Round Whatever. The Other Games. | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Round Whatever. The Other Games.

Ridley

Tiger Legend
Jul 21, 2003
15,102
9,738
Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS
Yeah just love the argument that states the umpires only judge outcome when the rule specifically states "intent". And when the umpires pay the free kick they say "insufficient intent".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
8,183
5,437
Yeah just love the argument that states the umpires only judge outcome when the rule specifically states "intent". And when the umpires pay the free kick they say "insufficient intent".
Yeh, to argue the Castagna one was the correct call is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

seven

Super Tiger
Apr 20, 2004
23,805
7,344
Yeh, to argue the Castagna one was the correct call is ridiculous.
I just thought the umpires believed no one at AFL level could be that bad of a kick and gave Castanga the benifit of the doubt.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2010
6,003
8,480
The home of Dusty
Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS

I'd love to know how you think umpires establish intent then?

Stop the game for a quick interview? Quick lie detector test? Administer a quick dose of sodium thiopental? Maybe have Ron Iddles as the third umpire to pop out and do a quick interrogation?

:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2010
6,003
8,480
The home of Dusty
I think TBR needs to show where the AFL changed the way it is meant to be adjudicated and make skill errors redundant as that has been explicitly called out as false .

This stuff is a joke to be honest. Why should we find out how a rule works from interviews? Insane.

My understanding of the rule comes from sitting in multiple rules briefings run by the AFL umpires and hearing them say if you put the ball out of bounds without either a team mate close by or inside forward 50 trying to score, then a free kick will be paid. They specifically say it is a black and white decision, no allowance is made for skill errors or pressure because it is impossible for them to judge.

When you watch the game through that lens, you will find that the deliberate out of bounds rule is the most consistent and least error prone decision the umpires make. It makes it a very simple decision. The two raised in the Geelong game are a perfect example. I've mentioned this before on here and there have been posters who have mentioned they could now follow the decisions and see the rationale for them.

I couldn't agree more with your last point though. If the AFL released the presentation the clubs get each year it would make an incredible difference to the way fans understand the adjudication of the game. I cop a lot of the frustration on here, and it is largely because people are ignorant about how the game is umpired. That's not intended to be insulting, it is just a result of the information not being available to the average punter.

This year is the first year in a long time I haven't been part of that process and I find things around the stand rule that I don't understand and wish I could hear the presentation from this year. Like everything in life, a lack of knowledge causes frustration and anger. The AFL could and should do better in this regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,738
1,375
I'd love to know how you think umpires establish intent then?

Stop the game for a quick interview? Quick lie detector test? Administer a quick dose of sodium thiopental? Maybe have Ron Iddles as the third umpire to pop out and do a quick interrogation?

:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2
I’ve said it before. Permit system. No one lies on those.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
25,846
5,514
My understanding of the rule comes from sitting in multiple rules briefings run by the AFL umpires and hearing them say if you put the ball out of bounds without either a team mate close by or inside forward 50 trying to score, then a free kick will be paid. They specifically say it is a black and white decision, no allowance is made for skill errors or pressure because it is impossible for them to judge.

When you watch the game through that lens, you will find that the deliberate out of bounds rule is the most consistent and least error prone decision the umpires make. It makes it a very simple decision. The two raised in the Geelong game are a perfect example. I've mentioned this before on here and there have been posters who have mentioned they could now follow the decisions and see the rationale for them.

I couldn't agree more with your last point though. If the AFL released the presentation the clubs get each year it would make an incredible difference to the way fans understand the adjudication of the game. I cop a lot of the frustration on here, and it is largely because people are ignorant about how the game is umpired. That's not intended to be insulting, it is just a result of the information not being available to the average punter.

This year is the first year in a long time I haven't been part of that process and I find things around the stand rule that I don't understand and wish I could hear the presentation from this year. Like everything in life, a lack of knowledge causes frustration and anger. The AFL could and should do better in this regard.
Right, so if you’re trying to score inside F50 but a poorly skilled disposal (and as we now know poor skills or a bad bounce has nothing to do with it) causes the ball to go OOB it’s a free kick?

How does the umpire know the intent of whether you’re trying to score or just bombing inside 50?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
11,693
8,836
My understanding of the rule comes from sitting in multiple rules briefings run by the AFL umpires and hearing them say if you put the ball out of bounds without either a team mate close by or inside forward 50 trying to score, then a free kick will be paid. They specifically say it is a black and white decision, no allowance is made for skill errors or pressure because it is impossible for them to judge.

