The stand rule???

[RoarEmotion]

@The Big Richo i get what you say and agree that is how it is officiated.

Once you use the word intent in a rule for me that means an assessment of what the player is trying to achieve. Which is definitely subjective. So I think they need to remove the word if they are going to adjudicate it strictly on a procedure.

 

[The Big Richo]

@The Big Richo i get what you say and agree that is how it is officiated.

Once you use the word intent in a rule for me that means an assessment of what the player is trying to achieve. Which is definitely subjective. So I think they need to remove the word if they are going to adjudicate it strictly on a procedure.

I don't think the term intent is the debate, I think it is how you judge intent that is the issue.

Currently the umpires judge your intent purely on what they see. If you put the ball over the line without a team mate close by then you haven't demonstrated sufficient intent to keep it in.

The alternative would be to ask umpires to consider a range of factors in judging the player's intent. For example in the Brayshaw one they would say well his team is behind and they need to score quickly so he probably didn't mean to put it over the line.

I believe that would be an incredibly unfair task to set the umpires in terms of what they would have to assess. For example Brayshaw might have looked upfield and seen Geelong had a plus one behind the ball and intended to get it out so they could reset.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I don't think the term intent is the debate, I think it is how you judge intent that is the issue.

Currently the umpires judge your intent purely on what they see. If you put the ball over the line without a team mate close by then you haven't demonstrated sufficient intent to keep it in.

The alternative would be to ask umpires to consider a range of factors in judging the player's intent. For example in the Brayshaw one they would say well his team is behind and they need to score quickly so he probably didn't mean to put it over the line.

I believe that would be an incredibly unfair task to set the umpires in terms of what they would have to assess. For example Brayshaw might have looked upfield and seen Geelong had a plus one behind the ball and intended to get it out so they could reset.

We are getting majorly into semantics but they are adjudicating the rule on a procedure and not on intent.

There is definitely a significant correlation between intent and the ball going out of bounds when a team mate isn’t near and that makes it way easier to adjudicate if you apply the rule in that fashion.

Intent has nothing to do with a skill error where it slides off the side of your foot and goes out of bounds nowhere near a team mate.

You are ignoring the definition of the word intent. So I stick with my argument they should change the wording of the rule and maybe call it “selection of options or poor execution of skills that lead to the ball going out of bounds when not in the vicinity of a teammate who could have realistically taken possession of it”

My experience is good umpires o a good job of assessing intent and we’ve already described elsewhere how much judgement is already involved.

 

[The Big Richo]

We are getting majorly into semantics but they are adjudicating the rule on a procedure and not on intent.

There is definitely a significant correlation between intent and the ball going out of bounds when a team mate isn’t near and that makes it way easier to adjudicate if you apply the rule in that fashion.

Intent has nothing to do with a skill error where it slides off the side of your foot and goes out of bounds nowhere near a team mate.

You are ignoring the definition of the word intent. So I stick with my argument they should change the wording of the rule and maybe call it “selection of options or poor execution of skills that lead to the ball going out of bounds when not in the vicinity of a teammate who could have realistically taken possession of it”

My experience is good umpires o a good job of assessing intent and we’ve already described elsewhere how much judgement is already involved.

I certainly agree the rule needs rewording, if nothing else just to get away from the old term of 'deliberate' which is now redundant.

In terms of intent though, I think we need to remember the player has to demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the ball in play. That's important because it is not that they have to try not to put the ball out but they have to actively try and keep the ball in play.

So let's look at the skill error one which always comes up. If you kick the ball off the ground or kick the ball under pressure, then there is some chance the kick will not go where you intended, it might slide off the side of your boot and head towards the line. If you kick it forcefully enough then it will go over the line.

So in those situations if you choose to kick the ball with force enough to make the line knowing there is some chance it will go askew, are you demonstrating sufficient intent to keep the ball in play?

I would say unquestionably not. If your absolute priority is keeping the ball in play you are going to handball it instead, or kick it towards the centre of the ground or do a range of things before you kick it in any sort of way that could send it out of bounds.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I certainly agree the rule needs rewording, if nothing else just to get away from the old term of 'deliberate' which is now redundant.

