Rules Insufficient intent is out of control

[HairyO]

I dont understand why they are so protective of the goal line, the same principals to insufficient attempt should be applied to rushed behinds.

You want umpires deciding on a massive grey area 2m out from goal?

 

[Happy Idiot]

I think they’ve probably already decided that some variation of a last touch rule is coming. This current interpretation of intent is just a stepping stone to make that transition easier or less abrupt.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Sure but if the rule is changed to take the subjectivity out of it, would you prefer that the opposition can only handball it back in, if it does go out of play?
The biggest current problem is the rule cannot be umpired. A last touch rule can be umpired.

The problem I have with a last touch rule is you will have instances where the ball is trundling towards the boundary line and a player won't even attempt to collect the ball as they know they'll get a free kick if it trickles over. I've seen this in AFLW games and it drives me nuts. No issue with the player doing it - they should play the rules to their own advantage. But it looks crap.

You could also argue the player that is close to the ball and letting it go over has shown less intent to keep the ball alive than the player that has kicked it.

 

[JackFlash]

I don't trust the AFL on this, they are tampering with a game that has done pretty well with boundary umpires for 120 years. The most ridiculous decision i have seen this year (there have been many) was the smothered off the boot call as insufficient intent when the kick went out of bounds! They had four umpires out there, surely one of them could see that clearly? It was a great smother! Any changes to this rule must be considered extremely carefully and any last touched rule should only apply between the ARCs with conditions. We're asking umpires to show common sense and that is something they are incapable of. Albert Einstein once said common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18.

 

[Greggy Dee]

Worse one of the round was when Mullin got in front of Charlie Cameron and desperately lunged to spoil the ball out after it bounced near his head.

They called that insufficient intent. A thousand times a game we see spoils get punched over the boundary line. But because the ball bounced, it's now not sufficient. Never seen that happen before.

F*cking absurd.

The worst one I've seen was a few years back when Michael Hurley was playing on Buddy Franklin. Buddy was on a lead and Hurley spoiled. From a contest just outside the centre square on the wing at the SCG, Hurley got pinged for punching it along the ground out of bounds.

 

[Rabish Binney]

The problem I have with a last touch rule is you will have instances where the ball is trundling towards the boundary line and a player won't even attempt to collect the ball as they know they'll get a free kick if it trickles over. I've seen this in AFLW games and it drives me nuts. No issue with the player doing it - they should play the rules to their own advantage. But it looks crap.

You could also argue the player that is close to the ball and letting it go over has shown less intent to keep the ball alive than the player that has kicked it.

Players do that now anyway.

The last touch rule has been in the SANFL for years now and it works really well.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

You want umpires deciding on a massive grey area 2m out from goal?

Why is it any greyer than a boundary line, I actually don't think its that difficult to officiate, and the umpires get it 95% correct. Its fans and commentators that are still living 20 years ago where the boundary was the get out of jail card for defenders... The players must make a genuine attempt to keep the ball in play or its a free kick. They should tighten up on players running the ball out as well.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with this one?

Like many of the game’s rules, I reckon the umpires call it as I expect it 9 times out of 10 (both ways). Sure, sometimes there are howlers but umpires have always made mistakes.

I’m sure we all agree that any game that is a procession of stoppages is as boring as batshit - we don’t go to the footy to watch the boundary umpires tossing footies in, so we can hardly blame the AFL for wanting the players to make an effort to keep the ball in play?

 

[Sector 7G]

They played couple in the Blues forward line that normally would be let go. I don't have a problem with this if it is consistent. There is no reason why the forward line should be treated any differently.

Frees paid against the player kicking the ball while being slung in a tackled should not be a free (were a couple of these in the Blues/Swans game). They have no control on where the ball is going.

 

[The Airing of Grievances]

Any penalty that requires an umpire to determine intent is always going to be flawed. The league would be better off with a rule that says if the ball goes out of bounds with no other player within 10 metres of the ball, then a free kick is paid.

That does however, require umpires to be able to judge 10m...which we know they can't do as they butcher the 15m rule.

So maybe just make it like soccer. If you cause the ball to go out, the other team get to bring it in.

In soccer, the awarding of the ball to a team on the basis that an opposing player was the last to touch the ball doesn't lead to a direct scoring opportunity. Crossing the sideline, the ball is only brought back into play by a throw. Granted if the ball goes over the end line it can result in a corner kick if last touch was off a defender, but even then only the occasional fluke corner kick results in a direct score. By contrast, if such a rule existed in our game, you can have a player shooting on goal from 20 metres out, albeit on an angle , where the possession may have only been 'earned' as a result of an unlucky bounce , a fumble under tackling pressure or a spoil in a marking contest near the boundary. Would we want a grand final, or any match for that matter decided by such a flukey scenario. Remenber our oval shaped ball , in contrast to a round soccer ball, magnifies the element of chance in just who 'causes' the ball to go out of bounds.

