Deliberate out of bounds against Kersten

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I know a few posters were pretty annoyed it got called deliberate during the gameday thread and the commentators seemed mildly annoyed it was called and then went silent

But the AFL has backed the umpire to call it deliberate - he probably was either hoping for it to trickle through for a goal or go out of bounds, but he kicked the ball from about 5-10 metres inside the centre square, under pressure and both teams had put all their players in the Melbourne attacking half for obvious reasons

More fusss would have likely been made of it had the result gone the other way, but as far as I can see he had no other choice but to bomb it long and hope it rolled through for a goal (or even a behind and force Melbourne to re-set from the back regardless) - it's a 60-70m kick after all

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/8b0bd648fded90a94781aea87bfd6e6f

No idea if the link will work for everyone with the HUNs stupid paywall, but I find the call baffling, given the fuss a lot of people have made over the umpires having to be mind readers RE: deliberate out of bounds

 

[Jim Prideaux]

It's essentially become a soccer/rugby style last touch rule. In rugby you get to contest the line out, in soccer you can only throw it in over your head. In afl however, you get a free kick, which makes the punishment so much more severe.

The lack of clarity on this rule (if it's going to be paid like last touch, call it last touch) is the issue for mine.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

See, I probably wouldn't mind if it was a pure "last touch" rule - as that leaves almost no margin for error or interpretation on the umpires behalf (other than who touched it last)

The problem with that rule being, if a kick is touched on the way through for a shot on goal and it changes trajectory and ends up over the boundary line, I would no way want the attacking team to get another kick at goal - likewise if a kick is smothered and goes out of play off the player smothering it, I wouldn't like it being called either

I think the common sense solution would be if it goes out directly off a kick or handball (no interference), then the last touch rule should apply, but excluding shots on goal/attacking shots inside 50

Alternatively, if Kersten had marked from the same spot he kicked from (or slightly further downfield as to take the kick from the same spot), and decided to drop punt it long to a vacant square (with players streaming ahead of his kick), would it have still been called deliberate had it trickled out of play?

 

[pazza]

The Zaharakis one was worse.

Poor bugger is trying to clear the centre..and once again, the Crows player closest to the ball, has been a soft**** and let the ball trickle out of play.

 

[HalloweenJack]

The Zaharakis one was worse.

Poor bugger is trying to clear the centre..and once again, the Crows player closest to the ball, has been a soft**** and let the ball trickle out of play.

You are right. The free against Kelly the week before when Simpson made no effort to keep it in was also wrong. So was the Kersten free.

The umpires need to have a better feel for the game. It may help the public perception if the AFL just came out and admitted they got them wrong.

Having said this I like the rule a few ordinary interpretations aside.

 

[quotemokc]

 

[Grandstan]

I can see why the ump thought he was kicking for touch - he could certainly have tried harder to bring it back in front of goal. But there's plenty of grey area - it's a 70ish metre kick that swerved towards goal and crossed the boundary just metres from the behind post.
But what really got on my goat was Kennedy backing in the call, while casting doubt on the Zaharakis kick that went completely perpendicular and out.
I've never seen anything like it given in the forward 50 before, the AFL need to clarify.

 

[HowieD]

I've always wondered what it took to be an umpire. And now I know. Not much. Not much feel for the game. Not much understanding that our ball isn't round and so bounces funny sometimes. Not much knowledge in how hard it is to make a deliberate split second decision to kick a ball out with pressure on and less than half a second to decide what to do after almost four quarters of tough football.

And it takes even less to be Hayden Kennedy. This parasite doesn't even have the guts to call things as they are. To put his hand up on behalf of his department and actually say "we messed up, we'll do better!" No. He turns around and tells us we'll be copping more of the same. The decision's right. Move on. His KPIs are likely linked to the percentage of incorrect calls each week, but seriously, we'll let this guy make the determination between right and wrong, and then adjust when he says so?

The fact it even came up for discussion highlights how incorrect it is. Non-participating coaches calling these decisions out as poor decisions takes it a little further. But armed with all of this, Hayden Kennedy, like a scarecrow in a field dreaming of one day being donated a brain, decides to openly argue against this. What an a-grade flog. Not just for this decision on its own, but for all the decisions that will evidently be made going forwards because of this. If I get to 50/60 out and I kick the ball at goals, and both teams have neglected to fill the forward line, and that ball goes out of bounds on the bounce, this walking crustacean has now given the green light for that to be called every time as deliberate. What a joke.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the deliberate rule as it was before.

