The obvious difference is there was no influence by an umpire for the Milne bounce. There was no need for a free kick. I think you missed my point.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
"did he touch the ball before it went over"
- Thread starter Subutai
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Furn2
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 27, 2012
- 9,475
- 15,516
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I've never liked this ruling.
You are allowed to kick the ball just to gain ground, in fact the game was based around it for 100 years.
I think if the ball goes further forward than it does sideways it should be fine.
Also how many bounces can you have before you lose control of your original intention ?
You are allowed to kick the ball just to gain ground, in fact the game was based around it for 100 years.
I think if the ball goes further forward than it does sideways it should be fine.
Also how many bounces can you have before you lose control of your original intention ?
Heaven forbid that to morphs into anything like corners and penalties in soccer
How did the umpire influence the Kreuzer bounce!?
Kreuzer deliberately kicked for the boundary, if the ball bounced on its head and went back into play Richmond get it anyway, if it bounced true and dribbled over the boundary the umpire correctly awards a free to Richmond and Kreuzer was trying to get the ball dead 50m further away from the goal.
Your point is that you dont want a bounce influencing a result...this has been happening since the inception of the game.
Nup.
You used to be able to kick the ball out on the full, it was a tactic used by players to kill time by just booting the ball over the fence. So they changed the rule to the on the full being a free.
What is the difference between kicking the ball OOF or being skilled enough to make the ball bounce 1m before the line before going out?
No players are skilled enough to deliberately dribble the ball over the boundary, so just as they did in the past they are pulling them up.
Furn2
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 27, 2012
- 9,475
- 15,516
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The difference is being skilled enough obviously.
Why's wrong with rewarded a skilled player ? Isn't that the while point of sports ?
The intent from the player is to kill the ball.
Out on the full is easy for the umpires to make a ruling on.
It is pretty simple, they want to encourage players to keep the ball in instead of creating stoppage after stoppage by players being skilful enough to kick the ball out of bounds.
Players are skilled enough to do this, when they deliberately go for the boundary because they "have no other option" or were "undet pressure" or the ball "went 50m forward" it doesnt matter, they deliberately tried to put the ball out of play and hence will be penalised.
BlueBoy442
Cancelled
- Sep 18, 2015
- 8
- 7
- AFL Club
- Carlton
What about players who paddle the ball to the boundary line? They are deliberately putting the ball out of play. If you want to talk about intent then nearly every player has the intent to get the ball over the line in pressure situations.
The problem with this decision was that there were players in the vicinity of the ball that could have intervened in the play.
Like the Grimes free kick? The umpires are paying that deliberate too. I don't have an issue with it as long as they keep doing it and don't go soft like they always do ever year when bringing in a different interpretation.
dazbroncos
Max Rooke Appreciation Society
- Oct 9, 2010
- 52,216
- 88,594
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Red Bull Racing
- Moderator
- #60
This rule is being interpreted much in the way kindergardeners do with life. Its all or nothing with no reality added to it.
Im fully for the calls where a player makes a clear an obvious attempt to get the ball OOB.
EG - a kick directly to the boundary with no teammates in the area.
- walking the ball over when in clear possession and not doing so would result in a turnover.
These are clear attempts to force a stoppage rather than lose possession.
However, when a player kicks the ball to space and it bounces 10 m inside the line and Warnie leg breaks over - ball in.
When a player is under pressure and is making an effort to dispose in play and it goes out, ball in.
When a player is under tackle pressure and quickly clears the ball from the area and in that motion the ball heads over the line - ball in.
I had no interest in who won last night but I was throwing shit at the TV with those DOOB calls - and I had no dog in that fight.
If that happens on Monday - and it will - im gonna lose it.
The umpiring dept has to be able to exercise some cranial fortitude in those decisions. They can do it with HTB and no prior opportunity calls, why the **** can't they do it here?
GO Catters
Im fully for the calls where a player makes a clear an obvious attempt to get the ball OOB.
EG - a kick directly to the boundary with no teammates in the area.
- walking the ball over when in clear possession and not doing so would result in a turnover.
These are clear attempts to force a stoppage rather than lose possession.
However, when a player kicks the ball to space and it bounces 10 m inside the line and Warnie leg breaks over - ball in.
When a player is under pressure and is making an effort to dispose in play and it goes out, ball in.
When a player is under tackle pressure and quickly clears the ball from the area and in that motion the ball heads over the line - ball in.
I had no interest in who won last night but I was throwing shit at the TV with those DOOB calls - and I had no dog in that fight.
If that happens on Monday - and it will - im gonna lose it.
The umpiring dept has to be able to exercise some cranial fortitude in those decisions. They can do it with HTB and no prior opportunity calls, why the **** can't they do it here?
GO Catters
- Moderator
- #61
Agree. All fans often want is just consistency of umpiring decisions. Different interpretations of a poorly written or ill-defined rules just lead to frustration and bewilderment from players, coaches and fans.
