WEEK 2 FINALS 2021 | 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.

WEEK 2 FINALS 2021

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
24,520
10,584
Razor said that they're instructed to determine whether players demonstrated intent to keep the ball in play.:confused:

Daniel didn't look towards the boundary or kick the ball towards the boundary, but the umpires reckons he didn't show enough intent to keep the ball in play.:confused:


Chamberlain explained how umpires have been told to officiate the rule and how it goes beyond deliberately attempting to get the ball out of bounds.

“So, the guidelines that we’re given now is that the player with the football, or who’s handballing the football, knocking the football, kicking the football, they have to demonstrate a sufficient intent to keep the ball in play,” he said.

“The guts of it is if they’re looking to kill the ball, they put themselves in a position where they could incur a free kick."


Yep... so the umpire has to be a mindreader. Pharken stupid rule.
 

year of the tiger

Tiger Legend
Mar 26, 2008
8,080
3,415
Tasmania
Next week it’s the Power and Dees to lose. Without the pre finals bye, they get a massive heads start For the preliminaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
24,520
10,584
It’s actually “Hear Hear” - it means “Listen to him!” or “Hey, everyone should hear this!”

Don’t normally correct people (though every “your” instead of “you’re” or that Americanism “lay” instead of “lie” annoys me) - but this common error really aggravates my goat

my favourite is "they are making an escape goat of him"
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
24,520
10,584
As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.

Yep, that's all fair TBR. I just don't like the rule, it's still way too subjective - a risky action (soccering) vs a less risky action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
17,011
8,421
Yep... so the umpire has to be a mindreader. Pharken stupid rule.
Just another of Shocking's shocking rule changes. What was wrong with the deliberate out of bounds.........nothing. Now it it's insufficient intent, as you say the umpire has to be a mind reader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
17,011
8,421
I don't give ****, when I'm at the footy I'm stilling calling out "deliberate !!!!!", they can stick their "insufficient intent !!!!" where the sun don't shine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jake

Tiger Superstar
Apr 2, 2005
1,626
581
Just another of Shocking's shocking rule changes. What was wrong with the deliberate out of bounds.........nothing. Now it it's insufficient intent, as you say the umpire has to be a mind reader.
Remember back in the day it was bit of a skill to hit the boundary, what does *smile* me is players on the other team appealing for the free kick and it's not even out of bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
17,831
16,555
Free kicks aren't not paid on a we can see what you were trying to do basis.

unrealistic attempt?

they could blow the whistle on Joe Daniher, or Dangerfield the moment they run onto the ground for a final.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
6,866
8,912
Melbourne
Just another of Shocking's shocking rule changes. What was wrong with the deliberate out of bounds.........nothing. Now it it's insufficient intent, as you say the umpire has to be a mind reader.

Yep, the rule is silly, but that is the rule at the moment. You and I are just fans/club members so our opinions are just ignored by the AFL. I would far prefer a deliberate out of bounds rule, easier to adjudicate and clearer. More throw ins, but so what.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
17,831
16,555
so The AFL has booked Burswood Oval for the Grand Final on September 25th.

But the Preliminaries are 10th and 11th September.

is my maths wrong, or is that 2 weeks between preliminaries and the GF?

Is that to give maximum time for a Covid outbreak in Perth?

so you can get concussed in a prelim, and still play the GF?

what's the thinking?

also, why are Dogs going to Perth before they play Port in Adelaide?

can anyone tell me anything that makes sense?
 

Legends of 2017

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 24, 2005
5,044
2,498
Melbourne
As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.
Hey TBR. Don’t agree that that should have been a free kick but that’s not why I’m on here. If it’s about insufficient intent can you explain why teams don’t get penalised when a player deliberately punches the ball over the boundary. By that I mean like when players go up for a mark and the bloke behind has absolutely no intention of marking , just spoiling by punching. There are numerous times during each game where you can see quite obviously the defender’s only intent is to make sure the ball goes out of bounds. They actually punch the ball 45 degrees at times. Do you know why that is never penalised? It’s quite obviously ( most times deliberately) “ insufficient intent” to keep the ball inside the field of play.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
5,127
2,092
Melbourne
As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.


If thats the "intention" of the rule then I'm afraid the rule is an absolute ass & should be rescinded. An umpire should not be put in the position of trying to read a players mind or what he intended.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
25,973
5,712
As I said above, I think the intent gets blurry because people are only looking at it narrowly. As I said above it's not that Daniel's didn't mean to kick the ball out of bounds, it's that he shouldn't have taken the risk that it might have gone out of bounds by kicking it out of the air. If he had true intent to keep it in he could grab it and handball it inboard or kick it towards the centre, or cause a ball up.

He didn't do any of those things because they would be risky to lunacy defensively, so when you break it right down his pure intent is to not do everything he can to keep the ball in play.
The lengths you go to to defend and “explain” bad decisions is commendable, I reckon if an umpire shot a player dead on the field you’d defend it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
24,520
10,584
Hey TBR. Don’t agree that that should have been a free kick but that’s not why I’m on here. If it’s about insufficient intent can you explain why teams don’t get penalised when a player deliberately punches the ball over the boundary. By that I mean like when players go up for a mark and the bloke behind has absolutely no intention of marking , just spoiling by punching. There are numerous times during each game where you can see quite obviously the defender’s only intent is to make sure the ball goals out of bounds. They actually punch the ball 45 degrees at times. Do you know why that is never penalised? It’s quite obviously ( most times deliberately) “ insufficient intent” to keep the ball inside the field of play.

I believe that in marking contests the rule doesn't apply... that's explicitly called out in the rules somewhere.

As for the logic of this, who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
25,973
5,712
Rhys “The Barometer” Mathieson didn’t take the loss very well:

 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users