Agree.
Currently, the umpires have to predict/guess what was the mindset of the player was as the disposed of be ball.
Can't happen with any consistency.
Deliberate out of bounds.
- Thread starter Milux
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Currently, the umpires have to predict/guess what was the mindset of the player was as the disposed of be ball.
Can't happen with any consistency.
Plus theres a huge danger you punish the fastest player first to the ball
- Aug 20, 2010
- 15,054
- 19,816
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Yep. Imagine the ball going into a forward line towards apack, it hits the deck so a defender soccers it to clear it, ball happens to head towards boundary and bounces out. This new rule pretty much calls that deliberate. What's the alternative for the defender? Bend down to pick up the ball and then try to bust through a pack, potentially getting caught for HTB and giving up a free in the opposition 50? Maybe it just ends up in a ball up... Wait aren't rules like this trying to speed up the game??
I know it's a pretty random hypothetical, but it's an example of the law of unintended consequences.
I'm perfectly fine for penalising the players who really obviously are trying to "accidentally" paddle the ball across the line. Penalising players who may or may not have miskicked the ball is ridiculous though. There are quite a few players in the AFL who probably couldn't even deliberately kick the ball well enough to travel 40m and just trickle over the line.
- Dec 2, 2014
- 18,708
- 31,606
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Was there an issue with the rule last season?
I hate it because the umpires get sucked in by the crowd, The roar for deliberate is basically inception.
I hate it because the umpires get sucked in by the crowd, The roar for deliberate is basically inception.
- Aug 20, 2010
- 15,054
- 19,816
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Wouldn't mind it being trialled. But that's a hugely important caveat. I would want defenders to still have the option to fist the ball away without fear of it resulting in a goal shot.
- Aug 20, 2010
- 15,054
- 19,816
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Was inconsistent last year as well. New rule brought in to try to gain some proper consistency, is now worse than ever. So pretty much par for the course from the AFL.
Seems like this is where the AFL want to be, but don't have the guts to go full on into it.
Also the stats from the SANFL will be interesting as they are apparently trialling it this year
Its just too hard to police in my opinion. Umpires job is hard enough
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #37
I agree that the Richmond player should of had the free kick paid against him, but, it's not stupid. Kruzer was trying to kick it over the boundary line. That's deliberate as it gets.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
As long as they are consistent with it, they weren't yesterday
I thought they were consistent in this game. Maybe different from other games but that doesn't really matter. A couple were close when long kicks down the line from near the boundary went out for both teams. Throw it in. A couple of fumbly ones 50/50ish - throw it in. The only one I remember being paid was against Geelong about midway through the last quarter. Very similar to the Kruezer one.
Litherland's kick should have been a free kick to Selwood. A clear kick for touch from half-back that landed on the line and bounced out.
I think umpires will become more consistent as precedence is set too.
Yep. Looked at a mate and laughed when he got away with it! The only thing was he was close to the boundary when he kicked it and it covered 50m. A very similar one by a Geelong player in the last quarter too just before they did pay one.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Those were the 2 I was thinking about. 2 obvious ones that were missed
It seems harsh and I don't like it in the instant, when the player has no real other option but to kick long down the line.
But the thing is, the basic intention of that kick is to create another stoppage further up the ground.
The AFL's intention may well be that this free not so much penalises the individual, but the team. The team is penalised for not having players in position to receive the ball; instead having them crowding the contest and favouring successive stoppages over positional play.
Stoppages can still a skillful part of the game, you could still kick along the line to a contest and spoil it over*, you just have to have someone there to try to kick to.
* I'm assuming spoiling can't get you pinged. Would suck if it could
But the thing is, the basic intention of that kick is to create another stoppage further up the ground.
The AFL's intention may well be that this free not so much penalises the individual, but the team. The team is penalised for not having players in position to receive the ball; instead having them crowding the contest and favouring successive stoppages over positional play.
