it cant be
IT CANT BE
3 Likes
call of 2017 surely?
1 Like
I think the rule should be if you’re the last player to hit it out its a freekick to the other team.
inside 50s its a throw in.
1 Like
But then you get the “I didn’t touch it” shepherding.
Pretty simple. It’s deliberate if it’s not near anyone. If it’s near someone, and they choose not to claim it, then it’s a throw-in.
4 Likes
More my point was that it should be like soccer.
maybe not a free kick but a free handball?
I don’t know that soccer rule makers are much to be aspired to? Penalty box vs outside penalty box, indirect & direct free kicks. You can throw the ball from literally one situation in the whole game. Hardly logical stuff.
1 Like
I think the throw in rule is a good though. and its been around for ■■■■■■■ yeaaaaaaaars
1 Like
I actually agree with that.
Was it high? Well, yeah, but it was barely a brush…let it go…
That sort of thing.
But I do believe players can get a feel for how the umpires are reading the game for the other rules.
They just can’t for this one.
Hands down one of the dumbest interpretations of a rule in AFL history.
If anything what this new interpretation has shown, is how much the umpires have zero fkn idea on how football is played.
I am actually shocked that a person can reach the highest level in umpiring and think a quick kick out of a pack or a shot at goal is deliberate, its complete mind boggling. You dont even have to have followed football long to know that under no circumstance that is deliberate.
15 Likes
Look at the NRLs 40/20 rule. It’s great, because it rewards an intelligent kick attempting to gain territory. Yet in the AFL, we penalise a defender for trying to get his team in a better field position. We also now don’t pay incorrect disposal as it was paid for 100+ years. We penalise a player for going in hard in a pack to try to take possession of the ball. It’s a freakin joke.
4 Likes
Again, every year there’s a change, round 1 umps are red hot on it and we all hate it, round 2-5 umps mostly forget about it but ping the occasional one and we’re all “confused”, rounds 6-22 completely forgotten, round 23 they remember it again in time for finals.
It’s the same old story, hands in the back, head high contact, tunnelling, below-the-knees, etc etc
SEN phone in fodder.
Carlton and Syohilis have both been a thing for years. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.
Are people arguing for scrapping the rule entirely, or going back to the old equally subjective equally requiring the umpire to determine player intent rule?
They took a perfectly good clear rule, that required zero interpretation of intent, and changed it to a rule that now requires the umpire to determine what the player was thinking when he kicks or punches the ball.
If they truly want the umpire to determine intent, then they should have a ten minute recess and call for arguments for and against.
Then make decision.
Stupid? Not as stupid as what we have now.
And I agree with someone else who mentioned the sliding rule. That was the great James Hird’s bread and butter. Slide in pick up the ball, duck under someone’s arm, stand up, all in one flowing movement while continuing to move forward, and kick a goal.
Then one person, one person, broke their leg, and in comes another stupid new rule.
Deliberate point is another, third man up, hand in the back etcetera.
Taken all the tactical moves, made by the players, completely out of the game.
And the game is the worse for it.
9 Likes
V[quote=“Stallion, post:29, topic:10284, full:true”]
Hands down one of the dumbest interpretations of a rule in AFL history.
If anything what this new interpretation has shown, is how much the umpires have zero fkn idea on how football is played.
I am actually shocked that a person can reach the highest level in umpiring and think a quick kick out of a pack or a shot at goal is deliberate, its complete mind boggling. You dont even have to have followed football long to know that under no circumstance that is deliberate.
[/quote]
And why would a player kick it out of bounds towards their own scoring end? Why wouldn’t they just kick a goal? Hmmm probably what they were hoping to do.
They want to go back to the (clearly) more subjective rule.
We need more of the rules re-written to be more black and white, IMHO.
2 Likes
Well, they might think they’re a better chance to score from a stoppage 20 out from goal than score a goal on the run from 65. Or they might want to eat some clock time late in a close game instead of risk kicking a behind and the opposition getting clean possession.
It’s not inconceivable.
1 Like
I agree. So with all those options how can the umpire possibly determine intent?
They don’t have to. The player kicks it in bounds or it’s judged deliberate regardless of what the noddy thinks.
By going back to how it was you reduce the volume of mistakes simply by reducing the number of decisions that need to be made. It might not be the best outcome but it’s better than where we are now.