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.

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,303
2,598
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.
You are such a lightweight 'fluffer'. This particular exchange began with your sarcastic response to my #435 post. Gave you 3 chances to back it up with some intelligent counter-arguments. Not up it, not once. Beyond you. Nothing but pathetic evasions.

Forever weak and pigeon-like to me now: in heart and mind.
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,860
8,190
The home of Dusty
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.

I'm not ignoring it at all, David. I'm not disputing the law or questioning it includes intent, it's the way intent is determined that is the issue here.

My point all along has been we umpire actions, not intent. In the eyes of the umpire your actions determine your intent because that is the only reasonable way they can do it.

For example in a marking contest you are only permitted to make certain contact with an opponent if your intent is to contest the ball. The way the umpire determines that intent is simply by seeing if you look at the ball or your opponent.
So your action of looking at the ball or your opponent determines your intent. It may well be that a player absolutely intends to contest the ball but looks at their opponent as well, but for the umpire that is a signal of intent to illegally make contact and they pay a free kick.

It is the same with deliberate out of bounds. If a player kicks the ball and it goes over the line the umpire uses their actions to judge their intention. So if they kick it over the line without a team mate close by, the umpire assumes that was what they meant to do, or in this case, that they didn't do enough to prevent it happening. Again, it may well not be their actual intent but it is unreasonable to expect umpires to be mind readers beyond the point of simply aligning an action with a logical intent.

In the Selwood example, he kicks the ball towards a team mate and out of bounds. His intention was likely to get the ball out of bounds but he has a plausible argument that he was aiming for a team mate.

In the Castagna/Brayshaw ones they kick the ball off the ground directly over the line, with no team mate anywhere near where the ball finishes. So the umpires says the balls been kicked directly to the line, is there another plausible option that indicates they were trying to keep it in? No, so it's a free kick. It may well not have been either player's intention to do so but like the player going for the mark who looks at the opponent, their actions have condemned them. Brayshaw could have picked the ball up, kicked it softly and controlled it or aimed into the corridor but he chose to execute an action that risked being read as an intent to not keep the ball in. Castagna's was almost certainly a skill error but how can you possibly expect an umpire to adjudicate a skill error when guys can make the ball talk in all sorts of ways and regardless since when does a skill error remove your culpability for a free kick?

It's funny that people spend half their posts bleating about the need for consistency of umpiring and simplification of the rules and yet this rule has been made so simple to adjudicate that when you know what to look for you can pick the decision correctly 99 times out of 100, and it is still a bone of contention.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
8,003
5,217
I'm not ignoring it at all, David. I'm not disputing the law or questioning it includes intent, it's the way intent is determined that is the issue here.

My point all along has been we umpire actions, not intent. In the eyes of the umpire your actions determine your intent because that is the only reasonable way they can do it.
What are you blabbing on about? You think because you write a whole series of irrelevant nonsense it strengthens your point?
You write like you are speaking as an umpire. But you’re not. You really need to admit when you’re wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
2,145
1,518
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.

.....
I think TBR has consistently said that skill errors are not considered.
In other words the umpire is to assume no skill error and the player intended for that result.
Whether skill error should be considered or not is another argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
2,145
1,518
.....

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.

.....

David we had an example of adjudicating holding the man early in the gws game. Just as you have been calling for it.
The player,s jumper held off the ball. Just for a second but it was a hold. Free kick was given, against big Tom Lynch just as Jack,s kick was going through the sticks.

Is that really what you want?
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,491
8,232
Melbourne
TBR, how can you spend 4 paragraphs trying a convoluted claim that the umpires interpret action as intent on DOOB but look for intent in marking contests, and then talk about how all of this simplifies the rules? Simplification by ignoring what the rule states is just silly and a recipe for inconsistency.

Yes, I want consistency, where did I ever say I agree with intent? I'm just saying that is what the rule states and that is what the umpires should be adjudicating, and that means, if it is a skill error, then the intent is different to the action and should be adjudicated accordingly. How can you assume no skill error when adjudicating intent?

