Things that make you laugh

[mighty_tiger_79]

The rule states that player forces it over the line. Surely for that player to put it over the line they need to last touch it!

Nope

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

[amber_fluid]

The rule states that player forces it over the line. Surely for that player to put it over the line they need to last touch it!

Not if the opposition player only gets a finger nail on it and it doesn’t deviate the ball at all.
Has the AFL come out yet to explain the rule?
It is ambiguous as it stands by the sounds of it.

[amber_fluid]

Some of you blokes must be pissed,if someone kicks the ball 50 meters close to the line and it’s about to go OOF but someone touches it it should be called deliberate?

Ya making your own rules up now.

[mighty_tiger_79]

The rule states that player forces it over the line. Surely for that player to put it over the line they need to last touch it!

Not if the opposition player only gets a finger nail on it and it doesn’t deviate the ball at all.
Has the AFL come out yet to explain the rule?
It is ambiguous as it stands by the sounds of it.

AFL admitted it got it wrong

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

[Dutchy]

So you are making a huge presumption that the umpire actually saw the deflection, which isn't clear even when slowed down and zoomed in. The umpire made the wrong call, but can now conveniently say it was a deflection

[daysofourlives]

People thinking even though the 'deliberate' out of bounds by Murray was proven to be touched by Spargo, it still should have been called deliberate [emoji38] [emoji38]

The rule (Law 18.10.2) is that a FK is to be paid against a player who 'kicks, handballs or forces the football over the boundary line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play'.

It doesn't say anything about touching an opponent on the way over.

In this case I don't think there was 'sufficient intent' so correct call would be FK to Melbourne.

I note also that the 'spirit and intention' (Law 18.10.1) of this rule is that 'players shall be encouraged to keep the ball in play'.

To me, this means that a deflection is irrelevant where it's clear that the player didn't demonstrate 'sufficient intent'.

Youre right, Spargo had absolutely no intent to keep the ball in play, shouldve been a free kick to Adelaide.
In the SANFL would that have been a throw in or free kick?

[Brodlach]

There was a view on 9 News which shows the deflection

[RB]

There was a clear deflection, no arguments here.

But the deflection is irrelevant. The AFL have confirmed that sufficient intent was not shown.

[Dutchy]

There was a view on 9 News which shows the deflection

Doesnt matter if 9 News saw it, the umpire didn't, he was on the other side of the contest.

[am Bays]

The AFL umpires are given further instructions to help them decide if it is deliberate,
1 what is their intent (where are they looking and the direction towards the boundary)
2. The force of the disposal (where does it land in relation to the boundary line - is it over half way from the player to the boundary)
3 players in the vicinity of the direction.

That was deliberate all day every day. The umpire in a split second thought Doedee was closer than he was hence his throw in call.

[Booney]

You know you blokes can admit it was deliberate and you still win?

[mighty_tiger_79]

You know you blokes can admit it was deliberate and you still win? [emoji38]

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]that's not happening.
They're in la la land

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

[cracka]

You know you blokes can admit it was deliberate and you still win?

I did about a minute after the game.
The one that wasn't deliberate was the Melbourne player who tried to soccer the ball to his advantage (in their forward line) but kicked it too hard

[Bum Crack]

Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories with Rick James. I piss myself every time I watch it. Dave Chapelle is a genius.

[Dutchy]

Phil Mickelson relying to all the punters tweets after his win on Sunday, pure gold.

[JK]

Haha

[Lightning McQueen]

Just got an email from an agent regarding a rental property I applied for saying that the owner is favouring my application but 23 other applications offered $10 PW extra, would I like to match ?

[amber_fluid]

Just got an email from an agent regarding a rental property I applied for saying that the owner is favouring my application but 23 other applications offered $10 PW extra, would I like to match ?

Sounds like a bidding war to me

[Brodlach]

Just got an email from an agent regarding a rental property I applied for saying that the owner is favouring my application but 23 other applications offered $10 PW extra, would I like to match ?

So did you?

[Lightning McQueen]

Just got an email from an agent regarding a rental property I applied for saying that the owner is favouring my application but 23 other applications offered $10 PW extra, would I like to match ?

So did you?

Yeah, it was under what I was budgeting for anyway, they had two that I applied for and so I also specified that the other one was a preference but I'm happy to proceed with this application.