In terms of intent though, I think we need to remember the player has to demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the ball in play. That's important because it is not that they have to try not to put the ball out but they have to actively try and keep the ball in play.

So let's look at the skill error one which always comes up. If you kick the ball off the ground or kick the ball under pressure, then there is some chance the kick will not go where you intended, it might slide off the side of your boot and head towards the line. If you kick it forcefully enough then it will go over the line.

So in those situations if you choose to kick the ball with force enough to make the line knowing there is some chance it will go askew, are you demonstrating sufficient intent to keep the ball in play?

I would say unquestionably not. If your absolute priority is keeping the ball in play you are going to handball it instead, or kick it towards the centre of the ground or do a range of things before you kick it in any sort of way that could send it out of bounds.

Well I wouldn’t be able to kick the ball at all then. It’s a 235 degree random outcome.

You are basically saying if you select any option that has any chance of the ball going out of bounds due to a skill error then know that it does it’s a penalty. In that case just change the rule to last touched.

I’d say a players whose primary intent is to get the ball to a teammate is demonstrating sufficient intent to keep it in and if they make a skill error then throw it in. Now we are into an argument about what sufficient means; Which is again subjective and NOT unquestionable.

 

[DavidSSS]

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

 

[The Big Richo]

Well I wouldn’t be able to kick the ball at all then. It’s a 235 degree random outcome.

You are basically saying if you select any option that has any chance of the ball going out of bounds due to a skill error then know that it does it’s a penalty. In that case just change the rule to last touched.

I’d say a players whose primary intent is to get the ball to a teammate is demonstrating sufficient intent to keep it in and if they make a skill error then throw it in. Now we are into an argument about what sufficient means; Which is again subjective and NOT unquestionable.

If you ask the umpires to determine skill errors you are setting them up for failure. The guys are so skilled these days they can make the ball talk. Watch them muck around at training and you'll see them kicking goals from the fifth row, juggling the ball by foot and so on. Creating a skill 'error' by slicing the ball off the side of the boot certainly isn't beyond them and then the umpire has to determine what is a genuine mistake and what is put on.

Tiger Masochist said:

A nice piece of selective quoting. TM's post went on to talk about umpire's needing to read minds which was what I was addressing.

Low rent stuff.

 

[RoarEmotion]

If you ask the umpires to determine skill errors you are setting them up for failure. The guys are so skilled these days they can make the ball talk. Watch them muck around at training and you'll see them kicking goals from the fifth row, juggling the ball by foot and so on. Creating a skill 'error' by slicing the ball off the side of the boot certainly isn't beyond them and then the umpire has to determine what is a genuine mistake and what is put on.

I’d rather that than the current version which turns the umpires into robots and annoys the majority of the crowd. Usually it’s the one where the player is slung 360 and puts their foot out instead of getting a holding the bal then gets done for deliberatel. Would be rare for an unpressured player to need to go for deliberate and I’d say being under pressure makes deliberately faking a skill error pretty rare.

They umpires already have to determine faking with forwards Staging for in the back and players throwing their arms out for being held.

AFL needs to penalise these things with a 1 game penalty IMO and they would evaporate except for the grand final.

 

[Quickdraw]

There will always be debates about umpiring decisions.

The ones that boil my p1ss are where a player is slung or tackled during the kicking action, or where the ball is kicked parallel/well inside the boundary and it decides to do a leg break.

 

[Redford]

There will always be debates about umpiring decisions.

The ones that boil my p1ss are where a player is slung or tackled during the kicking action, or where the ball is kicked parallel/well inside the boundary and it decides to do a leg break.

Being a horse McGraw, I’d have thought you’d be quite in favour of the stand rule ?

 

[Quickdraw]

Being a horse McGraw, I’d have thought you’d be quite in favour of the stand rule ?

Can't stand the "smiling" thing, Red

 

[Redford]

Can't stand the "smiling" thing, Red

Hmmm. Ok.

With your hoofs, I’m presuming you don’t like the kicking in danger rule either ?

 

[Quickdraw]

Hmmm. Ok.

