I Don't Even Know the Rules Anymore

[Phillyroo]

Jeez, can't just agree to disagree, can you?

Righty-ho, putting up on the screen here at work, assuming the Port guy is 1.8m tall he measures in at a whopping 15mm. From the ball to Jacobs is 275mm, giving a distance across the 2D flat image of 33m.

Allowing for the fact that it's 3D going from the boundary in the pocket to outside the 50m then you'd add in about 3-ish metres I'd reckon, giving a grand total of - I reckon - about 36(ish) metres, damn close to your own estimation of 40m - hardly the 70m you reckon my scaling makes it out to be.

If you think the North player was closer than that, then fine. I agree to disagree. But if your are seriously trying to say that it was a deliberate kick to a lead then that is just bollocks. There was no one leading to that space at all - just everyone trying to get to where it was AFTER it was kicked and they could see where it was going.

And using your wonderful method of estimating, how far is the North player away from the ball??

 

[ScooterBrother]

Holding the man is a free kick.

Schulz held first on more than one occaision. I'd be content for the 'both holding' card to be played.

But to give multiple frees to Schulz is preposterous.

With perfect world rewind slow-mo vision, yeah, sure, they were either play on or frees against Schulz, but with the pace of the game and the way human beings interpret the game, it was very smart play by Schulz and poor defending from Thompson. The proof is in the pudding.

I agree it's not cheating.... However I think it's fair to expect a higher standard from the umpires. Monfries free in front of goal, absolutely incorrect decision, Brown throw, incorrect decision thwarting a run toward our goal, at least two of the holding Schulz frees that led to goal, both players holding at, should have been play on, Jacobs deliberate, incorrect decision, led to a goal.

Yep, all either 50/50 calls that went against you or blatantly wrong. There were a few that went your way as well though - Petries goal from a hold, the goal over the line that wasnt a goal etc

You guys absolutely got the rub of the green, and I'm sure it's swings and roundabouts and one day soon we will walk away shaking our heads about how lucky we were. Just would be nice to go to the footy and know that if we lose its to the better team, without having to wrap our heads around some blatant howlers in front of goal.

Don't disagree at all, we came out on top with the frees, but in my mind, that was due to some clever subterfuge from Schulz and some poor/naive defending from Thompson, rather than any massive or serious malfeasance from the umpires. I've seen plenty worse.

 

[GarnerSmash]

And using your wonderful method of estimating, how far is the North player away from the ball??

Mate, he threw it on his boot and wasn't looking for an outlet, just space. That he was under pressure and on his right made the kick s**t and the ball dribble out almost directly, thus deliberate in the eyes of the umps. I was in direct line of sight and it was clear that Jacobs only had one thing on his mind.

 

[Phillyroo]

The main point is that for an umpire to call deliberate, he has to be positive that the player had no other intention than to take the ball out of bounds. In this instance the ball went as you have now told us 36(ish) metres away from him before it went out. We play with a ball that bounces in many different and crazy directions, a North Melbourne player was in the vicinity (awaiting your measurement with baited breath) so the umpire, unless he has amazing skills in mind reading can not possibly know that it was deliberate, and thus made a mistake!

 

[JD-Roo]

And using your wonderful method of estimating, how far is the North player away from the ball??

On the 2D image, smack on 5m ......

..... which mean the fact that he is inside the field and the ball is further away puts him roughly 7m away.

But to be honest, I don't know why you're so hell bent on 5m. It's not designated in the rules, so what's the big deal?

I'm not the enemy here. It's one free kick amongst a shitload of shitty ones. I thought it was going to be paid the moment it left his boot. That's all. Take a breath mate.

 

[archereleven]

The main point is that for an umpire to call deliberate, he has to be positive that the player had no other intention than to take the ball out of bounds. In this instance the ball went as you have now told us 36(ish) metres away from him before it went out. We play with a ball that bounces in many different and crazy directions, a North Melbourne player was in the vicinity (awaiting your measurement with baited breath) so the umpire, unless he has amazing skills in mind reading can not possibly know that it was deliberate, and thus made a mistake!

I used two packs CSR sugar that you find in hotel rooms(the small sachets) and worked out Jacobs kick went 38m and the NMFC player was exactly 8.3m from the ball

I reckon i have settled it

 

[Phillyroo]

Mate, he threw it on his boot and wasn't looking for an outlet, just space. That he was under pressure and on his right made the kick s**t and the ball dribble out almost directly, thus deliberate in the eyes of the umps. I was in direct line of sight and it was clear that Jacobs only had one thing on his mind.

And I don't agree mate but that's cool, I was there as well... A kick to space is not deliberate out of bounds, and the fact s North player was somewhat close makes it all the more murky for the umpire to call. It's cool that you and JD-Roo disagree..... But that's kinda my point, there is doubt, and as a result of that should not be called.

 

[Phillyroo]

On the 2D image, smack on 5m ......

..... which mean the fact that he is inside the field and the ball is further away puts him roughly 7m away.

But to be honest, I don't know why you're so hell bent on 5m. It's not designated in the rules, so what's the big deal?

I'm not the enemy here. It's one free kick amongst a shitload of shitty ones. I thought it was going to be paid the moment it left his boot. That's all. Take a breath mate.

Hahaha mate, I'm not fired up at all.... I agree it was one of many shitty calls. And not hell bent on the 5m thing. I said he was metres away, you said that you required footage because you don't believe what I was saying.