Players that paddle the ball over, walk it over should also be penalised...a Richmond guy was last night, name escapes me.
The interpretation has correctly changed IMO so that if a player uses the boundary line as an out they will be punished.
Pretty simple, if a player is not interested in keeping it in they are penalised...this ridiculous notion where a player was able to get away with it because he kicked it 25 m up the line to "disguise" his intent, or had "no other option" or was "under pressure" is now irrelevant.
PerfectFooty
Perfect Cell
Don't blame umpires for that one last night, they paid it correctly and as umpires they need too. Instead direct your anger at the AFL for changing the interpretation for the rule, umpires are just following orders
- Oct 6, 2012
- 13,737
- 27,814
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
This is an interesting point. The Richmond player didn't try and keep it in when he could have. Deliberate?
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,408
- 2,826
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
It's not the worst interpretation of the rule, and certainly there was a need to enforce it a little more stringently (the last few seasons, where long kicks down the line were more likely to be penalised than blatant but close-in infringements, were farcical). The problem is the encouragement of tactics like shepherding the ball out of bounds to get a free kick, but that's hard to reasonably combat - whether the player intended to deliberately put the ball out doesn't really have much to do with the other team's actions... still, it's not something you want a rule of the game engendering. This particular decision doesn't seem so bad to me, and I'd expect that the longer a player shepherds for, the less likely the initial disposal was actually one that could be penalised; whether it'll actually be enforced that way is another thing, though. So I'm ambivalent on this one - time will tell, I guess...
What is your opinion on the Grimes free kick? (i'm assume its the one in the last quarter I think?). I thought it was really harsh. They looked really close to the boundary from the tele and he had 2 blues around him. Would like to see that just thrown in.
Going about it the wrong way. Should be 3m high perspex walls around boundary. If it goes over on full or touched,bounces over its a free kick against whoever touched it last. otherwise it will bounce back in and its play on.
As long as they are consistent then I don't have an issue with it, its a harsh call but so be it. I have my doubts that in 3 weeks time if that same situation occurs the umpire will call it deliberate.
That's what annoys me they try and make these tough calls but never stay consistent which annoys AFL supporters.
I can't give him that much credit.
It looked like a miskick and not a "cleverly disguised miskick".
rdhopkins2
Carpe Diem
If this continues, players will play less towards the boundary. Good in theory but you'll then have the same amount of players in a smaller area. That will require higher skilled disposal or teams will turn it over.
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Why?
If you have possession of the football in play - you can do what you like with it...
The penalty against you kicking it is the free kick.
DrMike
No one likes Wang
- May 13, 2012
- 25,032
- 56,904
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Players don't have a responsibility to fix the mistake of their opposition. If the ball was going out on the full they wouldn't touch it so it becomes a throw in. Why would they touch it if there was a deliberate kick to the boundary? Can't see any problem with any of the calls last night. The Grimes one was harsh given the context but he made the motion to push it to the boundary so he deserves to get pinged for it.
Samthegun
All Australian
- Sep 25, 2015
- 884
- 775
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That's the problem with "intention" rules. How do you decide if it really was the player's intention to do such-and-such? If you're clever and know bluff you can make a kick over the boundary line look unintentional, but then the umpire may cotton on and say that it was cleverly disguised. Or perhaps the player really did fluff it and was intending to kick the ball to open space? What about those players that grab the ball and wait to be tackled over the line so it can't be classed as deliberate? You see these stupid cat-and-mouse games with ball-carrier and opposition dancing near the boundary line noncommittally.
Seriously, the umpires need poker lessons as part of their training...
Seriously, the umpires need poker lessons as part of their training...
- Mar 11, 2012
- 6,932
- 17,605
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
These are players who routinely miss 20m targets under no pressure. The idea that they can snap the ball out of a congested situation on their wrong foot and bounce it deliberately over the boundary 50m away is frankly ludicrous.
d33my
Club Legend
Veteran
Melbourne Demons - Jake Lever Player Sponsor 2018
Melbourne Demons - Katherine Smith AFLW Player Sponsor 2018
Unofficial Preview of the Year
Melbourne Demons - Ben Kennedy Player Sponsor 2017
Melbourne Demons - Katherine Smith AFLW Player Sponsor 2017
Melbourne Demons - Ben Kennedy Player Sponsor 2016
Melbourne Demons - Jeremy Howe Player Sponsor 2015
You can't just 'do what you like' when you have possession of the football. You can't throw it, for example. You can do what you like with the football within the laws of the game.
If you kick it out with the explicit intention of buying more time to set up your defensive zone, you're acting outside the rules and, dare I say it, the spirit of the game.
From the Laws of the Game
Time wasting itself is defined as when the umpire is of the opinion the player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play. So that's a subjective call - but you would be penalised a free kick for the initial offence (out of bounds on the full) and then a fifty on top of it because of the egregious time wasting (hoofing it into the second tier).
Similar threads
