Review Cats drop Bombers by 45 at MCG

[cats_09]

For context I absolutely think it should be a free, otherwise it's completely pointless, and as has been rightly pointed out, takes us back to the 2008 GF.

As it stands the criteria for a free kick to be paid for a rushed behind are that the defending player in question:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line
or Behind Line on the full.

Now it's important to note that (as written) these are compound criteria and there is not a presumptive 'OR'. (which exists only in reference to the ruck criteria, thus highlighting the lack of the presumptive 'ORs' for the other criteria).

Now with Menzie; clearly a tick to both B & C (although some are trying to dispute B). But in this instance the sticking point is A.

So the problem with criteria A is that it seems disputable as to whether a player can ever be pinged if they walk it over. Because it calls into question the meaning of the nine meters. Does the player need to be nine meters from the goal line when they deliver the ball over the line? ...Or is it they can walk it over, but it can be deemed that when they were at the nine metre mark, they were also in trouble with criteria B and C?

It terms of it's application on game day, it's a mess as written.

I’m pretty sure that the player only needs to meet one of the above criteria for it to be considered a deliberate rushed behind - it doesn’t need to meet multiple parts of it

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Preferably the Pies.

Nah, we've ruined their dreams plenty of times over the years. Likewise Brisbane, WB, & Sydney.

They all owe us a hell of a lot more than we owe them.

Would prefer it to be Carlton if we're just talking pie in the sky here.

Never had the chance to hurt them in finals due to their ineptitude over so long. This year would be a good start.

 

[noclashjumpers]

I’m pretty sure that the player only needs to meet one of the above criteria for it to be considered a deliberate rushed behind - it doesn’t need to meet multiple parts of it

Well it's not written that way, when other rules with similar criteria are.

 

[standupand]

For context I absolutely think it should be a free, otherwise it's completely pointless, and as has been rightly pointed out, takes us back to the 2008 GF.

But it stands the criteria for a free kick to be paid for a rushed behind are that the defending player in question:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line
or Behind Line on the full.

Now it's important to note that (as written) these are compound criteria and there is not a presumptive 'OR'. (which exists only in reference to the ruck criteria, thus highlighting the lack of the presumptive 'ORs' for the other criteria).

Now with Menzie; clearly a tick to both B & C (although some are trying to dispute B). But in this instance the sticking point is A.

So the problem with criteria A is that it seems disputable as to whether a player can ever be pinged if they walk it over. Because it calls into question the meaning of the nine meters. Does the player need to be nine meters from the goal line when they deliver the ball over the line? ...Or is it they can walk it over, but it can be deemed that when they were at the nine metre mark, they were also in trouble with criteria B and C?

It terms of its application on game day, it's a mess as written.

I agree the rule is worded terribly. There should be an "or" after each clause. That is the way I believe it is interpreted. It provides a list of alternatives with the "or" only included before the final clause in the way one does with a spoken sentence. Like: "you can get out bed in four ways: on the right, the left, off the end, or by levitating up into the air".

 

[noclashjumpers]

I’m pretty sure that the player only needs to meet one of the above criteria for it to be considered a deliberate rushed behind - it doesn’t need to meet multiple parts of it

Look, you may well be right. But that makes the rules as written even more problematic. Then it actually doesn't make sense.

If I were a Bombers supporter, I could mount a pretty strong case given the text.

Clearly distinguishing between compound and 'or' requirements is 101 stuff.

Surely they have a lawyer giving these things a once over...

 

[year of the cat]

Nah, we've ruined their dreams plenty of times over the years. Likewise Brisbane, WB, & Sydney.

They all owe us a hell of a lot more than we owe them.

Would prefer it to be Carlton if we're just talking pie in the sky here.

Never had the chance to hurt them in finals due to their ineptitude over so long. This year would be a good start.

Couldn’t stand the Pies going b2b. Carlton will probably choke without our help.

 

[noclashjumpers]

I agree the rule is worded terribly. There should be an "or" after each clause. That is the way I believe it is interpreted. It provides a list of alternatives with the "or" only included before the final clause in the way one does with a spoken sentence. Like: "you can get out bed in four ways: on the right, the left, off the end, or by levitating up into the air".

The problem is, in instances similar to this, in law, there is extra care taken to add clausal 'ORs' to clearly distinguish them from compound interpretation. So when they are absent, it's rarely by accident.
So I also agree, they should be there, but the fact is they aren't. Whether that's in error... who knows?