This rule was always a solution to a non existent problem. The AFL has an obsession with speeding up the game and trotted this out as the answer. The absurdity of the way this is being umpired under the current guideline( is it even a different rule from the old 'deliberate' out of bands free kick ?) can be seen by observing that players aren't being penalised for punching the ball out in a spoiling situation or in a ruck contest near the boundary even where it was quite obvious they were wanting to kill the contest by hitting the ball over the boundary. By contrast players are getting pinged when an errant kick goes astray either through pressure of a tackle or an obvious skill error( eg where there was a free teammate upfield but away from the boundary but the kick slews off the side of the boot. Of course such skill errors aren't punished when committed by forwards near goal,even from set kicks, but frequently are by a defender regardless of pressure from opponents

 

[btdg]

I would support a version of last touch that is amended to something like:

"If a player commits any deliberate and legal action towards the football and the ball goes over the boundary line without being touched by an opponent, then a free kick shall be paid to the nearest opposition at the point where the ball crosses the boundary line. For all other situations where the ball goes over the boundary line, the ball will be thrown in by the boundary umpire'. 'In this instance, a deliberate and legal action includes any attempt to kick or handball the ball, or by carrying the ball over the line while in clean possession, or in a ruck contest, or by punching the ball when it is in dispute on the ground or in the air'.

In other words: if you kick, handball, soccer off the ground, punch the ball over the line, or you are in possession and run it over the line (or get tackled over the line) = free kick.

If the ball bounces off your leg, or your fumble a mark, or you smother an opponent, or fumble before taking clean possession = boundary throw in.

This really should be pretty clear, and most current instances of insufficient intent would be free kicks, but with more clarity and no need for the umpire to guess intent.

Under this rule, Cripps attempt to soccer to himself but not reach it in time would be a free kick - correctly. Under the insufficient intent rule that is a frustrating umpiring error. Skill errors = free kick, correctly (instead of frustrating umpire error). Ball hoofed to no-one inside forward 50 that rolls out next to behind post = free kick, correctly, instead of play on (incorrectly) now.

Conversely, it makes it really easy to adjudicate touched balls, contests where possession isn't clear etc. A straight up 'last touch' rule gets ridiculous if a defender gets a finger-tip to a ball... causing a free kick reversal.

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

It would be better if they just called it what it is - negligently out of bounds . Then at least it would make sense.

Insufficient intent is ****ing nonsense , intent is a binary concept , you either intend to do something or you don't .

 

[LordLucifer]

Why have a "deliberate out of bounds" rule in the first place ??

Who cares if a player kicks the ball towards the boundary line hoping it goes out of bounds, it makes no sense due to the many vagaries of how & why they pay a free kick.

Just get rid of the stupid rule and make it one less thing the umpire can butcher.

 

[liz]

They played couple in the Blues forward line that normally would be let go. I don't have a problem with this if it is consistent. There is no reason why the forward line should be treated any differently.

Frees paid against the player kicking the ball while being slung in a tackled should not be a free (were a couple of these in the Blues/Swans game). They have no control on where the ball is going.

If you're referring to the Cripps and Curnow examples, I thought those were both pretty bog-standard examples that are paid 'insufficient intent' maybe 7 or 8 times out of 10.

One of the inconsistencies that hasn't been addressed a where a player just kicks the ball forward into his own empty forward 50m, gaining territory where he has no target to pass to. The ball then trickles out of bounds just outside the behind posts, and the team gets a throw-in stoppage deep in their forward line. I reckon I see those paid as insufficient intent one a month or so. (Not that I'm keeping a ledger.) And yet a player under pressure, getting tackled in defence, gets hoiks the ball out, getting slung as he kicks, and he'll almost always get pinged for insufficient intent if the ball goes out of bounds without being touched.

 

[Geoff Dickson]

If you apply the following statement, you will comfortably predict 90% of all insufficient intent decisions resulting from a kick:

If a player kicks the ball - without having identified a teammate as target - and the ball goes out, the player is pinged for insufficient intent.​

So any hack kick, panic kick, kick for territory (as distinct from a kick designed to retaining possession) is eligible to be classified as insufficient intent if it goes out.

 

[carlton_99]

It's terrible what it's become but they are just conditioning us now for the eventually arrival of the "last touch" rule

 

[PizzaPie]

They need to simplify it.
If the ball is kicked out of bounds without bouncing first, someone from the other side gets to kick it back in.
If it does bounce first, throw it in, unless a player did something intentional to make the ball go out of bounds instead of trying to keep it in play in which case simply give a free kick to the other team exactly like if they kicked it out on the full.

