intuitive.

Can't agree. The intention was to gain territory and that is why the ball was at least 20 metres from the boundary. Not Harvey's fault the ball is shaped oval. Need common sense in umpiring.

I believe the AFL is pushing us to last touch.

[Mantis]

If there had have been nobody near the ball then I would be ok with the insufficient intent call. However I believe if any player could reasonably have been able to gather the ball rather than just let it go out of bounds it should not be called. They want to keep the ball in play but then reward the other team for deliberately allowing the ball to go out. It's completely counter intuitive.

There was a cracking one in yesterday's game between Adel v North.

Hansen Jr was pinged after a skill error meant he missed a target when he had the ball from an OOB free. He kicked it out in front of his team-mate who didn't make up the ground to collect the ball before it rolled over the line.

First time I've ever seen that one pop up.

[soupman]

Am I the only one who thinks the way they interpret insufficient intent is both typically consistent and is fine? The Dale one is the obvious counter example but was wrong, and the three biggest ones people complain about (when it's been kicked off the ground/kicked to no one but an opponent is nearby/bounces at a right angle) are also all fine?

[Mofra]

Umpires are no closer to working out what 15m is than they were in Round 1.

It's hard to work out which supporter base are the most upset right now - Port or Carlton.

[Mitcha]

It's hard to work out which supporter base are the most upset right now - Port or Carlton.

Why can't we have both?

[Axe Man]

Umpires are no closer to working out what 15m is than they were in Round 1.

It's hard to work out which supporter base are the most upset right now - Port or Carlton.

It's simple - kick out from full back and it better travel at least 20 metres if you want the ump to award a mark. Within the forward 50 anything over 7.5 metres should be enough.

[Mofra]

It's simple - kick out from full back and it better travel at least 20 metres if you want the ump to award a mark. Within the forward 50 anything over 7.5 metres should be enough.

That's probably the closest explanation to how it's being judged right now.
It may all change by next week though.

[Grantysghost]

The rules explained in 2025: Insufficient intent

https://www.afl.com.au/video/1277268