Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I reckon it would only be understandable if the rule was "insufficient skill" - as Maynard who was wedged between 2 defenders and tried to kick that ball off the ground to Daicos and it skewed off the side of his boot. It was a pure and simple skill error and zero to do with intent.
I reckon that decision was a howler, but maybe the umpire was distracted by Howe's wobbling arm.
Where are all the Richmond players? Their supporters keep telling us they're such a juggernaut. Im confused
Then change the wording because Maynard's second kick was off the side of his boot as he was being bumped. The umps must have some feeling for the game. That was disgraceful and both decisions led to goals. Even in the first instance, what do they want a defender to do as an opponent is rushing toward him- tap the ball back over his head into the lap of his opponent?They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.
I have watched the replay and paid more attention to the free kicks. Most were technically there (didn't get the why of a couple of 50's).
My issue is that we too had similar instances where a free kick could have been paid but they weren't.
It's like giving a slight shove in the back after the ball has rolled over the boundary line and you and your opponent are also over the line. Nine times out of ten the umps ignore it and call for the throw in. Murphy's arm rested on his shoulder after the ball had crossed the line and in no way impeded Henry's attempt to mark. Spirit of the game needs to be applied. And then the 50 after he missed! For what? I still don't know and no commentator gave a reason.It was clearly high contact. Were the jumpers reversed, we would have been screaming if it wasn't paid.
I guess this applies. Anyway, I thought it was a free kick but like everyone else, did not understand the 50 awarded:He was already over the goal line. We would die and go to heaven if we ever got frees for such nonsense.
I thought the first one was unfair since Maynard’s intent to keep it in was impeded by a Gary Rohan bump, second one seemed complete bullshit since the kick was obviously meant for Daicos but missed the target because of pressure.Then change the wording because Maynard's second kick was off the side of his boot as he was being bumped. The umps must have some feeling for the game. That was disgraceful and both decisions led to goals. Even in the first instance, what do they want a defender to do as an opponent is rushing toward him- tap the ball back over his head into the lap of his opponent?
Yes. I thought the knock toward the boundary was as much to keep it away from the Geelong forward who was closing in on him. It's ludicrous. In a grand final he would literally have to either punch the ball sideways likely into the oncoming path of an opposition forward or back behind him which is even worse. Perhaps he could grab the ball and get tackled and probably pinged for holding the ball. Who'd be a defender?I thought the first one was unfair since Maynard’s intent to keep it in was impeded by a Gary Rohan bump, second one seemed complete bullshit since the kick was obviously meant for Daicos but missed the target because of pressure.
I picked up an umpire's call during the game that a spoil that ran over the line wasn't deliberate as is was insufficient force to warrant a deliberate out of bounds. Helps explain why they called the Blicavs spike as deliberate and the Maynard kick off the ground as deliberate - seems like the umpires may have been instructed to take into account the amount of force used to get the ball over the boundary line (regardless of where you are on the field when you make the contact).They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.
Pack of Sooks they areThe cats' autopsy thread made for a fun little read. One of the running themes on loss reasoning is their "limited pre-season".
Massive difference the 7 days must have made between theirs and ours.
The current wording is "...and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play". This is different from the old idea of "intentional out of bounds". I thought they were the right decisions in this day and age. They umpire that very harshly. Reckon it is overall good for the game.Yes. I thought the knock toward the boundary was as much to keep it away from the Geelong forward who was closing in on him. It's ludicrous. In a grand final he would literally have to either punch the ball sideways likely into the oncoming path of an opposition forward or back behind him which is even worse. Perhaps he could grab the ball and get tackled and probably pinged for holding the ball. Who'd be a defender?
So some campaigner rings SEN this morning suggesting Howe should have been reported in the incident where he broke his arm. Apparently he attacked Stengle too aggressively. Pardon.
They were predictable calls that you knew were coming, which is what you want from the individual umps. I do find it frustrating from the rules committee though that a skill error is insufficient intent, yet blatantly walking the ball over the line with an opponent near you is a throw in.The current wording is "...and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play". This is different from the old idea of "intentional out of bounds". I thought they were the right decisions in this day and age. They umpire that very harshly. Reckon it is overall good for the game.
You’d still think the likes of Cotchin, Riewoldt etc. would make the list given their longevity and Richmond’s alleged relevance in the footy world during their careers.
Agree - that is definitely one that should be policed a bit harder.They were predictable calls that you knew were coming, which is what you want from the individual umps. I do find it frustrating from the rules committee though that a skill error is insufficient intent, yet blatantly walking the ball over the line with an opponent near you is a throw in.
Kinda nuts to see Cats fans basically refuse to acknowledge the fact that they kicked 16.1 which is almost the singular reason they weren't blown off the park lol
Even with 16.1 they lost by 4 goals
They kick a little more "normal" and we kick a little straighter and that 4 goals becomes 10 goals.
Which is strange given the rule is ‘deliberate out of bounds’.They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.
It's not - see aboveWhich is strange given the rule is ‘deliberate out of bounds’.
It's like giving a slight shove in the back after the ball has rolled over the boundary line and you and your opponent are also over the line. Nine times out of ten the umps ignore it and call for the throw in. Murphy's arm rested on his shoulder after the ball had crossed the line and in no way impeded Henry's attempt to mark. Spirit of the game needs to be applied. And then the 50 after he missed! For what? I still don't know and no commentator gave a reason.
First half we just weren't getting the calls they were. We got totally screwed in the third but very favoured in the last.I have watched the replay and paid more attention to the free kicks. Most were technically there (didn't get the why of a couple of 50's).
My issue is that we too had similar instances where a free kick could have been paid but they weren't.