Dustin Martin's Deliberate Behind
- Thread starter YelloMit
- Start date
- Tagged users None
DarwinRoo
Brownlow Medallist
He was kidding himself.
That's what the rule is there for. He could have kicked it forward to space or even for the boundary but that is as deliberate as you can get.
- Sep 18, 2007
- 4,854
- 8,763
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Fighting Illini
I did laugh and laugh. Even out loud.
I had heard it on the wireless earlier, but it was so much more blatant than I expected.
I had heard it on the wireless earlier, but it was so much more blatant than I expected.
Philler
Debutant
- Mar 4, 2014
- 140
- 350
- AFL Club
- Geelong
15.7.1 When Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team
who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking
Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal
Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this
Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender.
The rule is vague and pretty much up to the umpires discretion. There's nothing about being under pressure or distance from goal.
Having said that Martin was under limited pressure, was a fair distance from the goal and had no other intention but to handball it through for a point. As deliberates go it's about as blatant as it gets.
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team
who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking
Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal
Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this
Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender.
The rule is vague and pretty much up to the umpires discretion. There's nothing about being under pressure or distance from goal.
Having said that Martin was under limited pressure, was a fair distance from the goal and had no other intention but to handball it through for a point. As deliberates go it's about as blatant as it gets.
grouse mate
Premiership Player
He was kidding himself. The umps response was priceless.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,379
- 2,579
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Pretty much this. "Immediate pressure" seems to be the umpires' effective interpretation of the benefit of the doubt provision, so that anyone sufficiently pressured is deemed not to have intentionally performed the act. Arguably such an interpretation is even more lenient on the defender than the rule, already written with an explicit benefit of the doubt for the defender, is. Even under that interpretation, you'd have to say Martin contravened that rule: whatever pressure was on him wasn't immediate.
It's not dissimilar in character to O'Shea's handball over the line in this video (from 2012):
goodie23
Tragic Saint
Veteran
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2023
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2022
St Kilda - James Frawley Player Sponsor 2021
Saints Pledge Contributor
St Kilda - Doulton Langlands Player Sponsor 2020
St Kilda - Robbie Young Player Sponsor 2019
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2018
The whole 'pressure' thing is an interpretation, not stated anywhere in the rules. Dusty's actions certainly fit the rule as written.
Acid test should be if he did the same thing towards the boundary line, would it be ruled deliberate?
Acid test should be if he did the same thing towards the boundary line, would it be ruled deliberate?
Actually it does, doing it from 20m leaves no doubt as to your intention, and from 20m out you have many more options for disposal compared with being 1m out.
Dislike the rule and was on Dustys side..... til I watched the vid.
Mid second quarter so he wouldn't be out of puff for another 12 minutes, he's also a right footer so he certainly had other options even if that is just a quick kick to space and chase up your own ball. He's pacey with a booming kick, could have cleared the area but opted for the reset of play.
Mid second quarter so he wouldn't be out of puff for another 12 minutes, he's also a right footer so he certainly had other options even if that is just a quick kick to space and chase up your own ball. He's pacey with a booming kick, could have cleared the area but opted for the reset of play.
Obviously deliberate - only one thing in mind, even before he took possession.
Could've disguised it a bit better. Take possession, turn inwards towards the tackler, raise the arms before the tackle, then go the handball.
Could've disguised it a bit better. Take possession, turn inwards towards the tackler, raise the arms before the tackle, then go the handball.
Bob_vic
Club Legend
I think I've said this before, but there was a set of guidelines and a video from the AFL when this law came out in 2009. This law doesn't tell the whole story.
One of the video examples was a player kicking the ball through from 20m out, just like this example.
The umpire won't take pressure into consideration if the ball if it is kicked/handballed through from a long distance and he's not trying to pass to a teammate. The player has many other options than if he was 5 metres out.
The umpire didn't just make up this particular interpretation on the spot. It's the way the AFL always intended from the start.
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
It was deliberate, so the ump was correct.
But it's also a rule that's enforced very inconsistantly, so there has been worse that hasn't been paid.
But it's also a rule that's enforced very inconsistantly, so there has been worse that hasn't been paid.
Martin was 100% correct. To the letter of the law he was under pressure and as such no free kick should be awarded.
The umpire was 100% correct. The intent of the law was to prevent players conceding behinds as a means of controlling the ball rather than preventing a goal and as such a free kick should be awarded.
Personally I like it when the umpires umpire in the spirit of the game.
The umpire was 100% correct. The intent of the law was to prevent players conceding behinds as a means of controlling the ball rather than preventing a goal and as such a free kick should be awarded.
Personally I like it when the umpires umpire in the spirit of the game.
Bob_vic
Club Legend
Martin was not 100% correct. Pressure is only ONE of the guidelines, distance from goal and having clear possession are 2 other guidelines. The further out from goal, pressure becomes less of a factor.
Last edited:
Well apologies then. All I ever recall hearing, and from the rule itself, was that pressure was the only consideration.
Bob_vic
Club Legend
If you watch all the videos on the AFL website (there's been one every year since 2009), they have a number of examples showing the application of the guidelines.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #21
I thought he was actually free and away towards the open side of the ground, he just had to run to the right half back flank and there was nobody between him and the boundary. Instead he felt the pressure and went straight for the rushed behind.
I don't want the game turning into an exercise of which team can put it through the goals first at each end for a reset, both sides going for a tap and snap.
I don't want the game turning into an exercise of which team can put it through the goals first at each end for a reset, both sides going for a tap and snap.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
A case for what - brain fade? Has to be the most blatant case of a deliberate behind since the 2008 Grand Final.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
But seldom do you see such a blatant deliberate behind. I'd love to hear Dustin's thinking.
Reginald Perrin
Shouting at clouds
- Oct 19, 2010
- 18,804
- 24,897
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Tasmania, South Fremantle, Warriors
If he was under pressure it'd be from his girlfriend to get rid of his stupid hair and his mother for hideous neck tats. He certainly wasn't getting any pressure to do with football
