Yes, but he can just take possession under very little pressure if he actually has the nuts. It’s gutless
That photo doesn’t provide the required context in order for me to make that level of accusation against the Carlton player. He may well have been scrimping for time to allow a team mate to get into position in order to receive the kick-in or to get superior numbers in place for the return down the line kick. I can’t read that bloke’s mind but I’m confident being scared of taking possession of the ball wasn’t what was motivating him at the time.
then you’ll never make it as an umpire.
2 Likes
You don’t have to be able to read minds. The umpire however is expected to be able to read minds. He needs to k ow what was going into n in the mind of the guy that kicked it.
Correct. And he believed that the Essendon player had deliberately kicked the ball out of bounds.
He obviously believed that. However having rules based on an umpires belief is ludicrous.
Are you seriously claiming that’s what this is about?
We’ve had rules based on that for 120+ years
Has the wording of the rule actually changed or just the interpretation?
The rule has changed
But how else would you do it? It’s either let the maggot decide or last possession or just throw it in every time regardless who touched it last.
I don’t mind the rule. I like Mero and 'boots suggestion that a player who can take possession of the ball is obliged to do so if the opportunity presents otherwise it should not be judged to be deliberate. For all other situations, keep the ball away from the boundary at risk of a penalty free against. Lets not kid ourselves about what the players are up to. They want a stoppage if they can’t guarantee possession. That is what they’re told to do. The AFL wants less stoppages. Less stoppages means more action. It’s not a bad thing.
You can’t have a rule that uses a term like “sufficient” without clarifying what a “sufficient intent” is. What a joke.
“Deliberate” is at least a defined term in of itself, even if it does rely upon reading the mind of the player (or more accurately assessing the situation a player is in and judging their actions accordingly).
True. Also take for example the Kelly decision against Carlton. What was his intent… to clear the ball from defence and get it as far out of Carltons attacking area as possible… or to put the ball out of bounds giving Carlton a free kick?
It’s not rocket science.
2 Likes
And that’s the thing. Kelly’s intent is 1) keep the ball in Essendon’s possession or failing that 2) try to force a stoppage. A boundary stoppage as far away from Essendon’s defence is still a boundary stoppage and will be considered an doob under the current rule.
No… his intent was to clear the ball, the other stuff comes as a result it’s the difference between manslaughter and murder and that takes a full court and a jury.
I disagree his intent was to clear the ball unconditionally. You know, a chaos ball out of defence, where it lands nobody knows. They don’t just boot the ball anywhere anymore.
L
O
L
Remember the deliberate oob rule as it was interpreted in the 90s, early 00s? Where you might get one or two deliberate calls a game (maybe) for the guy who just clearly kicked for the boundary when he obviously had other options?
That was fine, right? Nobody had a problem with it, the ones that should have been called were called and the rest weren’t, and nobody had a problem with that.
The AFL have instituted a rule change to fix a problem that literally doesn’t exist.
9 Likes
Exactly
Crowd hates it, players and umpires seem to like it. Takes out the grey areas such as intent or error. Quite simply if it’s not touched from kick, handball or tap then it’s a free.
2 Likes
Not sure if you were replying to my post or SN’s. Anyway, I’m not suggesting he’s scared of taking possession - rather, not being able to deliver it effectively afterwards. It’s as pathetic as diving or feigning injury and should never be rewarded.
1 Like