Stoppages can still a skillful part of the game, you could still kick along the line to a contest and spoil it over*, you just have to have someone there to try to kick to.
* I'm assuming spoiling can't get you pinged. Would suck if it could
There could still be tactical merit in deliberately kicking down the line for distance.
Yes it will now create a turnover instead of stoppage. But it gives your defence a chance to reset with a set play on the wing rather than getting tackled in the defensive 50 and maybe holding the ball.
Would you prefer a 40-60 ball in the defensive 50 or an opposition free kick on the wing?
Yes it will now create a turnover instead of stoppage. But it gives your defence a chance to reset with a set play on the wing rather than getting tackled in the defensive 50 and maybe holding the ball.
Would you prefer a 40-60 ball in the defensive 50 or an opposition free kick on the wing?
PACatter
Club Legend
I think you can pick out some poor deliberates that were paid and some that were missed but, all in all, I think it worked out for the better this week. Certainly seemed like more effort from the players to keep the ball going.
I have a real issue with teams being penalised for advancing the ball in their direction. Any player that kicks it 20m or more in their teams direction should never be penalised even if their intent is to get the ball out of bounds.
I don't remember any survey of the fans being asked if we want the game to be consistently moving, getting the ball out of bounds and setting up again is a tactical part of our game.
There is not a supporter on here or anywhere when your team is 1 point up with little time to go that wants to have the ball kicked to a contest where the opposition could get it, kick it long down the boundary is what we want and hope it goes out of bounds for a throw in.
It won't take long and we will be kicking it like rugby does, 50m straight up in the air and then we will have collisions and someone will get hurt, then they will change the rules again.
The AFL is a ****ing joke now, a great game being spoiled by suits who have not got a clue and having their message justified to the public by paid ex players.
Have a listen to Luke Ball on whistle blowers, it's amazing what a chequer in the mail can make people say. Every umpiring decision is right, every interpretation is right.
Who are they kidding, the sad part is so many modern supporters believe them.
They are paid to tell you what to believe!!
I don't remember any survey of the fans being asked if we want the game to be consistently moving, getting the ball out of bounds and setting up again is a tactical part of our game.
There is not a supporter on here or anywhere when your team is 1 point up with little time to go that wants to have the ball kicked to a contest where the opposition could get it, kick it long down the boundary is what we want and hope it goes out of bounds for a throw in.
It won't take long and we will be kicking it like rugby does, 50m straight up in the air and then we will have collisions and someone will get hurt, then they will change the rules again.
The AFL is a ****ing joke now, a great game being spoiled by suits who have not got a clue and having their message justified to the public by paid ex players.
Have a listen to Luke Ball on whistle blowers, it's amazing what a chequer in the mail can make people say. Every umpiring decision is right, every interpretation is right.
Who are they kidding, the sad part is so many modern supporters believe them.
They are paid to tell you what to believe!!
telsor
Hall of Famer
What's so hard about it? If in doubt, it's deliberate.
I think it'll evolve a bit over the next few weeks as the umpires get used to it and make it more consistent, but generally it's a good thing.
Some things I think they should work on ...
Seems a defender can still deliberately punch the ball away over the boundary from a marking contest, which seemed a bit odd by comparison.
Players deliberately not picking up the ball and watching it go out in order to get the free seems to be against the intent of the rule.
Because umpires have to gauge intent. Youd have to admit that can be grey
In recent years they have stopped defenders chopping arms, tighted hands on and in the back, now the 10m rule. Give the poor defenders a break. I see what you mean but if punching the ball in a contest is a free then every pass inside 50 will be too the boundary so if the forward doesn't mark it they'll get a DOOB free. Your second point is more interesting. If a player just lets a ball roll out when they have opportunity to take possession then they can never receive a free.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Same as they did before...except they swapped it around form 'if you're sure it's deliberate, call it' to 'call it unless you're sure it isn't).
Very similar difficulty of judgement call need to be made, just the benefit of the doubt has changed.