 

[sportsmaniac89]

It wasn't deliberate on the day and the fact that spineless maggot Kennedy is trying to defend the call shows he has lost the plot. The problem is that next time it happens, it has to be called as deliberate otherwise the integrity of the competition will be trashed as it would be shown to be an anti-Freo decision only.

 

[D-N-R]

I know a few posters were pretty annoyed it got called deliberate during the gameday thread and the commentators seemed mildly annoyed it was called and then went silent

But the AFL has backed the umpire to call it deliberate - he probably was either hoping for it to trickle through for a goal or go out of bounds, but he kicked the ball from about 5-10 metres inside the centre square, under pressure and both teams had put all their players in the Melbourne attacking half for obvious reasons

More fusss would have likely been made of it had the result gone the other way, but as far as I can see he had no other choice but to bomb it long and hope it rolled through for a goal (or even a behind and force Melbourne to re-set from the back regardless) - it's a 60-70m kick after all

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/8b0bd648fded90a94781aea87bfd6e6f

No idea if the link will work for everyone with the HUNs stupid paywall, but I find the call baffling, given the fuss a lot of people have made over the umpires having to be mind readers RE: deliberate out of bounds

I think the decision, under the current interpretation, was correct. He wasn't having a shot - he didn't even try to screw the ball back towards goal - and there wasn't a Docker within cooee. A throw in would have been a very good result for Freo in that position, so I have no doubt that was his objective.

I saw a game last year. I think Melbourne were playing (R19 against GC??) and they were trying to hold the ball in their attacking 50 because their opponents were on a roll and the scores were close. One of the Melbourne players got the ball and kicked it straight at the boundary line near the point post, instead of having a shot at goal. It was clearly deliberate - a point would have handed over possession to the opposition - and I thought at the time it was a smart move. Attacking players always get a bit more leeway when it comes to DOOB in their attacking 50, but it shouldn't matter WRT the rule.

If it does go to last touch, then it should be an indirect free kick, like in soccer. i.e. You can't score directly from the free.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the decision, under the current interpretation, was correct. He wasn't having a shot - he didn't even try to screw the ball back towards goal - and there wasn't a Docker within cooee. A throw in would have been a very good result for Freo in that position, so I have no doubt that was his objective.

I saw a game last year. I think Melbourne were playing (R19 against GC??) and they were trying to hold the ball in their attacking 50 because their opponents were on a roll and the scores were close. One of the Melbourne players got the ball and kicked it straight at the boundary line near the point post, instead of having a shot at goal. It was clearly deliberate - a point would have handed over possession to the opposition - and I thought at the time it was a smart move. Attacking players always get a bit more leeway when it comes to DOOB in their attacking 50, but it shouldn't matter WRT the rule.

If it does go to last touch, then it should be an indirect free kick, like in soccer. i.e. You can't score directly from the free.

I think defenders should be given more leeway, the game is about attack and defence. I am all for a defender deep in his back pocket being able to kick the ball 50m down the line to try and get the ball out of the area and relieve some pressure and if it rolls out it should be a throw in.
If the umpires and the AFL just want to hand back the ball to the opposition then you may as well just hand ball the ball to them in the pocket and let them have a shot.
The AFL have this rule very wrong and not in the spirit of the game or how it is played.

 

[citizen-erased]

you could make this simple, though quite controversial;
1) kick inside your 50 that goes out - not deliberate
2) kick inside oppositions 50 that goes out of play outside of the 50 - not deliberate
3) kick inside oppositions 50 that goes out of play inside 50 - deliberate
4) kick between the 50's that goes out of play between the 50's - not deliberate
5) Kick into oppositions 50 from outside that goes out play - deliberate
6) All handballs that go out without being touched - deliberate
or maybe not deliberate, but a free nonetheless
no blurry lines. no interpretation required.
Saves ones like the Kelly, Kersten and Zaka ones being called.
any handball that misses your teammate by that much gets punished...and probably should. learn to handball (looking at you essendon players other than McGrath!)

Harder to enforce the ones handled over the line with the faux-fumbling of the ball.
You would see less of that though if prior opportunity was given some leniency.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Deliberate as a whole is farcical. It was introduced before there was time on to stop teams time wasting. It should have been scrapped then and there

You are now punished for not disposing of the ball (even if you didn't have chance to) so players bang it forward and hope. You can't penalise that unless you relax holding the ball

 

[HairyO]

Thats a free kick but chucking the ball when tackled isnt. Nice one AFL.

 

[flamethrower]

The Kersten free kick was ridiculous - a similar free kick was paid against Jarrad Grant last year at the G, when he had a long shot for goal only to see the ball miss and go out of bounds. We see players miss goals (and points) all the time when kicking from beyond 50m.....either pay all of them deliberate or none.