 

[Phillyroo]

With perfect world rewind slow-mo vision, yeah, sure, they were either play on or frees against Schulz, but with the pace of the game and the way human beings interpret the game, it was very smart play by Schulz and poor defending from Thompson. The proof is in the pudding.

Yep, all either 50/50 calls that went against you or blatantly wrong. There were a few that went your way as well though - Petries goal from a hold, the goal over the line that wasnt a goal etc

Don't disagree at all, we came out on top with the frees, but in my mind, that was due to some clever subterfuge from Schulz and some poor/naive defending from Thompson, rather than any massive or serious malfeasance from the umpires. I've seen plenty worse.

just to be clear the Petrie one was blatant holding, your man was twisting his arm behind his back.

 

[JD-Roo]

Hahaha mate, I'm not fired up at all.... I agree it was one of many shitty calls. And not hell bent on the 5m thing. I said he was metres away, you said that you required footage because you don't believe what I was saying.

And I will admit he was closer than I remembered.

And it was meant to be a dig that the distance seemed to change as your were stamping your point home. I was intending on making some smart-arse joke about measurements changing to tell a story and on that basis we should go fishing one day but forgot in the nitty-gritty of the arguement.

 

[JD-Roo]

Yep, all either 50/50 calls that went against you or blatantly wrong. There were a few that went your way as well though - Petries goal from a hold, the goal over the line that wasnt a goal etc.

I must be having a brain fade, which one was this?

 

[Phillyroo]

And I will admit he was closer than I remembered.

And it was meant to be a dig that the distance seemed to change as your were stamping your point home. I was intending on making some smart-arse joke about measurements changing to tell a story and on that basis we should go fishing one day but forgot in the nitty-gritty of the arguement.

Read back through it I said initially about 5 metre, and later that he was just metres away. Not sure when I changed it and made it sound like I was changing the story.

 

[Phillyroo]

I must be having a brain fade, which one was this?

i think he is referring to the wingard (through the points play on) hand ball to Monfries, that clearly came off Basti (or was it wright) on its way through the goals. Goal umpire got it right.

 

[hilly]

A player being on his non-preferred side is irrelevant and frankly shouldn't ever be considered by an umpire regarding a deliberate OOB call.

 

[JD-Roo]

A player being on his non-preferred side is irrelevant and frankly shouldn't ever be considered by an umpire regarding a deliberate OOB call.

Umpires are knobs. You cant expect them to know who's side is preferred or not when half the supporters of teams don't know this about their own players.

Jeez.... I'm coming across as a defender of those dickheads, aren't I?? Oh hell.....

 

[JD-Roo]

Umpires are knobs. You cant expect them to know who's side is preferred or not when half the supporters of teams don't know this about their own players.

Jeez.... I'm coming across as a defender of those dickheads, aren't I?? Oh hell.....

Ah. Yep. I thought he meant the score review one, which I also think they got right unfortunately.

 

[Phillyroo]

A player being on his non-preferred side is irrelevant and frankly shouldn't ever be considered by an umpire regarding a deliberate OOB call.

Well it should.... Especially because the rule expressly points out in its wording "deliberate". A lefty slamming the ball on his right under pressure has little control over the location of the kick.

 

[Twinkletoes]

The only thing missing from this discussion is that diagram of the grassy knoll, the book depository, the open top limo and JFK, with arrows showing the direction the deadly shot most likely emanated from.

 

[Phillyroo]

The only thing missing from this discussion is that diagram of the grassy knoll, the book depository, the open top limo and JFK, with arrows showing the direction the deadly shot most likely emanated from.

Hahahaha yeah, it's exactly what I was thinking. I even subscribed to the bloody afl on demand thing to make a point...

 

[Thewlis Dish]

If people are taking about the dribble kick along the boundary it was clearly deliberate and going to be called as soon as it left his boot.

Whether you agree with the interpretation or not is another matter, but those are always called. It needed to be just inside the boundary so it could be taken over by the next player.

 

[Phillyroo]

If people are taking about the dribble kick along the boundary it was clearly deliberate and going to be called as soon as it left his boot.

Whether you agree with the interpretation or not is another matter, but those are always called. It needed to be just inside the boundary so it could be taken over by the next player.

And Levi was a free agent!

 

[Thewlis Dish]

And Levi was a free agent!

 

[hilly]

Well it should.... Especially because the rule expressly points out in its wording "deliberate". A lefty slamming the ball on his right under pressure has little control over the location of the kick.

15. FREE KICKS – RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
15.6.1 When Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(c)
intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;

 

[Phillyroo]

15. FREE KICKS – RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
15.6.1 When Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(c)
intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;

Yep.... Do you see the word "intentionally" in there???
The point is.... If a player hardly ever kicks on his right foot (Jacobs) and he is under pressure enough to throw the ball on his right foot, how can the umpire adjudge that he "intentionally" kicked the ball out of bounds???

But thanks for your effort and input.

 

[Only Forwards]

Jacobs was going for distance along the ground. If he is unaware that the ball will curve like that when kicked that way I question why in the hll he's in the side.

Kids in my sons under 12s side understand the way the ball bounces when kicked that way.

either
a) its not deliberate and Jacobs is completely unaware of how the ball will react when kicked the way he kicked it.
or
b) it is deliberate and Jacobs actuall knew what he was doing

Personally I believe it was B