Rules Insufficient intent is out of control

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's pretty clear
The umpires award the free kick depending upon the noise of the crowd

Yep. Totally scientific.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So it should not be called Last Touch. And this would mean it’s now fair game to paddle, punch, walk or watch the ball across the line without repercussion?

And this is where the AFL constantly show their stupidity an ineptitude when it comes to the rules of the game.

What is the problem statement? There is no need for a solution unless there's a problem.

As far as I'm aware, the problem is that:

1) Boundary throw-ins slow down the game. The AFL want less stoppages so they want the ball in play more
2) The AFL want higher scoring so they don't want defenders to have an easy 'get out' when they're under pressure

So they introduce this stupid interpretation that literally just targets one tiny aspect of the actual problems.

Defenders still just walk the ball over the line when under pressure.
Ruckman still bash the ball to the boundary to make sure it goes out of bounds.
Players stop and watch the ball trickle over the line, rather than keeping it in play themselves.
Players now can genuinely attempt to clear congestion with a long kick to space - yet they get penalised for it.

The incentive to clear the congestion via. Rebound 50 from your defence is significantly reduced.

And the shit thing is that this 'penalty' has nothing to do with someone good that the opposition has done. It's not like they've forced the defence into making an error. They're usually the ones that have kicked it deep into the pocket of their F50 in the first place. The defender is really just trying to fix up their shit.

 

[Dtennent94]

What if we just put a wall around the oval so that the ball literally can’t go out of bounds?

No easy outs for defenders. No interpretations for umpires. Fast play. Rebound passes off the wall. It works for indoor soccer and netball down at my local rec centre.

Make it happen.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I dont mind the strict interpretation. If it makes it easier /more consistent then change it to some variation of 'last touch' but who on earth actually enjoys watching boundary throw ins? The more the ball is in play the better.

But the rule doesn't do this.

Players still intentionally take the ball out of play the same as they always have.

The only ones that get penalised are the ones where a bloke accidentally shanks the kick and it goes out of bounds, where the ball inadvertently goes out of bounds and the rare occasions where a bloke intentionally kicks it out of bounds.

The rule achieves nothing.

If they want to prevent guys taking the ball out of bounds intentionally, and/or guys not trying to keep it in play - then actually start pinging guys for it.

It's just idiotic.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Got a chuckle watching my demented father-in-law blow his lid on Saturday night when a few went against Geelong. Been trying to point out how insane it was for all of last season, like all supporters he had no issue with it when the same decisions would go in our favour. Even for the AFL it's an astonishingly stupid interpretation.

Very simple, very easy, solution. Pay deliberate when it is ..........actually deliberate. As was done previously. 99% of the time the umpires got it right, because it's pretty simple.

I think the thing that annoys me is the rule is there. All day/night long players disguise their intent as best they can, the umpires allow it to pass. Then when the match is less than a goal the difference with 5-10 minutes to play, they start paying free kicks. I've never understood this.

I'm no umpire basher; it's a difficult game to umpire these days with all the complex rules and interpretations. You have to expect some bad or inconsistent calls, it's inevitable. You just hope that when they pull a clanger, it goes your way, not the opposition.

I always laugh when I hear claims of umpires cheating. It's ridiculous. Years ago, in the SANFL, I actually saw an umpire cheating. He admitted it and was dropped from the panel. When you see the real thing, you know today's umpires aren't cheating.

 

[DidakDelight]

The game needs to look at things differently and explore the idea of a similar rule to the two different Rugbys 40/20 and 50/20 rule.

It could be used in attack and defence, for example:

(Attack) If a player kicks from inside his own half (imagine a line across the middle) and finds touch inside 50m then his team gets possession.

(Defence) If a player kicks from within in his own defensive 30 and finds touch inside the opposition’s half, then his team regains possession.

In both scenarios, especially attack, this will force teams to keep defensive players back and open up congestion. It will also encourage long kicking and the old fashioned barrel.

It’s more organic than the idea of playing a 666 during quarters where players cant leave zones and it rewards or punishes teams for a lack of defense or for adventurous and attacking long kicking.

With this rule, the defending player chasing a kick would be under massive pressure because if they don’t touch it, it’s a free, but if they do touch it and knock it out it would be deliberate . If they gain possession close to the line they’re under massive pressure.

 

[Doashuey]

Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but I think it is generally being umpired pretty well.
I say that because I can usually predict with pretty high success rate when it will be paid and so too, can most the players on the field. That tells me that the umps are fairly consistent with it and the players know it.
I'm not a huge fan of the rule as often we are seeing a skill error penalised as a deliberate attempt but at least they are somewhat consistent.
The one thing I would change about the rule but is that if an oppo player is near the ball and has a reasonable opportunity to stop the ball going out rather than just watch it tumble over the line, then the free isn't paid. The idea of the rule is to keep the ball in play so onus should be on both teams to keep the ball live where possible.