When you watch the game through that lens, you will find that the deliberate out of bounds rule is the most consistent and least error prone decision the umpires make. It makes it a very simple decision. The two raised in the Geelong game are a perfect example. I've mentioned this before on here and there have been posters who have mentioned they could now follow the decisions and see the rationale for them.

I couldn't agree more with your last point though. If the AFL released the presentation the clubs get each year it would make an incredible difference to the way fans understand the adjudication of the game. I cop a lot of the frustration on here, and it is largely because people are ignorant about how the game is umpired. That's not intended to be insulting, it is just a result of the information not being available to the average punter.

This year is the first year in a long time I haven't been part of that process and I find things around the stand rule that I don't understand and wish I could hear the presentation from this year. Like everything in life, a lack of knowledge causes frustration and anger. The AFL could and should do better in this regard.

Have you seen the one that wasn't paid against Atkins in the 4th quarter of the Geelong game?
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,705
8,676
Melbourne
I'd love to know how you think umpires establish intent then?

Stop the game for a quick interview? Quick lie detector test? Administer a quick dose of sodium thiopental? Maybe have Ron Iddles as the third umpire to pop out and do a quick interrogation?

:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2

I don't write the rules, but, unlike you, I can read them.

I don't care what excuses the powers that be have for the mediocre adjudication of the game, the word intent is in the rules and the umpires are interpreting intent. Unlike you, even the incompetent umpiring fraternity can interpret intent from what the player does, at least that is the implicit assumption of the rule.

So, either the rules are a lie, or you're full of it.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
15,932
1,922
Aldinga Beach
Right, so if you’re trying to score inside F50 but a poorly skilled disposal (and as we now know poor skills or a bad bounce has nothing to do with it) causes the ball to go OOB it’s a free kick?

How does the umpire know the intent of whether you’re trying to score or just bombing inside 50?

Castagna would need an exemption
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,399
2,710
Yep. We owe our last three flags this rigged competition. Thanks Gil!!!
Another cheap shot. The Tigers beat the system and kept doing it. Dimma's game plan and the players' incredible connection, effort, commitment and spirit was so great that it overcame the hurdles, like the annual negative differential in frees, rule changes, rip-offs for BEllis et al. How can the best side in the comp, often featuring younger and with smaller/lighter players continually lose the 'umpires' discretion count', week after week almost, even allowing for some careless players sometimes (all teams probably have these).

We were really only favorites for the 2019 flag most likely. AFL would have loved a Cup for their GWS creation. Pretty obviously, we spoiled the planned AFL premiership party for Ablett, Duckwood and Dangerflog in '20 ... because they so deserved it as 'ornaments' to the game. Thus leading to unprecedented and hastily introduced rule changes to deconstruct our system for once and all. Look at SHockings's attendance at our training sessions up there in the hub prior to. You aren't able to deduce 'nuthing' from the consistent sycophantic AFL media's campaign to discredit and undermine RFC, including that harpie, Caro?

Try looking more closely at the game and AFL policies and practices before your eyes and stop being so gullible. Just have a look at MRP and suspensions: compare treatment and penalties for our players to Geecheat's.

Next you'll be telling me Trump was just misunderstood and Morrison is a seer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,399
2,710
Thanks for this reply. As I posted, seeing as this game looked decided, I switched over from Kayo to Ch.7 coverage of top-of-the-table clash. If I had of known what bore-fest this would be ...!
But how can a Q go that long? Were there unusual stoppages due to injuries etc? Any idea?

Looks quite suss to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
17,407
15,367
I'd love to know how you think umpires establish intent then?

Stop the game for a quick interview? Quick lie detector test? Administer a quick dose of sodium thiopental? Maybe have Ron Iddles as the third umpire to pop out and do a quick interrogation?

:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2:rotfl2

that's the whole point of the absurdity and frustration.

for the umps to adjudicate the rules,

they need to do this.

any rule with a subjective judgement should be scrapped, and may be adjudicated by an objective rule.

unrealistic attempt, could be called when its in the back, or blocking, otherwise, let players dream big.

dangerous tackle becomes in the back, holding the man, or too high. alternatively call it a sling.

insufficient intent is either scrapped, or the Out On The Full rule just become the Out rule. I wouldnt mind if they played an Out Rule, just in the D50. By removing the subjectivity, it can only really be umpired consistently, in theory

objectivity has to replace subjectivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,399
2,710
Oh, FFS just admit when you are wrong.

