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.

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
23,877
9,662
Yep, they send a hand-coded message by carrier pigeon from AFL house to the umpires saying "we are off the Bulldogs this week because we reckon they are little chance to win the flag now, make sure they lose the free-kick pls thnx gil"

Of course if I don't buy into this theory I'm gullible and naive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
4,970
1,932
Melbourne
A player can intend to kick the ball to his team mate but it may unintentionally " go off the side of his boot" & yet an umpire will call it as "lack of intent" how can that be a correct decision. The umpire cannot look inside a players head or read his mind...

I know when I played, many times I intended to kick or handball to a team mate & it didn't hit the target. (That was mainly due to a lack of skill, but I still intended it not to be)

When an umpy stuffs up a bounce of the ball, he/she doesn't intend to but it happens, he/she gets the chance to throw the ball up. Or when he/she calls an incorrect free kick or pays a nonexistent mark they don't intend to (****) but it happens & that's what sometimes happens to players.

It's really just a poorly worded & adjudicated rule
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
22,803
7,920
why do the umps call out "insufficient intent"?

they should call out "you kicked the ball and it dribbled out of bounds without a teammate being near it"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,861
8,190
The home of Dusty
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.

If you could put aside your frustration with the umpires and by extension with me for a moment, you would be able to see you have just written exactly what I said.

The action determines the intent and together they determine the free kick, but the action is the key.

So if the action is sending the ball over the line with no team mate in the vicinity, the umpire interprets your intent was to do so, or at least that you didn't try hard enough to prevent it, hence insufficient intent.

If they adjudicated intent they would have to also determine skill errors, pressure, whether or not you were trying to keep the ball inside the line, game situation and any number of other factors which would be clearly impossible for someone to determine without knowing the player's thoughts.
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
11,401
8,296
Didn't watch the game, what stage of the quarter?

Maybe only 3-5 mins into the start of the quarter.

Received the ball, facing down the ground, realised there was nothing there, was tackled by Brayshaw, Atkins turned to the boundary line, managed to squeeze an arm free (was maybe 5m from the boundary line in his D50 at this point) and dropped the ball on his boot and kicked it straight out.

Commentators were rabbiting on about HTB, but had clearly got a disposal away, but for me it was the clearest DOOB I've seen all season.

Umpire called for the ball to be thrown in.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,861
8,190
The home of Dusty
Commentators were rabbiting on about HTB, but had clearly got a disposal away, but for me it was the clearest DOOB I've seen all season.

Yeah just watched, definitely deliberate for mine. Umpire says 'I could not see' to the arguing players so maybe that was why. The other Richo was on to it in the commentary though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,303
2,598
Yep, they send a hand-coded message by carrier pigeon from AFL house to the umpires saying "we are off the Bulldogs this week because we reckon they are little chance to win the flag now, make sure they lose the free-kick pls thnx gil"

Of course if I don't buy into this theory I'm gullible and naive
Was hardly going to bother replying when I saw this a few hours back. I give you a raft of points over 3 paragraphs and you avoid any relevant rebuttals in the form of cogent argument, but resort to 'hand-coded message(s)' and 'carrier pigeon(s)' ! Bit ordinary. Hardly much point me making any effort back if that kind of puerile tripe posing as invective is all you've got. But in a test of faith, here's just some more grist for your trite mill, glib dismissal.

- Bulldogs last 5 matches, W/L, FKD (free kick differential), opponent:
Rd. 23, L , -8, PA. / Rd. 22, L, -3, Haw. / Rd. 21, L, +3, Ess. / Rd. 20, W, 20 ea., Crows. / Rd. 19, W, +14, Dees.

I call that just 'interesting'. You may say, capricious, no real pattern. Or, given the Dogs well out in front for positive FKD all clubs until end of season, like a worm has turned perhaps. 'Interesting' given that only 5 games back they comfortably beat flag faves Dees by 20pts with a FKD equal to having an extra good player, but played battling crows, then loss to Bummers who were regarded as unlikely to play finals then. After that, out of favour.

Look at Q4 replay of Lions v WCE game. Lot of 'interesting' decisions late. Did you think the very high kick Berry marked 15m? That the extra free goal-shot he then received for a very mild bump from Cole was justified (in this crucial game!!)? That the vital point later was definitely a correct decision? But no review required at all on WCE's behalf, even though they use it for checking if the ball was kicked OOBs?