 

[D-N-R]

I think defenders should be given more leeway, the game is about attack and defence. I am all for a defender deep in his back pocket being able to kick the ball 50m down the line to try and get the ball out of the area and relieve some pressure and if it rolls out it should be a throw in.
If the umpires and the AFL just want to hand back the ball to the opposition then you may as well just hand ball the ball to them in the pocket and let them have a shot.
The AFL have this rule very wrong and not in the spirit of the game or how it is played.

I don't disagree. I thought the interpretation they had 10 or 15 years ago was pretty good. Everyone knew what was a good, zone-clearing kick and what was an attempt to put the ball straight out.

 

[PACatter]

I can see why the ump thought he was kicking for touch - he could certainly have tried harder to bring it back in front of goal. But there's plenty of grey area - it's a 70ish metre kick that swerved towards goal and crossed the boundary just metres from the behind post.
But what really got on my goat was Kennedy backing in the call, while casting doubt on the Zaharakis kick that went completely perpendicular and out.
I've never seen anything like it given in the forward 50 before, the AFL need to clarify.

That's what I don't understand about the Kersten goal - he gets a sideways bounce on one oh those, and it's a behind. Common sense is that, if it goes out of bounds within a few meters of the post, it should be considered a shot on goal.

Let's say someone like Rioli tries to dribble a kick along the ground from the forward pocket and it goes out short of a behind, is that deliberate? It's going out at the same spot.

 

[DelRe]

you could make this simple, though quite controversial;
1) kick inside your 50 that goes out - not deliberate
2) kick inside oppositions 50 that goes out of play outside of the 50 - not deliberate
3) kick inside oppositions 50 that goes out of play inside 50 - deliberate
4) kick between the 50's that goes out of play between the 50's - not deliberate
5) Kick into oppositions 50 from outside that goes out play - deliberate
6) All handballs that go out without being touched - deliberate
or maybe not deliberate, but a free nonetheless
no blurry lines. no interpretation required.
Saves ones like the Kelly, Kersten and Zaka ones being called.
any handball that misses your teammate by that much gets punished...and probably should. learn to handball (looking at you essendon players other than McGrath!)

Harder to enforce the ones handled over the line with the faux-fumbling of the ball.
You would see less of that though if prior opportunity was given some leniency.

I like the idea of taking away the requirement of making an umpire decide what was the player's intent and instead make it more black and white.

I have wondered whether they just should allow the proverbial 'touch finder' concept and say if it goes 40-50 metres then it is deemed not deliberate. Why I think it could help is (i) it takes away the intent decision (ii) it encourages longer kicks away from congestion (iii) an oppo player won't want to let it run out anymore because it'll just be a throw in so it'll encourage them to keep the ball in and maybe also to keep one player back deep (a bit rugby like admittedly) which may also help reduce congestion.

For less than the distance, keep the existing rule or just implement some other deeming concepts like yours.

 

[JackFlash]

The AFL forget they use an OVAL ball, if Kersten's kick had done a leg break he would've scored a goal. It's all madness and the umpires are being forced to adjudicate without using any common sense. Gil is running a "nut" factory over there...

 

[Testekill]

The Zaharakis one was worse.

Poor bugger is trying to clear the centre..and once again, the Crows player closest to the ball, has been a soft**** and let the ball trickle out of play.

It's something that really should be amended; if an opposition player has ample time to keep the ball in and just shepherds it out of bounds then by nature it can't be deliberate because the opposition player is the one making sure that it goes out of bounds.

 

[SterlingArcher]

It's something that really should be amended; if an opposition player has ample time to keep the ball in and just shepherds it out of bounds then by nature it can't be deliberate because the opposition player is the one making sure that it goes out of bounds.

Not to add another innane rule but if the AFL insists on the current rather harsh interpretation of the deliberate rule, then there should be a rule that if the opposition player raises his arms to appeal for a deliberate before it goes out maybe just throw it in?

The reason for my view is that the current interpretation is "didn't do enough to keep it in play". The Goddard one (BTs IT CANT BE) was ridiculous because even if Goddard was "not doing enough to keep it in play", neither was Simpson. Both players let the ball go out, that's a nil all draw, throw it in.

If players want to start appealing for free kicks rather than play the game I'm happy to more or less penalise them. I was incredibly dirty when Hogan got his soccer goal through Jeff Garletts hard work, Hogan whinging to the umps and gets lucky enough that the ball goes his way and he claims it. Ridiculous. Play the game until a whistle goes.