That's the prob where possible don't intoduce a rule that's up for interpretation. The out of bounds rule would be based on last contact before going out. In the back was the real example. They introduced the black and white ruling then moved back to interpretation once we got used to it.
-
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.
The stand rule???
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
It's not based on that at all though TM, that's the common misconception.
All the umpire does is see the ball go over the line and ask if there was a team mate close by it was going to, or if you were trying to score. If the answer to those two questions is no then a free is paid.
The ones people go off on are the miskicks off the side of the boot, or the ones when they are under pressure. If the umpires were reading players behaviour they wouldn't be free kicks but they are just judging what the end result is so they are paid.
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
The rule about out of bounds is not based on intent to keep the ball in play?
FFS, what rulebook is being referred to?
The rule reads that a free kick will be awarded if a player:
Pretty damned clear. The rule is completely based on intent and any assertion that it isn't based on intent is simply not true. See rule 18.10.
DS
FFS, what rulebook is being referred to?
The rule reads that a free kick will be awarded if a player:
Pretty damned clear. The rule is completely based on intent and any assertion that it isn't based on intent is simply not true. See rule 18.10.
DS
My heartbeat literally went up 50 beats a minute reading about the rule on top of the rule to fix a *smile* rule. Castagna is going to attempt a handball and miss the ball with his fist and get called to play on. (Hopefully in the seconds)
What will the decision be when an opposing player calls for a handball and the guy with the ball stops just before punching it to him, and the guy on the mark moves before play on u
is called?
is called?
*Sigh*
For the 4000th time, they do not try and read the player's minds, or determine what they are trying to do.
They look at where the ball goes over the line and say was a team mate there they were giving the ball to or were they trying to score?
If not and the ball goes out of bounds they haven't shown sufficient intent to keep it in.
The argument is about a procedural/outcome definition of intent (@The Big Richo) vs the dictionary definition of intent (@DavidSSS) which is a mental one about being determined to do something.
I guess I’d ask where the procedural definition you describe is defined @The Big Richo is it in the rule book?
I guess I’d ask where the procedural definition you describe is defined @The Big Richo is it in the rule book?
Like many of the rules, it is defined by the interpretation of the law by the umpires, which is communicated to players and clubs through things like information sessions and a DVD presentation each year. (And should be better shared with fans, commentators etc)
If you have any doubt about the definition all you need to do is look at out of bounds decisions, and you will find them applied exactly in the manner that I have described and very simple and easy to understand.
So there is an unwritten set of rules on a dvd not shared with fans?
Makes sense for how the AFL operates.
I get your point that this is how it is adjudicated. But it is not how it is written.
As you say they should share. Just put a video link in the rules section and a reference that says intent is determined per what the video outlines. And maybe use a different word than intent.
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!
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!
Who's on first! What's on second.
This AFL mob are just plain cunny funts.
They should not be allowed to make rules in the first place unless for H&S issues.
There's many aspects of the rules that aren't explicitly written, it's the umpires job to interpret the document and try and apply them in the spirit of the game.
When does a push become a push, how long with the ball is an 'opportunity', what is a genuine attempt and so on.
That's the nature of the game, it's not tennis where it is black and white, it's a 360 degree, living, breathing contest of bodies.
Here's one for anyone confused about the out of bounds rule or being deliberately ignorant. This video contains two examples of one being not paid and paid correctly.
If you go to about 1.19 you see Selwood kick the ball and it goes out of bounds. His team is in front with not long to go and are trying to kill the game so if you were mind reading him for intent you would say he very likely wants the ball out of bounds. But there is a team mate close by so he has a legitimate option he was trying to execute instead of putting the ball out of bounds. So it's a throw in.
Just after that you will see Brayshaw kick the ball off the ground and it goes out of bounds. His team is two points down with 30 odd seconds to go and need to kick a goal and he is sending it forward. Again mind reading intent it is almost certain that he does not want the ball out of bounds. However the ball goes out without a team mate close by so he hasn't shown sufficient intent to keep it in. So a free kick paid.