Then there was the amazing length of this Q, plus the disputed lost time which was crucial to the outcome. According to Morris, has happened several times before but apparently no reform of AFL practice. Funny that.


Take our recent game against GWS. I knew it was not going to be a game we could win when the umps ripped 2 goals off us early Q1 with highly questionable FA. Not saying that GWS did not outplay us to deserve their win. Just that, like Q4 of our season turning game against WC, certain dubious decisions made a win for us look highly unlikely. Harsh, dubious decisions I also believe can demoralise one team, and boost the other.

I don't trust the AFL whatsoever, I am highly skeptical of the umpiring dept. of protected but highly paid 'professionals' that highly controlled AFL media are never allowed to question or criticize any more - same for coaching staff, and even public really on air.

I have no idea what their agenda could possibly be overall, like for all/many games. Just have some speculative ideas. However, do I trust them to not be interventionist at all through means such as the umpiring dept? No *smile* way.

[BTW - Think you should leave the pigeons alone. Lot of crap and germs that might affect your brain.] :eek:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,491
8,232
Melbourne
If you could put aside your frustration with the umpires and by extension with me for a moment, you would be able to see you have just written exactly what I said.

The action determines the intent and together they determine the free kick, but the action is the key.

So if the action is sending the ball over the line with no team mate in the vicinity, the umpire interprets your intent was to do so, or at least that you didn't try hard enough to prevent it, hence insufficient intent.

If they adjudicated intent they would have to also determine skill errors, pressure, whether or not you were trying to keep the ball inside the line, game situation and any number of other factors which would be clearly impossible for someone to determine without knowing the player's thoughts.

So, if a player intends to kick to a team mate but stuffs it up and the ball goes out of bounds they are pinged for insufficient intent? Makes no sense at all, that's insufficient skill not insufficient intent, but it would be reasonable only if you adjudicate the result not the intent, which is clearly not what the rule says.

If that was the case then the rule would not include the word intent.

Not agreeing at all I'm afraid, the intent is what is written in the rule and what is expected to be adjudicated. It is also what the umpires tell the players when they ake a decision.

If they are adjudicating the action and not the intent then they need to change the rule. I suppose we could go to last touch out of bounds free kick, then again, maybe we could just have AFLX.

DS
 
Last edited:

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
23,877
9,662
Was hardly going to bother replying when I saw this a few hours back. I give you a raft of points over 3 paragraphs and you avoid any relevant rebuttals in the form of cogent argument, but resort to 'hand-coded message(s)' and 'carrier pigeon(s)' ! Bit ordinary. Hardly much point me making any effort back if that kind of puerile tripe posing as invective is all you've got. But in a test of faith, here's just some more grist for your trite mill, glib dismissal.

- Bulldogs last 5 matches, W/L, FKD (free kick differential), opponent:
Rd. 23, L , -8, PA. / Rd. 22, L, -3, Haw. / Rd. 21, L, +3, Ess. / Rd. 20, W, 20 ea., Crows. / Rd. 19, W, +14, Dees.

I call that just 'interesting'. You may say, capricious, no real pattern. Or, given the Dogs well out in front for positive FKD all clubs until end of season, like a worm has turned perhaps. 'Interesting' given that only 5 games back they comfortably beat flag faves Dees by 20pts with a FKD equal to having an extra good player, but played battling crows, then loss to Bummers who were regarded as unlikely to play finals then. After that, out of favour.

Look at Q4 replay of Lions v WCE game. Lot of 'interesting' decisions late. Did you think the very high kick Berry marked 15m? That the extra free goal-shot he then received for a very mild bump from Cole was justified (in this crucial game!!)? That the vital point later was definitely a correct decision? But no review required at all on WCE's behalf, even though they use it for checking if the ball was kicked OOBs?

Then there was the amazing length of this Q, plus the disputed lost time which was crucial to the outcome. According to Morris, has happened several times before but apparently no reform of AFL practice. Funny that.


Take our recent game against GWS. I knew it was not going to be a game we could win when the umps ripped 2 goals off us early Q1 with highly questionable FA. Not saying that GWS did not outplay us to deserve their win. Just that, like Q4 of our season turning game against WC, certain dubious decisions made a win for us look highly unlikely. Harsh, dubious decisions I also believe can demoralise one team, and boost the other.

I don't trust the AFL whatsoever, I am highly skeptical of the umpiring dept. of protected but highly paid 'professionals' that highly controlled AFL media are never allowed to question or criticize any more - same for coaching staff, and even public really on air.

