Autopsy AFL 2021 Round 10 - Crows v Demons Sat May 22nd 4:35pm EST (AO)

[mattyc25]

Umpiring aside Adelaide deserved the win. Brought the heat and intensity and made the most of their opportunities.

One thing I am very much getting over is the constant bleating about this “young” Adelaide side that’s “developing” etc etc.

Seriously?
The average age difference in the sides was 169 days and if Salem wasn’t injured it would’ve been even less.

 

[markm106]

Why would the AFL do that? The evidence clearly shows the call was correct. Why risk the mental health of that umpire for no gain to the AFL?
It is more likely they would come out and say the call was correct - even if they don't agree - so that the umpire feels vindicated and can move on.
The AFL rarely admits obvious errors - which this was definitely not.

The AFL have admitted to big errors this year. Why stop now. I understand that we don’t want to slam umpires publicly but you have to be held accountable. I am pretty sure that umpires are marked on decisions made throughout each game. There is no clear touch. However I don’t believe it matters. He was deliberately trying to put the ball over the boundary.

 

[tiger_tough]

The AFL have admitted to big errors this year. Why stop now. I understand that we don’t want to slam umpires publicly but you have to be held accountable. I am pretty sure that umpires are marked on decisions made throughout each game. There is no clear touch. However I don’t believe it matters. He was deliberately trying to put the ball over the boundary.

There is absolutely a clear touch on the replay. Not sure the ump picked it up live though. His interpretation was wrong, but the outcome was correct technically. Stiff.

 

[markm106]

There is absolutely a clear touch on the replay. Not sure the ump picked it up live though. His interpretation was wrong, but the outcome was correct technically. Stiff.

Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play

That’s the rule. From what has been reported it doesn’t seem to matter if Spargo got a hand on it. Unless he actually hit the ball towards the boundary. It’s pretty clear the crows player intent was to go over the boundary line.

 

[tiger_tough]

Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play

That’s the rule. From what has been reported it doesn’t seem to matter if Spargo got a hand on it. Unless he actually hit the ball towards the boundary. It’s pretty clear the crows player intent was to go over the boundary line.

Lol excuse me? How can it possibly be deliberate if you don't have the last touch? Take the last play out of it because it clearly clouds you judgement. No one can be sure the intended direction the of the handball was going to go out. Thats purely speculation. The deflection steered it toward the boundary.

For arguments sake say crows we're down by a point and steven may collects the ball in the defensive goal square and kicks towards the boundary line with no dees in sight. If Tex had have made it there and got a hand on it but split the mark, would you be happy to be pinged deliberate? Not a chance in hell.

 

[markm106]

Lol excuse me? How can it possibly be deliberate if you don't have the last touch? Take the last play out of it because it clearly clouds you judgement. No one can be sure the intended direction the of the handball was going to go out. Thats purely speculation. The deflection steered it toward the boundary.

For arguments sake say crows we're down by a point and steven may collects the ball in the defensive goal square and kicks towards the boundary line with no dees in sight. If Tex had have made it there and got a hand on it but split the mark, would you be happy to be pinged deliberate? Not a chance in hell.

Melbourne’s Charlie Spargo was pressuring Murray and may have slightly deflected the ball but Murray had to make intent to keep the ball in so would still have been penalised.

Ok so that’s from the HS article today. Article says AFL not keen to make a solo mention of this for will chuck it in the weekly review that comes out today. As i said what was the intention of Murray? If say Murray hand balled towards line and Spargo chased it and fumbled it over than yeah sure.

 

[tiger_tough]

Melbourne’s Charlie Spargo was pressuring Murray and may have slightly deflected the ball but Murray had to make intent to keep the ball in so would still have been penalised.

Ok so that’s from the HS article today. Article says AFL not keen to make a solo mention of this for will chuck it in the weekly review that comes out today. As i said what was the intention of Murray? If say Murray hand balled towards line and Spargo chased it and fumbled it over than yeah sure.

Conversely-

 

[markm106]

Conversely-

I’ll be interested to see the response today. That article i believe was Saturday night. There have been a few journos since saying it should have been deliberate and AFL going with it.

 

[tiger_tough]

I’ll be interested to see the response today. That article i believe was Saturday night. There have been a few journos since saying it should have been deliberate and AFL going with it.

Consensus seems to be they'll say they gotnit wrong which I don't get, they have an out. They should take it with how much they're getting hammered and scrutinised every game rhse days.

 

[markm106]

Consensus seems to be they'll say they gotnit wrong which I don't get, they have an out. They should take it with how much they're getting hammered and scrutinised every game rhse days.

