TBR, you can get sh!tty at the rolling laugh emojis, but you hand them out so suck it up.
Your position, as usual in these threads, keeps sliding.
Tiger Masochist said:
Thought that rule was adjusted to be insufficient intent to keep the ball in play.
You quoted that post and replied with:
It's not based on that at all though TM, that's the common misconception.
Now we have:
No, not at all. The wording is 'sufficient intent' and that is correct, you just have to get your mind around how that is applied.
The AFL needs to stop acting like Humpty Dumpty and claiming that words mean what they want them to mean and be a lot more transparent. They need to word the rules better and actually tell the supporters how they are being interpreted.
I don't hate umpires, I just dislike incompetence.
I also dislike defending the AFL because I am of the opinion it is a self-serving boys' club who get away with doing whatever they like because they know the supporters will stay loyal to their clubs.
You are right to say that the rule is not written explicitly, so they should fix it. As for the umpires having to interpret the rules as written, what you say about the AFL directing the interpretation says the umpires don't get to interpret all the rules, at least not this one. The rule is badly written, the interpretation apparently directed by the central committee is different to the rule. While I would favour a return to deliberate out of bounds as I reckon it is easier to interpret, why don't they just write the rule to state that if you dispose of the ball to a space where there are no players (whether that was your intent or not) and it goes out of bounds then free kick - that is what the interpretation is saying. All I'm asking for is that the rule and the interpretation and the application of the rule should be the same. Is that really too much to ask?
DS