I have no idea what their agenda could possibly be overall, like for all/many games. Just have some speculative ideas. However, do I trust them to not be interventionist at all through means such as the umpiring dept? No *smile* way.

[BTW - Think you should leave the pigeons alone. Lot of crap and germs that might affect your brain.] :eek:

You dismiss other opinions with ad hominems like "gullible and naive", and then serve up bizarre speculation about the AFL sending messages to umpires about which teams they should victimise so forgive me if I don't spend a lot of time on your rafts of cogent argumentation.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,861
8,190
The home of Dusty
So, if a player intends to kick to a team mate but stuffs it up and the ball goes out of bounds they are pinged for insufficient intent?

Not if it's a reasonable prospect that they were trying to find a team mate, like the Selwood one. He probably wasn't trying to find a team mate but gets the benefit of the doubt because there is someone close enough to be plausible.

If the rule worked the way you describe it, then there wouldn't be a rule at all. You could kick it over the line and as long as you make it look like a duffed kick the umpire would have to say fair enough.

It's like an LBW decision in cricket. The umpire has to use the batsman's action to judge if they were legitimately playing a shot at the ball or not. Action determines intent.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
8,003
5,217
It's like an LBW decision in cricket. The umpire has to use the batsman's action to judge if they were legitimately playing a shot at the ball or not. Action determines intent.
No, you are arguing result determines intent. Castagna wasn't trying to skew the ball off the side of his boot when he was penalised. His action was to kick the ball off the ground towards our goal. That was his intent. The result was a mis-kick that slewed out of bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,491
8,232
Melbourne
A reasonable prospect they were trying to find a team mate?

Looks like intent is being adjudicated here, as the rule says, and that is not the action determining the adjudication but the intent.

You say that intent is too hard to adjudicate, but now we are to adjudicate "reasonable prospect"?

Wow, way to make it even more vague.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,861
8,190
The home of Dusty
No, you are arguing result determines intent. Castagna wasn't trying to skew the ball off the side of his boot when he was penalised. His action was to kick the ball off the ground towards our goal. That was his intent. The result was a mis-kick that slewed out of bounds.

How do you know what his intent was? How do you know he didn't look up and see only a loose defender ahead of him so he deliberately skewed the ball sideways to get it out of bounds?

When you strip it back to basics, what he did was kick the ball sideways, directly across the boundary line, with no other team mate in the vicinity.

Given his responsibility isn't to try and not put the ball out, but to actually try and keep the ball in, then how can't that be a free?

If the reason it shouldn't be a free kick is it was a mistake and he didn't mean it then we may as well scrap the rule and every other free kick as well.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
25,661
5,249
A reasonable prospect they were trying to find a team mate?

Looks like intent is being adjudicated here, as the rule says, and that is not the action determining the adjudication but the intent.

You say that intent is too hard to adjudicate, but now we are to adjudicate "reasonable prospect"?

Wow, way to make it even more vague.

DS
yes, I think someone has painted themselves into a corner re umpires not determining intent. Until they do…but they don’t….
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
8,003
5,217
How do you know what his intent was? How do you know he didn't look up and see only a loose defender ahead of him so he deliberately skewed the ball sideways to get it out of bounds?
Now you're getting ridiculous. You say intent isn't in the rule but it is. You say its the action not the result, but maybe its a bit of both.

Now you say Castagna's disposal is that good he can deliberately skew the ball off his foot?? That's a step too far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,491
8,232
Melbourne
How do you know what his intent was? How do you know he didn't look up and see only a loose defender ahead of him so he deliberately skewed the ball sideways to get it out of bounds?

When you strip it back to basics, what he did was kick the ball sideways, directly across the boundary line, with no other team mate in the vicinity.

Given his responsibility isn't to try and not put the ball out, but to actually try and keep the ball in, then how can't that be a free?

If the reason it shouldn't be a free kick is it was a mistake and he didn't mean it then we may as well scrap the rule and every other free kick as well.

But the action - the ball went out so, working backwards and ignoring what the rule says as you suggest, clearly his intent was to not keep the ball in play since the result was the ball did not stay in.

Sorry, I may have little respect for the rule-makers in AFL, but they actually did put the word "intent" in the rule. Since they put it there it must have been their intent to include "intent" in the rule as that is the action they took.

You can criticise the rule for asking umpires to interpret the intent of players, what you can't do is to ignore the fact that this is what the rule says.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users