Yeah but they can’t just take the out. If the same situation presents they have to make the right call. Otherwise people will try use this as some precedent. It’s ok to admit the ump got it wrong. The result won’t change but can’t go wallpapering over wrong decisions.

 

[tiger_tough]

Yeah but they can’t just take the out. If the same situation presents they have to make the right call. Otherwise people will try use this as some precedent. It’s ok to admit the ump got it wrong. The result won’t change but can’t go wallpapering over wrong decisions.

Is it a wrong decision if it was touched? I don't see how it can be. I dont reckon the ump saw the touch, but the end result was a correct one IMO.

 

[markm106]

Is it a wrong decision if it was touched? I don't see how it can be. I dont reckon the ump saw the touch, but the end result was a correct one IMO.

I guess we’ll find out once AFL release the review.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

Word is AFL are going to admit this was a mistake today. Murray obviously intended for the ball to go out even if Spargo touched it.
Anyway we coughed up a 16 point lead with 5 mins to go.

Pure speculation considering we all know now that it was touched by a Melbourne player.

 

[markm106]

Well what do you know. The AFL have admitted it was a wrong call and should have been a
Melbourne free.

 

[Lampers]

Well what do you know. The AFL have admitted it was a wrong call and should have been a
Melbourne free.

Well, this is awkward...

#VICBIAS!!!

For what it’s worth I still think Spargo probably touched it.

 

[markm106]

Well, this is awkward...

#VICBIAS!!!

For what it’s worth I still think Spargo probably touched it.

I don’t really think that’s the issue. He didn’t deflect it towards the boundary if he did touch it. Murray didn’t have sufficient intent to keep it in.

 

[Lampers]

I don’t really think that’s the issue. He didn’t deflect it towards the boundary if he did touch it. Murray didn’t have sufficient intent to keep it in.

AFL said the problem was the umpire’s rationale of having a team mate in the vicinity was why no free - which was the error.

I’m still unclear whether a slight touch invalidates the insufficient intent rule, as it would for OOBOTF or changing a goal to a behind. If insufficient attempt is silent on last touch, then I guess a relatively inconsequential touch doesn’t matter if the intent was still clear.

 

[tiger_tough]

“Upon video review it was deemed the player did not display sufficient intent to keep the ball in play.”

Footage aired on Fox Footy showed the Murray handball deflected off Charlie Spargo’s hand before rolling out of bounds.
..........

There you go, you can still be pinged deliberate even if it comes off the opposition still seems odd to me.

 

[Sprout]

Well what do you know. The AFL have admitted it was a wrong call and should have been a
Melbourne free.

Bloody AFL. Always whinging about the umpires.

 

[Lampers]

“Upon video review it was deemed the player did not display sufficient intent to keep the ball in play.”

Footage aired on Fox Footy showed the Murray handball deflected off Charlie Spargo’s hand before rolling out of bounds.
..........

There you go, you can still be pinged deliberate even if it comes off the opposition still seems odd to me.

I think this is the most interesting part of this whole thing - does it matter who last touched the ball? Here is the rule.

One interpretation is Murray was the one who forced it over the boundary and was not showing sufficient attempt to keep the ball in play, rendering any Spargo contact irrelevant as Murray was still the one doing the forcing.

Before reading the rule I had made the assumption the last to touch it was important, but the rule doesn’t explicitly say that which surprises me.

Force I think is a critical word. I would argue any time a spoil or a ruck tap ends up out of bounds - which is rarely paid - that is forcing the ball out and not demonstrating sufficient intent to keep the ball in play.

 

[markm106]

I think this is the most interesting part of this whole thing - does it matter who last touched the ball? Here is the rule.

View attachment 1136331One interpretation is Murray was the one who forced it over the boundary and was not showing sufficient attempt to keep the ball in play, rendering any Spargo contact irrelevant as Murray was still the one doing the forcing.

Before reading the rule I had made the assumption the last to touch it was important, but the rule doesn’t explicitly say that which surprises me.

Force I think is a critical word. I would argue any time a spoil or a ruck tap ends up out of bounds - which is rarely paid - that is forcing the ball out and not demonstrating sufficient intent to keep the ball in play.

The spoil is an interesting one. Clearly the defender trying to get it over the line. I guess the argument is that they are defending and punching the ball away. It’s make for some scary moments for defenders if they had to spoil it back into the corridor.

 

[markm106]

“Upon video review it was deemed the player did not display sufficient intent to keep the ball in play.”

Footage aired on Fox Footy showed the Murray handball deflected off Charlie Spargo’s hand before rolling out of bounds.
..........

There you go, you can still be pinged deliberate even if it comes off the opposition still seems odd to me.

I think it all comes down to intent.