Analysis Umpires

[Gointocarlton]

Am i correct that the last touch free kicks paid is called a lasso? I thought it was was something the commentary team referenced but i swear i saw the boundary umpire doing some stupid signal for the free kicks paid.

I know its a small thing but this is supposed to be a professional sports league and so much just feels like a gimmick.

Correct, same as AFLW.

 

[Aphrodite]

WTF

 

[checkpoints]

Isn't there penalties for staging? He should be sighted and fined.....given it's our club Ollie will probably be fined and suspended

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

So we have Haynes taking the ball a few metres from the boundary, momentum takes him over and the maggots call 'insufficient intent'.

Then we have a Cows player deliberately handballing the ball into an opposition player's leg with the aim that it ricochets over the boundary line, which it did. How is that not 'insufficient intent' when his sole purpose was to draw a free kick by making the ball cross the boundary line on the full?

'Insufficient intent' means that there is insufficient intent by a player to keep the ball in the playing field. Under the AFL's new genius rules, that actually should have been a free to the Carlton player.

Anyway, rant over.

 

[ESKIE]

WTF

Oh get up you staging peanut….unbelievable

 

[BigFrizz36]

Oh get up you staging peanut….unbelievable

Quite literally should have been made to come off the field to take a H.I.A. test for 15 minutes. Actions should have consequences.

 

[Ninja Worrier]

That footage is incredibly damning but little will be made of it

 

[Aphrodite]

Where is the “crows were robbed right in front of me” bozo

 

[Stamos]

So we have Haynes taking the ball a few metres from the boundary, momentum takes him over and the maggots call 'insufficient intent'.

Then we have a Cows player deliberately handballing the ball into an opposition player's leg with the aim that it ricochets over the boundary line, which it did. How is that not 'insufficient intent' when his sole purpose was to draw a free kick by making the ball cross the boundary line on the full?

'Insufficient intent' means that there is insufficient intent by a player to keep the ball in the playing field. Under the AFL's new genius rules, that actually should have been a free to the Carlton player.

Anyway, rant over.

They are ****ing stupid rules.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

They are ****ing stupid rules.

Yep, the AFL with their rule changes are just ruining the game....one ridiculous rule at a time.

The random 15m kick interpretation not far behind the insufficient intent stuff...followed very closely by the stand rule that is a total dog's breakfast. Last touch - unsure who it was, we'll have to wait for the ARC to interpret....sometimes....unless a player asks for a review.

But let's stick with nominating 2 rucks - and if there's no nominations, there'll be 20 players huddled around eagerly waiting for the ball to hit the ground to pounce like an Auskick game.

 

[carlton_99]

very closely by the stand rule that is a total dog's breakfast.

Imagine wanting our game to look like this...

 

[DangerousD]

So we have Haynes taking the ball a few metres from the boundary, momentum takes him over and the maggots call 'insufficient intent'.

Then we have a Cows player deliberately handballing the ball into an opposition player's leg with the aim that it ricochets over the boundary line, which it did. How is that not 'insufficient intent' when his sole purpose was to draw a free kick by making the ball cross the boundary line on the full?

'Insufficient intent' means that there is insufficient intent by a player to keep the ball in the playing field. Under the AFL's new genius rules, that actually should have been a free to the Carlton player.

Anyway, rant over.

Really? A Adelaide player hand balled the ball in to a Carlton player and they kicked it on the full, nothing to with new rules, interpretations, a simple out of bounds on the full.

The carry on by the commentators that this was some kind of tactical genius is laughable, its common place in other sports.

 

[RPCB]

WTF

Number 32 was right there, looking at the entire incident play out in front of him. Such bullshit.

The umpires have clubs they hate (Carlton) and players they love (Taylor Walker, as pathetic as that is).

 

[tarczonandjane]

Yep, the AFL with their rule changes are just ruining the game....one ridiculous rule at a time.

The random 15m kick interpretation not far behind the insufficient intent stuff...followed very closely by the stand rule that is a total dog's breakfast. Last touch - unsure who it was, we'll have to wait for the ARC to interpret....sometimes....unless a player asks for a review.

But let's stick with nominating 2 rucks - and if there's no nominations, there'll be 20 players huddled around eagerly waiting for the ball to hit the ground to pounce like an Auskick game.

Let’s not forget, the new rules are nothing about ensuring the integrity of the game. They are purely for ensuring the commercial broadcasters hit their sweet spot of 29.5 goals per game.

In Gather Round we are sitting at:

Adelaide v Carlton - 29 goals
Freo v Collingwood - 12 goals
North v Brisbane - 22 goals
Ess v Melbourne- 27 goals
Sydney v GC - 23 goals
Hawthorn v Bulldogs - 23 goals

Average for the round so far is 22 goals. Even removing the Collingwood game as an outlier, the average is still sub 25 goals per game.

So if the new rules are failing by an average of 7.5 goals per game, expect further rule changes next year in an attempt to bring the scoring into line.

 

[GoBlues!]

So we have Haynes taking the ball a few metres from the boundary, momentum takes him over and the maggots call 'insufficient intent'.

Then we have a Cows player deliberately handballing the ball into an opposition player's leg with the aim that it ricochets over the boundary line, which it did. How is that not 'insufficient intent' when his sole purpose was to draw a free kick by making the ball cross the boundary line on the full?

'Insufficient intent' means that there is insufficient intent by a player to keep the ball in the playing field. Under the AFL's new genius rules, that actually should have been a free to the Carlton player.