With your hoofs, I’m presuming you don’t like the kicking in danger rule either ?

Hmmm. May need to consult Baba Looey on that one

 

[TigerMasochist]

There will always be debates about umpiring decisions.

The ones that boil my p1ss are where a player is slung or tackled during the kicking action, or where the ball is kicked parallel/well inside the boundary and it decides to do a leg break.

Problem comes when the same player is shooting for goal n there's a dribble kick that breaks left, curls right n then somehow bounces over the outstretched arms of the desperately diving defender.
Which one's a fluke n which one is oops.

 

[Bernie]

Hang on a sec.....

AFL is introducing a ridiculous rule to help with a previous ridiculous rule, thus making our great game even MORE impossible to adjudicate???

Strike me down with a feather!

Kindly keep your opinions to yourself and suck it up. Pay your membership fees on time and if you wish to move from your armchair, Ubereats will deliver KFC to your door.

Now that’s better, sit down with your KFC bucket, eat up and when you’re finished, put the bucket on your head so you won’t be distracted by outside noise.

Consultation is over. And no, I do not bulk bill.

Please hand your credit card to my receptionist.

 

[DavidSSS]

There will always be debates about umpiring decisions.

The ones that boil my p1ss are where a player is slung or tackled during the kicking action, or where the ball is kicked parallel/well inside the boundary and it decides to do a leg break.

Yep, the ones where the player kicks it out of bounds and it is clearly a skill error is ridiculous. That is not intent, and intent is what the rule states is the reason for granting a free.

DS

 

[Razorgang2]

Yep, the ones where the player kicks it out of bounds and it is clearly a skill error is ridiculous. That is not intent, and intent is what the rule states is the reason for granting a free.

DS

So true.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Please change the name of the thread to The *smile* Stand Rule. Far more appropriate and accurate.

In the Neil Balme biography, Balmy mentions that he found an old AFL rule book from the 80s (late 80s perhaps ?) and was shocked to see that it was about 15 pages. The current rule book is 220 pages.

He famously can't stand this and the way the game is adjudicated (without any feel for the pressures and requirements on the players) mostly by semi professionals who often have never actually PLAYED the game.

I would argue that you can't have any feel for umpiring the game if you haven't played it yourself at an organised level. This of course represents a massive problem.

I certainly feel that many decisions that drive fans to distraction are because of this lack of feel for the game. Add to that a constant kaleidoscope of rule changes, rushed through without proper trialling to suit a probable agenda and then poorly written with ambiguous language, resulting in a variety of interpretations...and you get the complete shamozzle that is AFL umpiring.

This, more than anything else drives me away from the game.

Leave the *smile* game alone. Please !

 

[eZyT]

So 'to reduce confusion'

The afl are changing the stand rule.

'A 50m penalty will no longer be awarded against a player moving on the mark when a player fakes a handball'

Surely, surely,

If this is what you want to acheive,

You make a fake handball 'play on'?

Or ditch 'stand'?

Another circus change to a change that will result in richmond being the showcase for circus interpretation

 

[Sintiger]

Yep, hands in the back was a great rule, for mine a massive mistake going back to the current interpretation.

Still didn't stop the whinging though. #richo

Hands in the back was at least clear but it wasn’t perfect.
The problem with it was when a player is backing back into an opponent and that player wants to hold his ground he will naturally do something and the part of the player in front that is moving him out of position is his back.
So the way that was interpreted is that if a player used his body or arms to “push in the back” that was ok and if he used his hands it wasn’t.
At least it was relatively clear but it probably wasn’t fair.
The fairest thing would be if a player is holding his ground it is ok, if he is pushing it isn’t but that is the nature of our game, there are so many interpretations for umpires and that would be a really difficult one to interpret.
I do agree that is the clearest rule we have had on that situation.
Marking contests are hard to adjudicate on. The one that still gets me (not sure I have a solution) is when an opposition player deliberately stands between a player and the contest so that player can’t compete properly and has no intent to contest the mark. That has been used against Jack for many years ( and i am sure others) especially when he was at his high flying best. Dylan Grimes is very good at it.