AFL Round 10

Talk on the national game

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby FlyingHigh » Tue May 25, 2021 11:58 am

I can't believe there is this much attention to this decision compared to the Robbie Gray handball for a point against Richmond which barely raised a mention.
If ever there was a deliberate point that was it. Was it not paid due to the literal, technical way the rule is written? Which is still crap coz it was inifinitely more deliberate.
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 173 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby JK » Tue May 25, 2021 12:08 pm

FlyingHigh wrote:I can't believe there is this much attention to this decision compared to the Robbie Gray handball for a point against Richmond which barely raised a mention.
If ever there was a deliberate point that was it. Was it not paid due to the literal, technical way the rule is written? Which is still crap coz it was inifinitely more deliberate.


Gray was allowed to intentionally rush a behind in that instance, zero issue with that one.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37368
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4440 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby Booney » Tue May 25, 2021 12:09 pm

MW wrote:the butt hurt over this decision still is tremendous! :lol: :lol:


Take the result out of the equation, footy fans just want consistency, particularly in this area and when blatant ones are missed they/we have every right to be confused and expect better. It's about the umpiring, not Adelaide.

If you think there's "butt hurt" you're sorely mistaken.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby Booney » Tue May 25, 2021 12:09 pm

JK wrote:
FlyingHigh wrote:I can't believe there is this much attention to this decision compared to the Robbie Gray handball for a point against Richmond which barely raised a mention.
If ever there was a deliberate point that was it. Was it not paid due to the literal, technical way the rule is written? Which is still crap coz it was inifinitely more deliberate.


Gray was allowed to intentionally rush a behind in that instance, zero issue with that one.


Like the Murray one this shows fans don't understand the rules and part of that is because umpires adjudicate them so poorly we don't actually know what's right and what's wrong.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby JK » Tue May 25, 2021 12:15 pm

MW wrote:the butt hurt over this decision still is tremendous! :lol: :lol:


As I said I think it was a poor (non) call, but they've happened for 100+ years and will continue to happen. This time around, bad luck Dees good luck Crows, swings and roundabouts.

On the game itself I reckon the Crows were good for the 4 points, and it was a thoroughly enjoyable game to watch. Crows don't have any/many household names but you have to admire their tenacity and commitment to the opponent with ball in hand. Great contest.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37368
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4440 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby FlyingHigh » Tue May 25, 2021 12:20 pm

Booney wrote:
JK wrote:
FlyingHigh wrote:I can't believe there is this much attention to this decision compared to the Robbie Gray handball for a point against Richmond which barely raised a mention.
If ever there was a deliberate point that was it. Was it not paid due to the literal, technical way the rule is written? Which is still crap coz it was inifinitely more deliberate.


Gray was allowed to intentionally rush a behind in that instance, zero issue with that one.


Like the Murray one this shows fans don't understand the rules and part of that is because umpires adjudicate them so poorly we don't actually know what's right and what's wrong.


I guess my problem is the AFL's intention and I understand more leniency in the rushed point, but that still seemed pretty blatant intent compared to others they've paid. Yet for out-of-bounds they expect players to perform miracles of their bodies, momentum and ball bounce.
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 173 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby whufc » Tue May 25, 2021 12:46 pm

Booney wrote:
JK wrote:
FlyingHigh wrote:I can't believe there is this much attention to this decision compared to the Robbie Gray handball for a point against Richmond which barely raised a mention.
If ever there was a deliberate point that was it. Was it not paid due to the literal, technical way the rule is written? Which is still crap coz it was inifinitely more deliberate.


Gray was allowed to intentionally rush a behind in that instance, zero issue with that one.


Like the Murray one this shows fans don't understand the rules and part of that is because umpires adjudicate them so poorly we don't actually know what's right and what's wrong.


The problem with the rules is that there is rules on top of rules. Deliberately disposing of the ball out of bounds or across the goal line is a free against unless dot dot dot apply.

The protective zone is the protective zone unless...…….dot dot dot apply (eg chasing your opponent through)

Tackling around the neck is a free against unless dot dot dot player ducks.

Almost every rule has some form of by-law, clause associated with it...…...in many cases needed but in many cases not needed as well. That's why I would love to see the last touch out of bounds rule as its as close to black and white rule as the game has, albeit it has some very simple associated clauses.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 27453
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5565 times
Been liked: 2519 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby LaughingKookaburra » Tue May 25, 2021 3:34 pm

Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.
Can you bring a man to his feet when defeat is on repeat?
LaughingKookaburra
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:22 am
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 738 times
Grassroots Team: Kenilworth

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby The Bedge » Tue May 25, 2021 6:04 pm

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.

Didn't the deliberate behind come in because one side (I wanna say Bulldogs or Richmond) exploited rushed behinds to maintain a lead and chew the clock down?

Personally I think deliberate all over the ground should be allowed - if a side is good enough to keep the ball out of play and chew the clock, or give away a point and then reset then so be it, tactical move.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
The Bedge
Coach
 
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: BarbeeCueAria
Has liked: 3188 times
Been liked: 3989 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby mighty_tiger_79 » Tue May 25, 2021 6:06 pm

The Bedge wrote:
LaughingKookaburra wrote:Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.

Didn't the deliberate behind come in because one side (I wanna say Bulldogs or Richmond) exploited rushed behinds to maintain a lead and chew the clock down?

