SA Footy

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

lol AFL had to protect Hocking and his puppet Christian

Plowman two match suspension

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.

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.

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

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

only 20 bloody times

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.

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