Should "last touch" even be paid?

[WA ROO]

Get rid of it

 

[The Tilt]

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.

I completely agree with not reviewing these decisions: referring boundary umpire decisions to the ARC is ridiculous. That said, let's be honest and say a big problem here is that football fans appear to be uniquely incapable of coping with incorrect decisions that go against their team, so we every week we end up calls for an inquest in response to an umpire error. You can't entirely blame the AFL for then committing to review more and more decisions to make sure they're correct. The sky may just fall in if they don't.

On the other hand, I don't know why people would want the umpires to first judge whether the disposal was intentional before awarding a free-kick. It would just unnecessarily introduce grey area and therefore inconsistencies. It came off your foot but you didn't mean to kick it? Too bad. Be more careful next time.

 

[Hurricane Murphy]

On the other hand, I don't know why people would want the umpires to first judge whether the disposal was intentional before awarding a free-kick. It would just unnecessarily introduce grey area and therefore inconsistencies. It came off your foot but you didn't mean to kick it? Too bad. Be more careful next time.

I'd say 99% of disposals are intentional. The unintentional ones that would not be penalised are the handballs into other players feet (which will become much more common as players adapt), rolling over a toe on the way to the line, being disposessed but falling onto the foot, two players contesting for a loose ball but it grabbing a boot before it spills over etc. Basically most that are currently being reviewed.

 

[dean33]

Greg swan comes across as one of those knobs who thinks he is smarter than everyone else in the room. Together with Dillon, Kane and the rest of the executive they have become the worst afl administration ever. All we need is shocking to come back to make it complete.

 

[shaqsuns]

Im of the opinion it should just be last touch regardless of intent. Make the game simple to follow!!!

There is a reason soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Its simple and anyone can play

 

[archereleven]

Y

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

Yep and the nominations of rucks.

**** it off and bring back 3rd man up.