You want to simplify the rules take out the intent. I would go for a rule which pays a free for deliberate out of bounds. The current rule is too vague - insufficient intent to keep the ball in play - too vague. Then again, unlike the AFL, I don't have a problem with more boundary throw ins.

Tigerdell, if grabbing another player's jumper (which was silly because that is all umpires appear capable of looking for) was paid every time it happens in that situation with Lynch, do you think he would have done it? You see, that is the mess we are in. They pay holding the man so seldom that players are very very surprised when they actually pay it - hence, players do it all the time as they know they will get away with it 90% of the time. Yes, I want that paid as a free kick, it is behaviour which will disappear in a big hurry if they pay it. I would add that Lynch holding that GWS player was really silly because it did not affect the play. What I really want to see paid is that players who grab an opponent who is attempting to grab the ball gets pinged for holding the man. If you hold an opposing player who is not in possession of the ball it is a free kick - this was simple for over 100 years until some idiot decided that they would only pay it some of the time.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
23,877
9,662
You are such a lightweight 'fluffer'. This particular exchange began with your sarcastic response to my #435 post. Gave you 3 chances to back it up with some intelligent counter-arguments. Not up it, not once. Beyond you. Nothing but pathetic evasions.

Forever weak and pigeon-like to me now: in heart and mind.

Sure, you can file your fantasy of me as a giant pigeon next to your fantasy of the AFL instructing the umps to jump off the Bulldogs because they can't win the flag.
 

Aegean Tiger

Tiger Superstar
Aug 27, 2008
1,370
200
Again, it may well not be their actual intent but it is unreasonable to expect umpires to be mind readers beyond the point of simply aligning an action with a logical intent.

This is exactly the problem with intent when adjudicating the OOB rule. Way to difficult for the umpires and wrong for them not to consider factors like poor execution, ground conditions due to weather etc.

The current rule is too vague - insufficient intent to keep the ball in play - too vague.

Correct weight!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,672
1,246
We have other rules that require the umpire to assess what the player is thinking (must attempt to dispose of ball in HTB being one, if a player heard an umpires request to move back Behind the mark or was drowned out by crowd noise etc). And many that don’t. (push in back / chop arms etc)


I don’t think it’s valid to argue that intent isn’t part of any rule.

On DOOB if the AFL has provided guidance on its interpretation to clubs and players you think it could also share it with its biggest stakeholder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
8,003
5,217
Razor Ray on SEN this morning. Discussed the Brayshaw decision and then the rule in general. This is straight from a current umpire

- Insufficiemt intent the change from deliberate OOB
Has the player shown sufficient intent to keep it in? They analyse by assessing the following-
- has the ball gone up the line or directly at the line? (what angle is umpire can influence that)
- is it forcefully in a direct line towards boundary?
- is a teammate in vicinity?
- SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
- does it slew off the boot!
- did they show sufficient intent to keep it in

So result is not how it is judged!! The situation is taken into account. Just as DS and myself and others have argued.

TBR, please stop making stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
22,803
7,920
what if the intent was to make it seem like the intent was to keep the ball in play but the player actually intended to miskick and get the ball out of bounds, making it seem like it wasn't deliberate but the intention was to waste time regardless of the fact that the there wasn't sufficient intent and the ball actually did skew off the boot on execution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
5,860
8,190
The home of Dusty
What are you blabbing on about? You think because you write a whole series of irrelevant nonsense it strengthens your point?
You write like you are speaking as an umpire. But you’re not. You really need to admit when you’re wrong.
TBR, how can you spend 4 paragraphs trying a convoluted claim that the umpires interpret action as intent on DOOB but look for intent in marking contests, and then talk about how all of this simplifies the rules? Simplification by ignoring what the rule states is just silly and a recipe for inconsistency.

I'm going to bid farewell to you two gentlemen on that note, I'm afraid we are just operating on different plane of understanding when it comes to umpiring and the rules.

Life's too short, enjoy the footy.
 