I once heard an umpire give a really good answer to it at a presentation to the players, don't think of it as deliberate out of bounds, think of it as 'should have done something else' so the ball didn't go out of bounds.
*Sigh*
For the 4000th time, they do not try and read the player's minds, or determine what they are trying to do.
They look at where the ball goes over the line and say was a team mate there they were giving the ball to or were they trying to score?
If not and the ball goes out of bounds they haven't shown sufficient intent to keep it in.
Of course, intent has nothing to do with what the player is trying to do
, FFS, do you understand the English language, or are you just finding another excuse to defend the AFL and the umpires?The Cambridge Dictionary defines intent as "the fact that you want and plan to do something", so, yeah it is precisely what they are trying to do.
The fact that the umpires use some unpublished criteria to determine intent is just an indictment on the lack of transparency and does not in any way change that the rule clearly cites intent and intent is all about what players are trying to do.
If the rule is stating something which is contrary to the way the game is being adjudicated then the AFL are being deceptive.
DS
Yep so all the argument here is because the word intent is written in the rule book. That isn’t what you wrote here - hence why you see everyone arcing up (pun intended).
Going by what is written the examples you give were incorrectly umpired. Going by the unwritten interpretation they were correct. Just ridiculous.
Exactly, and this is one of the problems, the little boys' club who run the AFL are so arrogant they just feel they can do what they like and screw the supporters. Meanwhile some defend them and their deliberate lack of transparency.
If there is a presentation on how intent is interpreted then why not show us all?
What do they have to hide?
We all know there are issues umpiring such a fast game played on a large ground but the AFL's intent is to tell the supporter base as little as possible. How anyone can defend this is beyond me.
DS
I don’t know what is on that video.
It says “This video is age-restricted ”
Rule was perfectly interpreted as there were no grey areas to think about. Only bitched n moaned about the shiny new rule at the time because, it had to be us n it cost us a game. *smile* in suits at AFLHQ simply couldn't help themselves n changed the rule back to smudgy, beige, smeared, interpretation and we have players cheating n pushing, cheating n diving, fans bitching n moaning all over the place and umpires under the pump because they have to pretend to understand who's doing what n cheating by how much.
Of course, intent has nothing to do with what the player is trying to do
The Cambridge Dictionary defines intent as "the fact that you want and plan to do something", so, yeah it is precisely what they are trying to do.
The fact that the umpires use some unpublished criteria to determine intent is just an indictment on the lack of transparency and does not in any way change that the rule clearly cites intent and intent is all about what players are trying to do.
If the rule is stating something which is contrary to the way the game is being adjudicated then the AFL are being deceptive.
DS
David, you are clearly an intelligent person who has an irrational hatred of umpires and cannot accept any rationale for decision making that contradicts your view of how the game should be officiated.
I enjoy debate but find this tiresome and won't be engaging with you any further.
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.
If the ball goes out of bounds and you don't have a team mate close by or you are not trying to score then you are deemed to not have shown 'sufficient intent' to keep it in.
That's as far as the umpires assessment of intent goes, it doesn't extend to determining what the player was thinking.
The player has to 'demonstrate sufficient intent' the umpire doesn't have to search for it. So there has to be a visible alternative that the player was trying to execute which needs a team mate to be a viable option to get the ball.
So in Brayshaw's case he soccers the ball forward and it goes out of bounds without a team mate nearby. By kicking the ball hard enough to make the line without a team mate near by he hasn't shown 'sufficient intent' to keep it in.
He 'should have done something else', like kick it into the centre, kick it softly, pick it up, tap it on, thus not demonstrating sufficient intent.
Think it's a gambling ad thing, disappears if you log in to youtube.
It's the last 2 minutes of Geelong v Melbourne 2021, easy to find on google if you want to look.