Personally I think deliberate all over the ground should be allowed - if a side is good enough to keep the ball out of play and chew the clock, or give away a point and then reset then so be it, tactical move.
Deliberate rushed game in due to Hawthorn and the 08 GF

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk
Matty Wade is a star and deserves more respect from the forum family!
User avatar
mighty_tiger_79
Coach
 
Posts: 56644
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: at the TAB
Has liked: 11807 times
Been liked: 3582 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby tigerpie » Tue May 25, 2021 6:51 pm

The Bedge wrote:
LaughingKookaburra wrote:Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.

Didn't the deliberate behind come in because one side (I wanna say Bulldogs or Richmond) exploited rushed behinds to maintain a lead and chew the clock down?

Personally I think deliberate all over the ground should be allowed - if a side is good enough to keep the ball out of play and chew the clock, or give away a point and then reset then so be it, tactical move.

It was a directive from the coach in a junior prelim that I played in.
It was that windy the windsock blew off. Coach told us from kickouts or kicking it from defensive 50 to kick it close to the boundary line and let the wind take it out.
We had a 2 goal lead going into the last quarter and preserved it by using that tactic.
Probably only played half the quarter, the other half was waiting for the ball to come back after it had bounced 50 metres down the road.

Shit footy but won us the game.
I'd hate to see that tactic so I like the rule of deliberate.
But if it comes off the opposition then it can't be a free kick.
Sure, if a bloke tries to nutmeg an opponent and it deflects out, you can't pay a free kick.
tigerpie
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4108
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:00 pm
Has liked: 498 times
Been liked: 429 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby Armchair expert » Tue May 25, 2021 7:49 pm

lol AFL had to protect Hocking and his puppet Christian

Plowman two match suspension
Dave Warner will be missed!
User avatar
Armchair expert
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10062
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 9:18 am
Has liked: 379 times
Been liked: 1414 times
Grassroots Team: Ports

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby daysofourlives » Tue May 25, 2021 7:51 pm

Armchair expert wrote:lol AFL had to protect Hocking and his puppet Christian

Plowman two match suspension


Fair enough too, all he had to do was put his fist out to spoil the ball, he didnt, lucky it was only 2.
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019
Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
daysofourlives
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11500
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:35 pm
Has liked: 2415 times
Been liked: 1657 times
Grassroots Team: Angaston

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby RB » Tue May 25, 2021 8:20 pm

The Bedge wrote:
LaughingKookaburra wrote:Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.

Didn't the deliberate behind come in because one side (I wanna say Bulldogs or Richmond) exploited rushed behinds to maintain a lead and chew the clock down


Joel Bowden for Richmond.

The rule they brought in was a massive overreaction after he rushed a couple through following kick outs where he saw no options and was happy to milk the clock.

Could easily have been fixed simply by banning the deliberate rushed behind if the previous score was a rushed behind.
R.I.P. the SANFL 1877 - 2013
User avatar
RB
Coach
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:45 pm
Has liked: 759 times
Been liked: 1073 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby MW » Wed May 26, 2021 8:43 am

didnt the Hawks do it also v Geelong in 08 GF?
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby Bum Crack » Wed May 26, 2021 10:01 am

MW wrote:didnt the Hawks do it also v Geelong in 08 GF?

only 20 bloody times :evil: :lol:
So you've seen everything have you?
Yep
Have you ever seen a man eat his own head?
No
Well you haven't seen everything then have you.
Bum Crack
Coach
 
Posts: 7870
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Here
Has liked: 320 times
Been liked: 885 times
Grassroots Team: Berri

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby Lightning McQueen » Wed May 26, 2021 10:15 am

RB wrote:
The Bedge wrote:
LaughingKookaburra wrote:Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.

Didn't the deliberate behind come in because one side (I wanna say Bulldogs or Richmond) exploited rushed behinds to maintain a lead and chew the clock down


Joel Bowden for Richmond.

The rule they brought in was a massive overreaction after he rushed a couple through following kick outs where he saw no options and was happy to milk the clock.

Could easily have been fixed simply by banning the deliberate rushed behind if the previous score was a rushed behind.


Exactly, I got caught in a situation umpiring a country game where some dude was doing this, there was no rule in place so I made my own up, it was incredibly frustrating.
HOGG SHIELD DIVISION V WINNER 2018.
User avatar
Lightning McQueen
Coach
 
Posts: 51285
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Radiator Springs
Has liked: 4339 times
Been liked: 7902 times

Re: AFL Round 10

Postby FlyingHigh » Wed May 26, 2021 10:29 am

RB wrote:
The Bedge wrote:
LaughingKookaburra wrote:Doesn’t a deliberate behind keep the game flowing and stop the congesting of play? Why the hell is this even still a rule? As for the deliberate ruling, just bring in last man touch by handball and foot and make it consistent.

Didn't the deliberate behind come in because one side (I wanna say Bulldogs or Richmond) exploited rushed behinds to maintain a lead and chew the clock down


Joel Bowden for Richmond.

The rule they brought in was a massive overreaction after he rushed a couple through following kick outs where he saw no options and was happy to milk the clock.

Could easily have been fixed simply by banning the deliberate rushed behind if the previous score was a rushed behind.


The other massive over-reaction was to make it a free kick in the goal square.
A bounce-down 15 or 20 metres out from goal would have been more commensurate with the "crime" and balanced for both sides all round
FlyingHigh
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:12 am
Has liked: 81 times
Been liked: 173 times

Previous

Board index   Football  AFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |