Should "last touch" even be paid?

[joe444]

Last disposal seems to make sense to me, but deflections seem silly.

The Atkins case is a grey area because it's hard to tell if he was trying to kick it. Quite possibly he was, but I'd be fine if the ruling was that it was incidental, throw it in.

But at the moment it seems that deflections off feet (not hands) which would never be regarded as kicks are being paid as lassos, whereas off-hands is not and, in the case of Thilthorpe, ending up being pressured over the boundary after playing on from a free isn't.

 

[JackFlash]

The Haynes "last touch" decision was the last straw for me, i still watch footy, but i really have very little heart in it anymore. This game is run by people who have no idea what Australian Rules Football is all about. Insufficient intent my backside!

 

[joe444]

The Haynes "last touch" decision was the last straw for me, i still watch footy, but i really have very little heart in it anymore. This game is run by people who have no idea what Australian Rules Football is all about. Insufficient intent my backside!

You should join my other thread, but I nearly gave up last night, too.

And I get to sound like an old bugger here - I don't think they love the game, or know much about its history. I've watched passionately for decades. Has Laura? Dills?

It's 'the lady who swallowed a fly' principle - we keep adding rules to fix the rule that shouldn't have been added in the first place.

 

[radiojake]

I like the theory of the rule, but completely agree it has been umpired in a very problematic way

If the ball spills after a contest and happens to hit a player's foot on the way to the boundary should be thrown in - The lasso free should be for clear last disposal only

The infamous Atkins decision from the Geelong v Adelaide game should have been a throw in - not a free to Adelaide or Geelong

There was one from the same game where a Crow dump kicked a ball to the boundary out of D50 and Rankine managed to get a touch to it and they called a throw in - I would have thought that should have been a Geelong free

I don't understand how they've decided to take a new rule that was supposed to take the guess work/grey area out of deliberate/insufficient intent rule and somehow made it worse

 

[UltraEgo]

I thought it was meant to be last disposal not last touch?

 

[joe444]

I thought it was meant to be last disposal not last touch?

Yeah I meant that. If mods want to change thread title

 

[UltraEgo]

Yeah I meant that. If mods want to change thread title

No I mean the rule is meant to be a clear last disposal but umpires are paying frees for accidental kicks that go out of bounds etc. It's bullshit

 

[dean33]

Good to see everyone is on the same page with this one, 100% needs to be last disposal not last touch. And really if that last disposal is so unclear for an umpire to determine who it came from then just throw the ball in. We don't need more ark decisions than we already have.

 

[BarbieITFC]

There's no difference to paying out of bounds on the full if it accidentally hits a player below the knee and goes straight out - sometimes shit happens accidentally but a rule is a rule.

Of all the things to get worked up about in this game - this isn't one to spend time in (IMHO).

 

[UltraEgo]

and the stand rule can GAGF. Having to hear the umpires yelling "STAND! STAND!" and then paying a 50 for moving 1 step

 

[UltraEgo]

There's no difference to paying out of bounds on the full if it accidentally hits a player below the knee and goes straight out - sometimes shit happens accidentally but a rule is a rule.

Of all the things to get worked up about in this game - this isn't one to spend time in (IMHO).

not even straight out, if it bounces inside the boundary before it goes out

 

[oak79]

No I mean the rule is meant to be a clear last disposal but umpires are paying frees for accidental kicks that go out of bounds etc. It's bullshit

Ok to pay accidental kicks - if it was "on the full" it would be paid, or if it crossed the goal line, you'd get a goal. Accidental kicks have always counted as disposals.

But anything else in dispute should be a throw in.

Weird how the rule seems to work fine in AFLW and SANFL.

 

[LightTower4]

Hate situations where on the boundary a player handballs into the leg of another player to get a soft free.
Throw it in.
Am ok with most of the rest of it.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Last disposal seems to make sense to me, but deflections seem silly.

The Atkins case is a grey area because it's hard to tell if he was trying to kick it. Quite possibly he was, but I'd be fine if the ruling was that it was incidental, throw it in.

But at the moment it seems that deflections off feet (not hands) which would never be regarded as kicks are being paid as lassos, whereas off-hands is not and, in the case of Thilthorpe, ending up being pressured over the boundary after playing on from a free isn't.

I recall commentary when this was introduced that "if a goal can be scored by incidental foot/lower leg contact, then that's the criteria we MUST use for a disposal going out-of-bounds as well".
Seemed unnecessarily inflexible then. Seems unnecessarily inflexible now.

Agree, this rule would work better with incidental contact exempted.