 

[frggr]

I don't think we'll win it if we make it but what I want is to be this September's wrecking ball.
Make sure we ruin someone's hopes in the process.

Carlton's, preferably

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Carlton's, preferably

I'd prefer Richmond



....wait a sec

 

[Cursed Cat]

That was like 7 or more years ago

haha whoops - ok, well Hogan got another one recently - playing for GWS!

I might have a spell haha

 

[Play it Sam]

I'd prefer Richmond



....wait a sec

Dawks- but no need to waste oxygen on them, but just in case
Carltoon- for brown paper bag buying success in their heyday
Colonwood- because it's black and white
Melbum- fans ignorant of rules and entitled
Poort-for hating Kenny, but give him a final
Essendone-rudest fans out, always BALLLLL so they're stuffed now
Any COLA team

So will hope Freo get some success

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Would prefer it to be Carlton if we're just talking pie in the sky here.

Never had the chance to hurt them in finals due to their ineptitude over so long. This year would be a good start.

1967 PF , 5 goals behind at h/t and they were the hot favourite , Nicholls Jezza Barassi , and Geel kicked 11 goals to 1 in the 2nd half , 8 in the 3rd qtr outside of Premierships i would say the best win in Geelongs history

Like all those games there was vision of it , 6pm on a Sat night well if you didnt like vfl football you were in alot of trouble Ch 7-9 -10 and the ABC all had a 1hr replay on at 6pm

Find vision of the 67 PF 3rd qtr and you would be an instant millionaire

 

[standupand]

The problem is, in instances similar to this, in law, there is extra care taken to add clausal 'ORs' to clearly distinguish them from compound interpretation. So when they are absent, it's rarely by accident.
So I also agree, they should be there, but the fact is they aren't. Whether that's in error... who knows?

If it were interpreted without the "or"s, then you would have to have someone more than 9 metres from goal and having had time to dispose and under no pressure before an umpire could pay a free. The way I understand it, it is meant to cover either situations where a) a player is basically trying to kick an "own goal" from some distance; b) rushing it through under no pressure; c) rushing it through (even if there is pressure) where they previously had time and space to dispose of it (as in they invited the pressure first and then just rushed it through); or d) knocking it directly through from a ruck contest.

 

[frggr]

I'd prefer Richmond



....wait a sec

We already did that by feigning interest in Hopper

 

[Spearman]

Look, you may well be right. But that makes the rules as written even more problematic. Then it actually doesn't make sense.

If I were a Bombers supporter, I could mount a pretty strong case given the text.

Clearly distinguishing between compound and 'or' requirements is 101 stuff.

Surely they have a lawyer giving these things a once over...

Nah, he's saved for tribunal days only...
or when they need wiggle room out of scandal.

 

[noclashjumpers]

If it were interpreted without the "or"s, then you would have to have someone more than 9 metres from goal and having had time to dispose and under no pressure before an umpire could pay a free. The way I understand it, it is meant to cover either situations where a) a player is basically trying to kick an "own goal" from some distance; b) rushing it through under no pressure; c) rushing it through (even if there is pressure) where they previously had time and space to dispose of it (as in they invited the pressure first and then just rushed it through); or d) knocking it directly through from a ruck contest.

Yes. I mentioned this as an issue in an earlier post.

But to be clear, what we're doing here is reading a rule and attempting reconfigure it in a way that projects our own assumptions about what was in their minds at the time of drafting. Now again, in law, this isn't uncommon, this is what the courts are for. But in legislation (or in this case the 'Laws of AFL Football') the goal is to granularly remove ambiguity where it exists. But in some instances there is intentional ambiguity, to give the legal system some degree of flexibility.

But this is definitely not that world! The AFL could have very easily removed this particular ambiguity. So while we can argue and assume, the fact is these are the the words on the page. The vibe is difficult to introduce at this point unless there is some clear categorical clarification (...which there may well be, but I haven't seen it).

They've attempted to present this as somewhat of a legislative document, so it's only fair that it's read as such.

But in essence, I don't disagree with you. But the fact remains, is we either have a clumsily worded portion of a document (where other parts are tediously thorough), or it's meaning exactly reflects the wording. Both alternatives are problematic.

My particular frustration has been arguing with an Essendon friend who annoyingly mounts a justifiable case pointing to these clauses as written!

 

[Zouz Kitty]

There is significant evidence

Thinking upon it since first posting, Wills spent a lot of time with Aboriginal communities. Accordingly, as a superb athlete, he would have played footy with them + taught them to play cricket. Whether they used a possum twine round ball or a Rugby Union ball, who knows.

