Non-Lions Footy Season (2017)

[Nunez]

Umps are ****ed. I picked the dogs but they have been awful this game. They really get looked after at home.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Umps with a great win tonight.

 

[Elixuh]

Umps took the wind out of the Swans sail with that trash rushed behind call.

 

[Cooties]

31 frees to the dogs. They really need to sort out this deliberate rushed behind free

 

[Carlos Danger]

Deliberate rushed rule is awful. An automatic goal is far to harsh a penalty for an infringement where you don't know if you can or can't do something & will change from umpire to umpire.

Decided the outcome of the game tonight. Would rather they give the point & bounce at top of the square rather than free kick

 

[Carlos Danger]

Umps took the wind out of the Swans sail with that trash rushed behind call.

Seemed to be within the new explanation of the interpretation of under pressure & within 9 meters.

Definitely not why the rule got brought in, all it's doing is devaluing a goal by making them easier to get

 

[Kevvo]

That umpiring was just really, really bad.

 

[AFLQLD]

Poor defenders cop it all the time. Now rushed behind rule to make life more difficult. Too many of the rules of the contest favour the forward. The wrestling can be done by both players but the forward gets the benefit.

 

[M Malice]

i couldn't care less either way who won that game and i may be in the minority but i thought the rushed behind free kick (although overall the dogs got the rub of the green) was the correct call. i would like them to be strict on that call, he could have easily gathered that ball and hand balled or kicked up the line. if there is someone all over you fair enough but you couldn't say he was under extreme pressure IMO.

 

[Dalions]

i couldn't care less either way who won that game and i may be in the minority but i thought the rushed behind free kick (although overall the dogs got the rub of the green) was the correct call. i would like them to be strict on that call, he could have easily gathered that ball and hand balled or kicked up the line. if there is someone all over you fair enough but you couldn't say he was under extreme pressure IMO.

Completely agree.
He was 8 mtrs out and 3 mtrs clear.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

i couldn't care less either way who won that game and i may be in the minority but i thought the rushed behind free kick (although overall the dogs got the rub of the green) was the correct call. i would like them to be strict on that call, he could have easily gathered that ball and hand balled or kicked up the line. if there is someone all over you fair enough but you couldn't say he was under extreme pressure IMO.

I don't disagree with the interpretation in this case when you consider that:

Under the amended rules, umpires will consider three main elements:

* Whether the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.

* The distance of the player from the goal or behind line.

* The degree of pressure being applied to the player.
But the penalty, which is a near certain goal, is too high. They should award the point and then ball up on the ten metre square.

 

[Elixuh]

i couldn't care less either way who won that game and i may be in the minority but i thought the rushed behind free kick (although overall the dogs got the rub of the green) was the correct call. i would like them to be strict on that call, he could have easily gathered that ball and hand balled or kicked up the line. if there is someone all over you fair enough but you couldn't say he was under extreme pressure IMO.

The issue for me is consistency. I am happy for it to be paid so long as it is consistently paid across the board. But at the moment it isn't.

Anyway, the pressure was real and immediate, it wasn't perceived IMO. Had the ranga kid taken possession Picken would have tackled him immediately. Trash call at a pivotal moment in the game.

 

[Dalions]

I don't disagree with the interpretation in this case when you consider that:

Under the amended rules, umpires will consider three main elements:

* Whether the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.

* The distance of the player from the goal or behind line.

* The degree of pressure being applied to the player.
But the penalty, which is a near certain goal, is too high. They should award the point and then ball up on the ten metre square.

I actually thought that they had already changed that rule.
Or was that only in pre season.

 

[M Malice]

The issue for me is consistency. I am happy for it to be paid so long as it is consistently paid across the board. But at the moment it isn't.

Anyway, the pressure was real and immediate, it wasn't perceived IMO. Had the ranga kid taken possession Picken would have tackled him immediately. Trash call at a pivotal moment in the game.

as they say in the classics, agree to disagree.

 

[Elixuh]

I don't disagree with the interpretation in this case when you consider that:

Under the amended rules, umpires will consider three main elements:

* Whether the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.

* The distance of the player from the goal or behind line.

* The degree of pressure being applied to the player.
But the penalty, which is a near certain goal, is too high. They should award the point and then ball up on the ten metre square.

Well he satisfies 1 and 2, no issue. 3rd is arguable, but I still think he was stiff IMO.

 

[Elixuh]

as they say in the classics, agree to disagree.

Your interpretation is just as valid as mine which is the issue. They need to make it black and white, tonight it ruined the show.

 

[ZoBlitz]

My feeling is you only really need the rushed behind rule for one situation, when the guy kicking out just walks it back through. Which is why they initiated the rule in the first place. The current interpretation is too hard on defenders and umpires.

 

[Hollow Knight]

But the penalty, which is a near certain goal, is too high. They should award the point and then ball up on the ten metre square.

Excellent suggestion IMO.

 

[carnthemlions]

So it's not a matter of interpretation, it was just the wrong decision.

 

[Elixuh]

My feeling is you only really need the rushed behind rule for one situation, when the guy kicking out just walks it back through. Which is why they initiated the rule in the first place. The current interpretation is too hard on defenders and umpires.

On fox they were saying that they could amend the rule so that any 'rushed behind' (aka any ball touched by a player which then goes through their own goal) should be considered an 'own goal' and be worth 6 points. Can you imagine.

They just need to make the elements that define the rule black and white. Or keep the rule as is and change the penalty. Have a ball up at the top of the square or something.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Lol at "fact"
So umpire under the deliberate rushed law, what is your interpretation of fact of immediate physical pressure?
Simple

Interesting to have a watch of the laws of the game deliberate rushed examples, the example they give with Grimes looks slightly different to tonight's example


http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-deliberately-rushed-behind

 

[Mr Ripper]

So it's not a matter of interpretation, it was just the wrong decision.

FWIW, that isn't the actual law, just the current 'policy'. Following those guidelines, the decision was correct, imo.

 

[James North]

Were all decisions constitutional?

 

[BigCat2]

Our sport must be the only top flight game that has so many rules that need to be interpreted before they are applied.

Deliberate? Ok umpires need mind reading skills?

High vs forceful contact below the knee?

In the back vs holding the ball?

Holding the ball - how much "attempt" to get rid of it is required to avoid getting pinged?

Even one of the supposedly less prone to inrerpretation metrics also requires interpretation - distance traveled, for marking a kick.

In other sports umpires can make mistakes, but usually the rule is not open to interpretation.

 

[POBT]

So it's not a matter of interpretation, it was just the wrong decision.

How do you figure? It seems to me that the decision potentially complies, depending on the umpire's interpretation.