Anyway, rant over.

Its fairly straightforward BH when you look at the actual rule 18.10, or is it?

Under 18.10.1 - Intent to keep ball in Play:
Haynes primary intent was to touch the ball that was kicked towards the boundary line by Newman, before the line to avoid the last touch free against NN kick.
The Crows player’s intent was for the ball to go over the boundary line via a handball to the opponent’s leg.
Both players wanted the ball to go over the boundary line.

Under 18.10.2(b):
Did Haynes kick, handball or force the football over the boundary line - NO. The ball was already heading to the boundary from NN kick and Haynes just managed to get his hand to the ball but he didn’t Force the ball over the line - ie. he didn’t tap the ball over. This is where I believe the umpire got it WRONG.

The Crows player didn’t handball it over the boundary line but deliberately handballed it into Play into the opponents leg which is legitimate, although not in the spirit of really keeping the ball in Play.

 

[carlton_99]

Another one

 

[GoBlues!]

Another one

The written rule 18.10.2 (b) says you can’t kick, handball or force the ball out over the boundary line. See above post.

Is Luke Hodge right and the AFL has changed the rule to include if you touch the ball you have to keep the ball in - or is he just making shit up?

 

[carlton_99]

The written rule 18.10.2 (b) says you can’t kick, handball or force the ball out over the boundary line. See above post.

Is Luke Hodge right and the AFL has changed the rule to include if you touch the ball you have to keep the ball in - or is he just making shit up?

Apparently they want players to tap it in not grab it to prevent last disposal free but Haynes gets pinged for his but Rioli doesn't here - was given a throw in. Haven't seen one other interpreted like Haynes this week despite players doing it multiple times. Happened twice in the Hawks game yesterday and it was a throw in both times.

 

[GoBlues!]

Apparently they want players to tap it in not grab it to prevent last disposal free but Haynes gets pinged for his but Rioli doesn't here - was given a throw in. Haven't seen one other interpreted like Haynes this week despite players doing it multiple times. Happened twice in the Hawks game yesterday and it was a throw in both times.

Yep, it means players will just adapt and get creative and pretend to keep it in and either get tackled over the line, or fake the ball getting knocked out of their hands, or fake a fumble etc…

As long as they feign attempting to keep the ball in it will be all good, a bit like that pretend handballing action players do when they’re tackled.

It’s all a bit farcical expecting Haynes to tap it in while he ends up over the boundary line - what if there’s no supporting team mates around, just tap it in and let the opposition take it away..

 

[carlton_99]

Yep, it means players will just adapt and get creative and pretend to keep it in and either get tackled over the line, or fake the ball getting knocked out of their hands, or fake a fumble etc…

As long as feign attempting to keep the ball in it will be all good, a bit like that pretend handballing action players do when they’re tackled.

It’s all a bit farcical expecting Haynes to tap it in while he ends up over the boundary line - what if there’s no supporting team mates around, just tap it in and let the opposition take it away..

But Haynes did do that and it didn't matter. He switched the ball to his other hand that was in play and then momentum took him out. Just ridiculous how similar incidents all weekend have not be adjudicated the same way. Just like they used Thursday to test the limits of people.

 

[NavySteel]

Stand rule atm is stupid. There needs to be some reasonableness in it. In the st k v port game silvagni drew a 50 by feigning a handball off and JHF stepping off the mark while in motion to take a standing potion. Was 50 and resulted in a goal. Shouldn’t have been. It’s like the ump called stand and JHF moved on reflex about 250ms after. Just a dumb rule adjudicated

 

[Gointocarlton]

Stand rule atm is stupid. There needs to be some reasonableness in it. In the st k v port game silvagni drew a 50 by feigning a handball off and JHF stepping off the mark while in motion to take a standing potion. Was 50 and resulted in a goal. Shouldn’t have been. It’s like the ump called stand and JHF moved on reflex about 250ms after. Just a dumb rule adjudicated

Why is it so hard, umpire tells you to stand, so stand. Play to the whistle (ie if the ump calls play on you move). I think its adjudicated fine, the rule itself is a bit dumb.
Umpiring in general (HTB, high contact, etc) is at an all time low standard. Our games have been disgraceful

 

[David Sylvian]

The stand rule is fine, it’s the kicker being allowed so much freedom to not go back behind the player on the mark and be lined up correctly.
The power to play on has been deliberately weaponised to create attack.
Even the umpire having to wait too long to call play on. Waving his arms around and calling the deviation adds three steps to it.
We were able to umpire this when we only had two field umpires.

 

[The Sultan]

Was at the game Thursdays, but how many out of bounds reviews were there in our game vs the rest of the round ?

 

[Stamos]

Why is it so hard, umpire tells you to stand, so stand. Play to the whistle (ie if the ump calls play on you move). I think its adjudicated fine, the rule itself is a bit dumb.
Umpiring in general (HTB, high contact, etc) is at an all time low standard. Our games have been disgraceful

It's hard because of the increased complexity.

Who has to stand? Where do they have to stand? Who is allowed to move out of the area? Where is the protected area set?
As opposed to the original rule, the mark is set here, the oppo has to be behind it.

It's just another thing that the umpires have to concentrate on, which means the overall standard falls.
Last touch is another more complicated rule, and so the umpiring standard falls again.

They should go back to 3 umpires, and get rid of the complicated rules which are not fundamental to the game. The standards would improve very quickly.