Sadly, the evidence is considered circumstantial by historians + that is refuted by Aboriginal communities, who regard it as another denial of Marngrook's influence + is considered to be the continuing denial of Aboriginal history.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Look at the research from Poulter, Judd and Hocking. Why did Wills remain silent on the origin of the game? Marngrook was played in Western Victoria on Mukjarrawaint lands. Wills grew up on Lexington and La Rose-Mokepilli stations where Marngrook was played. Johnny Connolly's first-hand accounts places Marngrook in the exact area where Tom grew up. He was clearly a witness to the game. More silencing of Aboriginal history. And great win by the Cats, well done.

I think Wills was more than a witness, he first saw a game in 1840. His family had several properties, who had Aboriginals working for them. Being such a super sportsman I'm sure he would have played Marngrook with them + he adapted the game with Rugby (Union) to become Rules. I just cannot see him not playing the game.

 

[juzcat]

Mannagh is a midfielder and should be playing in our midfield. You play him there and the three smalls forward. Im sure we will have a couple rested next week but in any case any of clark (obvious) connor neale can come out and id even do it for tuohy or close.

2E surprised me and played a solid sweeper in place of Stewart. 97% in defence. I would keep him if Stewwy stays in the guts. Admit I hv been on the 2E out bandwagon

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

I’m pretty sure that the player only needs to meet one of the above criteria for it to be considered a deliberate rushed behind - it doesn’t need to meet multiple parts of it

Correct. It would say “and” instead of “or”.

In my field of work I have to look up regulations all the time and it’s worded exactly the same.

 

[Warhorse]

The problem is, in instances similar to this, in law, there is extra care taken to add clausal 'ORs' to clearly distinguish them from compound interpretation. So when they are absent, it's rarely by accident.
So I also agree, they should be there, but the fact is they aren't. Whether that's in error... who knows?

On government documents its standard to use a ; after each listed item rather than AND/OR and only have an AND/OR before the last entry

 

[standupand]

Yes. I mentioned this as an issue in an earlier post.

But to be clear, what we're doing here is reading a rule and attempting reconfigure it in a way that projects our own assumptions about what was in their minds at the time of drafting. Now again, in law, this isn't uncommon, this is what the courts are for. But in legislation (or in this case the 'Laws of AFL Football') the goal is to granularly remove ambiguity where it exists. But in some instances there is intentional ambiguity, to give the legal system some degree of flexibility.

But this is definitely not that world! The AFL could have very easily removed this particular ambiguity. So while we can argue and assume, the fact is these are the the words on the page. The vibe is difficult to introduce at this point unless there is some clear categorical clarification (...which there may well be, but I haven't seen it).

They've attempted to present this as somewhat of a legislative document, so it's only fair that it's read as such.

But in essence, I don't disagree with you. But the fact remains, is we either have a clumsily worded portion of a document (where other parts are tediously thorough), or it's meaning exactly reflects the wording. Both alternatives are problematic.

My particular frustration has been arguing with an Essendon friend who annoyingly mounts a justifiable case pointing to these clauses as written!

I agree. It's not just that particular rule that is worded like that btw. The rules on free kicks all have that same structure and there is no ambiguity based on the fact it would be absurd to read it otherwise. See 18.4, 18.5, 18.8, 18.10, 18.13, 19.2 for example.

 

[BORIS332]

2E surprised me and played a solid sweeper in place of Stewart. 97% in defence. I would keep him if Stewwy stays in the guts. Admit I hv been on the 2E out bandwagon

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

Stewart made a big difference in our midfield mix, I felt. And he was dropping back a kick behind the ball to still be an interceptor.

 

[noclashjumpers]

On government documents its standard to use a ; after each listed item rather than AND/OR and only have an AND/OR before the last entry

Well fair enough then.
My work dealing with this stuff in QLD some 30+ years ago, this was absolutely not my experience.
Perhaps state legislative culture or time is a narrow and isolated lense, and my mistake was assume a broader application.
Always willing to bow to those with greater knowledge/experience.

 

[Play it Sam]

The AFL sold the umpire down the river, on the deliberate call. So by the umpiring body's own admission none of the clauses applied, despite Jimmy's opinion. Further, they will no longer be explaining decisions to the press. So they were wrong, but suck it up in future, we'll only get clarification if a coach chooses to reveal an official verdict.

Bartel and Eddie weighed in.

'Know the rules': Bartel calls out commentators

Amid Bombers uproar

www.nine.com.au