The word intent is in the rule, it isn't there for decoration, it is there because the rule is adjudicated on intent not just outcome.

DS
But isn't the point that the clever, careful wording leaves it totally up to the umps' discretion to interpret 'intent'? IOW they can almost do what they like, hence some of the highly dubious calls like the Castagna one where he attempted to kick the ball forward but mis-kicked (showing no knowledge of his tendencies!).
The wording makes is just another rule like Stand, HTB, ITB and 'not 15' that is completely arbitrary to provide umps with a high degree of game control or heavy influence. The rules are intentionally subjective, not objective. This is a key enabler of AFL intervention/manipulation in game performance and results.

An objective rule would turn it into basketball or soccer, where last touch team loses possession. But that's not AFL, although I suggest it's where AFL might want/plan to take it with next gen of rule changes. Would loathe it, but at least less interpretive. But just more tedious video stoppages to check who touched it last.

It's been especially easy for AFL and umps in '21 to get away with so many suspect decisions with no crowds, to get away with anything.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

bigwow

Tiger Legend
Jul 24, 2003
5,772
2,099
Melbourne
Thanks for this reply. As I posted, seeing as this game looked decided, I switched over from Kayo to Ch.7 coverage of top-of-the-table clash. If I had of known what bore-fest this would be ...!
But how can a Q go that long? Were there unusual stoppages due to injuries etc? Any idea?

Looks quite suss to me.
I have no idea, was just checking updates to see the battle for 4th/5th. and the time was ticking by.

Not sure if there was an injury or other delay, or game just went on until, Lions % got above the Bulldogs.

Siren did sound pretty quickly after McCarthy's point. Cameron's goal was after the siren.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,705
8,676
Melbourne
But isn't the point that the clever, careful wording leaves it totally up to the umps' discretion to interpret 'intent'? IOW they can almost do what they like, hence some of the highly dubious calls like the Castagna one where he attempted to kick the ball forward but mis-kicked (showing no knowledge of his tendencies!).
The wording makes is just another rule like Stand, HTB, ITB and 'not 15' that is completely arbitrary to provide umps with a high degree of game control or heavy influence. The rules are intentionally subjective, not objective.
An objective rule would turn it into basketball or soccer, where last touch team loses possession. But that's not AFL, although I suggest it's where AFL might want/plan to take it with next gen of rule changes. Would loathe it, but at least less interpretive.

It's been especially easy for AFL and umps in '21 to get away with so many suspect decisions with no crowds, to get away with anything.

Interesting point.

Yes, the umpires are being instructed to interpret intent, that's what the rule says.

There is certainly an argument to make it clearer, the fact they put the onus on the player to keep the ball in play means it is easier to pay a free for insufficient intent. But it certainly is a grey area and, as we see, inconsistently interpreted.

It certainly isn't some black and white rule with no judgement of intent as some maintain :rotfl2

In the back I don't think is so difficult, remember it is a push in the back. If your hands don't move forward you are not pushing.

15m I would have thought was not arbitrary at all, 15m is 15m. You don't expect perfection, but you also don't expect 8m kicks to be paid a mark while 20m kicks aren't and we've all see examples of both.

Holding the ball/holding the man has always been a problematic one. To some extent it has always been a balancing act between rewarding the player who goes after the ball and the player who tackles. My main beef with this rule is that the player who wants to go after the ball is illegally interfered with just about all the time these days and the umps just let it go.

Would be nice to have things more spelled out and a hell of a lot more transparency from the AFL, but hell would freeze over before the AFL actually thinks fans have a right to know how the game we fund is run.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,399
2,710
I have no idea, was just checking updates to see the battle for 4th/5th. and the time was ticking by.

Not sure if there was an injury or other delay, or game just went on until, Lions % got above the Bulldogs.

Siren did sound pretty quickly after McCarthy's point. Cameron's goal was after the siren.
Really sus. Not even convinced it was a point.

[What's interesting to me, in how I view the AFL, is how they have jumped off the Bulldogs. After winning free-kick counts all year (and often prior years too), suddenly got hard done by this game. Probably decided they are little chance to actually win the flag this year. So discard! After ensuring their hopeful but battling members stay on board for '21 and, in hope, beyond?]