Last edited:

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
30,038
5,499
Melbourne
what if the intent was to make it seem like the intent was to keep the ball in play but the player actually intended to miskick and get the ball out of bounds, making it seem like it wasn't deliberate but the intention was to waste time regardless of the fact that the there wasn't sufficient intent and the ball actually did skew off the boot on execution?
Like when George is having a snap shot for goal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MD Jazz

Tiger Legend
Feb 3, 2017
8,003
5,217
I'm going to bid farewell to you two gentlemen on that note, I'm afraid we are just operating on different plane of understanding when it comes to umpiring and the rules.

Life's too short, enjoy the footy.
Please listen to Ray with Gerard, I'm sure it will be available to listen to. It will help you understand the rule and how the umpires apply it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,491
8,232
Melbourne
what if the intent was to make it seem like the intent was to keep the ball in play but the player actually intended to miskick and get the ball out of bounds, making it seem like it wasn't deliberate but the intention was to waste time regardless of the fact that the there wasn't sufficient intent and the ball actually did skew off the boot on execution?

Which is precisely why I would change the rule and make it harder to give away a free kick, intent is too hard to judge and too vague.

DS
 

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,303
2,598
Sure, you can file your fantasy of me as a giant pigeon next to your fantasy of the AFL instructing the umps to jump off the Bulldogs because they can't win the flag.
Refer to my previous post. Waste of time bothering.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
23,877
9,662
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?]

Guess Gil and the lads jumped back on board the Doggies train this week, must have changed their minds and decided Brisbane can't win the flag after all. They're a fickle lot there in AFL House. But the message to the umps this week was clearly GET BACK ON THE DOGS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

leon

Tiger Legend
Apr 6, 2014
7,303
2,598
Guess Gil and the lads jumped back on board the Doggies train this week, must have changed their minds and decided Brisbane can't win the flag after all. They're a fickle lot there in AFL House. But the message to the umps this week was clearly GET BACK ON THE DOGS
After they ensured a Brisbane home final with 100% attendance so raised handy $$ for financially desperate AFL (statement of fact, not even criticism, but very clear motive). Whereas no finals in Melb and very limited numbers for Tassie so no or poor return. No atmosphere either - poor event.

FKD was significantly in favour of Dogs last night, back to their usual status. Odd how different it was in other games prior. I thought they certainly benefited but most frees were there. Umps were brave enough to make the calls because AFL got the finalists they wanted - all with a really positive narrative for AFL media and promotion - look at it. This final and the Swans V GWS finals most honestly umpired although Lions' supporters probably left quite upset by last night's large FKD - 19/28.

But have you looked at Geecheat's games and the umpiring therein though!? Still a huge push for their success. You need to look at what does NOT get paid against the Moggies.

Still gullible and naive. [Anyway, why are you bothering me with this lightweight crap if you think it so bizarre?]
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
23,877
9,662
After they ensured a Brisbane home final with 100% attendance so raised handy $$ for financially desperate AFL (statement of fact, not even criticism, but very clear motive). Whereas no finals in Melb and very limited numbers for Tassie so no or poor return. No atmosphere either - poor event.

FKD was significantly in favour of Dogs last night, back to their usual status. Odd how different it was in other games prior. I thought they certainly benefited but most frees were there. Umps were brave enough to make the calls because AFL got the finalists they wanted - all with a really positive narrative for AFL media and promotion - look at it. This final and the Swans V GWS finals most honestly umpired although Lions' supporters probably left quite upset by last night's large FKD - 19/28.

But have you looked at Geecheat's games and the umpiring therein though!? Still a huge push for their success. You need to look at what does NOT get paid against the Moggies.

Still gullible and naive. [Anyway, why are you bothering me with this lightweight crap if you think it so bizarre?]

One of us is gullible and naive - probably the one that thinks the AFL instructs the umpires on who they want to win the game based on whichever way the wind blows at the time.

Based on your theories then, show some balls and make some predictions about who they want in the Grand Final - this should determine how the free kicks pan out in the prelims next week right?

Super easy to ascribe motive after the event, do it beforehand since you aren't gullible and naive. Or are you too pigeon hearted to have a go?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user