 

[Partridge]

I think the thing that annoys me is the rule is there. All day/night long players disguise their intent as best they can, the umpires allow it to pass. Then when the match is less than a goal the difference with 5-10 minutes to play, they start paying free kicks. I've never understood this.

I'm no umpire basher; it's a difficult game to umpire these days with all the complex rules and interpretations. You have to expect some bad or inconsistent calls, it's inevitable. You just hope that when they pull a clanger, it goes your way, not the opposition.

I always laugh when I hear claims of umpires cheating. It's ridiculous. Years ago, in the SANFL, I actually saw an umpire cheating. He admitted it and was dropped from the panel. When you see the real thing, you know today's umpires aren't cheating.

It's more annoying when they clearly panic and start paying decisions based on the crowd noise.

 

[DidakDelight]

It’s still a guessing game/toss of the twenty % of the time.
That’s pretty ordinary if you think about it.

 

[Dee Train]

Last touch would be a disaster imagine a pack of 8 players around the ball then it spills out of bounds and the dumb umpires have to determine who it came off

I might be wrong it in the SANFL they only pay it if from an obvious disposal for the last touch. If in dispute it’s a throw in.

 

[deck]

It's basically an umpire telling a player "I can read your mind".

But that's what the current rule is supposed to avoid. The rule really is now that if you are not kicking and handballing to a team mate and it goes out of bounds then you are penalised. No need to read anyones mind.

 

[DidakDelight]

What if a player verbalises to the umpire his intent when kicking it?

Does the umpire have to accept it at face value or are they trained lie detectors and pay the free anyway?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's more annoying when they clearly panic and start paying decisions based on the crowd noise.

Mob mentality does strange things to people

 

[Dtennent94]

What if a player verbalises to the umpire his intent when kicking it?

Does the umpire have to accept it at face value or are they trained lie detectors and pay the free anyway?

This is a top idea. We have ruckman nominate their intention to enter a ruck contest so the umps know what’s going on. We should do the same for disposals.

 

[1970crow]

Got a chuckle watching my demented father-in-law blow his lid on Saturday night when a few went against Geelong. Been trying to point out how insane it was for all of last season, like all supporters he had no issue with it when the same decisions would go in our favour. Even for the AFL it's an astonishingly stupid interpretation.

Very simple, very easy, solution. Pay deliberate when it is ..........actually deliberate. As was done previously. 99% of the time the umpires got it right, because it's pretty simple.

You’re Ignoring the primary aspect. The AFL changed the rule to reduce the amount of stoppages from throw ins. And like most of their corrections, they created more problems than they solved. The SANFL rule works really well and eliminates a fair portion of the decision making and totally eliminates any guesswork on player intent.

 

[DidakDelight]

Just like the world of criminal law, intention is the hardest element to prove.

Intent can only be proved by admissions or overt actions.

If a player expresses his intention,they can’t pay the free!

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The game needs to look at things differently and explore the idea of a similar rule to the two different Rugbys 40/20 and 50/20 rule.

It could be used in attack and defence, for example:

(Attack) If a player kicks from inside his own half (imagine a line across the middle) and finds touch inside 50m then his team gets possession.

(Defence) If a player kicks from within in his own defensive 30 and finds touch inside the opposition’s half, then his team regains possession.

In both scenarios, especially attack, this will force teams to keep defensive players back and open up congestion. It will also encourage long kicking and the old fashioned barrel.

It’s more organic than the idea of playing a 666 during quarters where players cant leave zones and it rewards or punishes teams for a lack of defense or for adventurous and attacking long kicking.

With this rule, the defending player chasing a kick would be under massive pressure because if they don’t touch it, it’s a free, but if they do touch it and knock it out it would be deliberate . If they gain possession close to the line they’re under massive pressure.

View attachment 2267814

What does 'find touch' mean though in AFL footy?

The AFL is trying to eliminate guys kicking towards the boundary line.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I might be wrong it in the SANFL they only pay it if from an obvious disposal for the last touch. If in dispute it’s a throw in.

Correct.

And the rule has worked really well over the past years since it has been introduced.

 

[LightTower4]

The rule was originally there when the ball used to go out of bounds but the clock would still keep ticking (quarters were 25 mins).
Back then it hardly ever got paid anyway and no one seemed to care IIRC.
Fast forward to today where the clock does stop when the ball goes out of bounds, and they pay frees willy nilly.