Also noticing lots of short kicks being paid marks because the umpires struggle to judge distances. Based on the min/max range of speed kicks travel at, and how far they travel, it's much easier to just say if the max height of the kick is above the shoulders it is only a mark if caught 2+ seconds after it was kicked. For balls below the shoulders, the ball can be deemed a mark if caught 1+ seconds after kicked. Anything below the respective thresholds per kick height if caught would not be a mark unless there are 3+ players in the immediate area with intention to compete for a mark in which case there is a 10% reduction to the minimum ball flight time requirement and an additional 10% reduction for every additional player over the 3 in the immediate area, unless one of them is considering competing for the mark but changes their mind, though if they change their mind back again and the ball is still within the clearly defined boot to travel time range then there is still a reduction but the reduction is reduced by 50%.
E.g. 3x players in the immediate area with intention to compete for a mark, ball is kicked and does not go above shoulder height would normally be the standard 1s min travel time requirement minus the 10% reduction = .9s. If one of the players changes their mind and no longer intends to compete for the mark, the required travel time is the standard 1s. However should that 3rd player change their mind back, the 10% reduction is reduced by 50% (5%) and that is applied as a reduction on the 1s travel time requirement meaning the ball flight time needs to be .95s+.
You could almost automate all this with a few cameras around the ground and some people in a room reviewing the ball travel time of every kick and the number of players intending to compete for marks + any changing their minds back and forth and a couple of cameras at ground level to get precise views of over/under shoulder heights of the kicks.

 

[RWnBluey]

“need to simplify it”

Elaborates with a 3000 word thesis

 

[The Tilt]

Also noticing lots of short kicks being paid marks because the umpires struggle to judge distances. Based on the min/max range of speed kicks travel at, and how far they travel, it's much easier to just say if the max height of the kick is above the shoulders it is only a mark if caught 2+ seconds after it was kicked. For balls below the shoulders, the ball can be deemed a mark if caught 1+ seconds after kicked. Anything below the respective thresholds per kick height if caught would not be a mark unless there are 3+ players in the immediate area with intention to compete for a mark in which case there is a 10% reduction to the minimum ball flight time requirement and an additional 10% reduction for every additional player over the 3 in the immediate area, unless one of them is considering competing for the mark but changes their mind, though if they change their mind back again and the ball is still within the clearly defined boot to travel time range then there is still a reduction but the reduction is reduced by 50%.

Not sure you're simplifying anything here.

 

[kickazz]

If you apply the following statement, you will comfortably predict 90% of all insufficient intent decisions resulting from a kick:

If a player kicks the ball - without having identified a teammate as target - and the ball goes out, the player is pinged for insufficient intent.​

So any hack kick, panic kick, kick for territory (as distinct from a kick designed to retaining possession) is eligible to be classified as insufficient intent if it goes out.

This is a really good way of looking at it.

We sometimes bemoan when a pressured kick out of trouble is penalised. But even then, you always have the choice to kick it such that it stays in play.

You have the choice between basically:

1. Keeping it in play - you might retain possession or the opposition get possession in a dangerous spot.
2. Go for boundary - you gain territory, but lose possession. But it is not in a particularly dangerous spot and you may have time to set the defence.


And of course, your teammates always have the choose to not flood back so far that you have no options.

 

[Purplrrr]

I’ve seen some I don’t like where they penalise a skill error, but oh well. Umps make mistakes. Most of the time, I think you can safely predict ‘insufficient intent’. The one I hate, that I’ve seen a couple of now, is when the player tries to do something tricky, like handball along the line to regain possession, or something like that and they get penalised because it doesn’t quite come off due to skill or a bad bounce. The safer thing for the player would have been to get tackled over the line, rather than attempt produce some of those clever pieces of magic. But I don’t want to train that cleverness out of players! That’s why you watch footy!

 

[Obeanie1]

Simple solution - last player to touch football that goes out of bounds has free awarded against him to opposition player closest to where ball went out.

That's fair and will eliminate contentious interpretation by umpires. Will also save the AFL $$$$ on the number of boundary umpires needed.

The one that pi55es me off is the opposition player who follows the ball going out when he could easily have taken control of it

What annoys me is players with ball in hand are corralled against the boundary line and elect not to handball or kick but then step over the line just as they are being tackled.

They had plenty of time to dispose of the ball and keep it in but elect not to take a risk and allow themselves to be pushed out of bounds.

They deliberately elect to kill the play.

If you've had time to get rid of it and are tackled over the line, pay HTB.

Players can and do move the ball pretty quickly when they want to. They also go slow and take the ball out when it suits the play.

 

[PizzaPie]

Not sure you're simplifying anything here.

You don't say...

 

[PizzaPie]

“need to simplify it”

Elaborates with a 3000 word thesis

Obviously the official rules would not be so wordy. I used crayon drawings for the version I submitted to the AFL and was actually able to capture in all on a single sheet of A3 paper. I'll get this all sorted out, give me a few weeks.

 

[Whats a Battle]

So we have the AFL removing the sub and removing the centre bounce.

Yet the worst rule in the competition, by far, still remains. The deliberate rule needs to die a thousand deaths.