 

[RAPPA]

Intent and application of the rule are so far apart. This is the AFL’s issue - bringing in a rule with an intention of improving the speed of the game yet you are relying on the rule being properly and effectively applied. Time and time again the umpires bungle things up - be it paying a free that’s dubious or not paying a fairly obvious one.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

What's puzzling to me is that this was the first time for a long time that the AFL actually had some data to base a rule-change on. It has been in place in the SANFL for several years I believe?
Are SANFL players not as canny as AFL players? Is it umpired differently in the SANFL?

 

[Golumless]

I really like this rule in the SANFL, as teams should be punished for skill errors. Just needs to follow the SANFL lead, get rid of the lasoo or the insufficient effort to keep the ball in (i.e. a player should be able to dive for the ball to get it out of play) and it will flow a lot better.

 

[Golumless]

What's puzzling to me is that this was the first time for a long time that the AFL actually had some data to base a rule-change on. It has been in place in the SANFL for several years I believe?
Are SANFL players not as canny as AFL players? Is it umpired differently in the SANFL?

Umpired differently, and mostly just stripped down to pay the obvious calls. For instance, in the SANFL, you are allowed to dive for the ball to put it out of play with a spoil, and they don't pay many of the grey rulings (i.e. a ball accidentally off a boot in a contest) unless it is really obvious.

So that play Haynes got done for last night where he's collected the ball and gone out with his momentum would be a stoppage in the SANFL.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Having to stop play while some bloke reviews the footage to work out which player disposed of it last makes a mockery of the intention of the rule, which was to speed up play. The AFL's reverse Midas touch in full view once again.

 

[dean33]

Umpired differently, and mostly just stripped down to pay the obvious calls. For instance, in the SANFL, you are allowed to dive for the ball to put it out of play with a spoil, and they don't pay many of the grey rulings (i.e. a ball accidentally off a boot in a contest) unless it is really obvious.

So that play Haynes got done for last night where he's collected the ball and gone out with his momentum would be a stoppage in the SANFL.

Sounds unlike the afl to see a rule working perfectly in another league and instead of just copying it, trying to make it better but ****ing it up completely.

 

[Bostonian]

Having to stop play while some bloke reviews the footage to work out which player disposed of it last makes a mockery of the intention of the rule, which was to speed up play. The AFL's reverse Midas touch in full view once again.

Then add to that players are deliberately going to try and handball it into other players feet/legs to see if a moron umpire will pay it as a last touch free kick.

On top of that you now have players jumping up and down and pointing trying to influence umpires to pay free kicks.

Abysmal rule that just needs to go.

 

[Bostonian]

I really like this rule in the SANFL, as teams should be punished for skill errors. Just needs to follow the SANFL lead, get rid of the lasoo or the insufficient effort to keep the ball in (i.e. a player should be able to dive for the ball to get it out of play) and it will flow a lot better.

Punished for skill errors...

Where do people like you even come from?

Being tackled on a wing and the ball comes off the side of the boot due to the tackle isn't a skill error, it's part of the physical game that is the AFL.

If the player disposes of it incorrectly then it's holding/dropping the ball.

If the player gets a kick away that's impacted by the pressure of the opposition that does ****ing well not need a free kick awarded for that action.

 

[The Terrible Thinker]

Shouldn't need to go to reviews for last disposal out of bounds. If there is any level of doubt, just throw the ball in.

 

[Hurricane Murphy]

The problem is the AFL looked at how it worked in the SANFL (which it did) but then brought in a different version. The SANFL didnt have an arc to review them, but the AFL has added that which has created these terrible 'close call' reviews.

The fix is fairly simple - remove reviews, trust the umpires call but make the umpires job easier;

• Only a clear purposful disposal is a lassoo
• If the ball after a disposal is not contested, but is touched by a player on the same team, its still a lassoo
• If the umpire has doubt that the disposal was intentional, or the ball became contested after the disposal, it's a throw in

Haynes would still be pinged last night, but there wouldnt be doubt about it as it happened. The concept of a player handballing it into a players legs to get a lasso would be removed, as the last disposal would not be intentional.

Seperately, decieding to review or not review out of bounds by the arc seemingly randomly is ridiculous. Announce they'll all be reviewed, or go with the umpire, its circus level stuff. A goal late in the game or early in the game are both still worth 6 points.

 

[Rich01]

I am absolutely gobsmacked a rule change in the AFL has caused issues in the way the game is played and the difficulty in officiating it.

I don’t think even the most knowledgeable and experienced AFL exec could have foreseen any of this to be an issue.