Question regarding rules

[Pates 9,537]

16 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Pates

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

9 minutes ago, Pates said:

The rule that has become a running is deliberate out of bounds. Fans are now cheering ironically for it and the umps are actually paying it. 

The AFL appear to be trying to rewrite the Oxford dictionary's definition of "deliberate". 

If you go to the AFL web site they have a page where they "explain" the way certain rules are adjudicated.

Watch their video of the "new" "deliberate OOB" and then compare it with the way they're actually paying it.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-deliberate-out-of-bounds

 

 

Another video of interest to watchers of yesterdays game is this one:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-drawing-head-contact

[Pates 9,537]

26 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

I actually just saw that Brad Scott was unhappy about that situation that Petrie wasn't allowed to come back on. He is very lucky that Brown could come on in his place, no other game around the world allows an interchange if you've exhausted them despite injuries. 

It's simple, you play a man down until he comes back on. 

Amazing that even with 10+ goals from free kicks he can still be grumpy with rules/adjudication. God I hate the lot of them. 

[daisycutter 28,657]

26 minutes ago, Pates said:

I actually just saw that Brad Scott was unhappy about that situation that Petrie wasn't allowed to come back on. He is very lucky that Brown could come on in his place, no other game around the world allows an interchange if you've exhausted them despite injuries. 

It's simple, you play a man down until he comes back on. 

Amazing that even with 10+ goals from free kicks he can still be grumpy with rules/adjudication. God I hate the lot of them. 

yes, but the blood rule is not an "injury". the player is forced off by the umpire so technically it's not a voluntary interchange

i don't have a problem with that one, nor the player touching the post.

[sue 8,470]

39 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

If you go to the AFL web site they have a page where they "explain" the way certain rules are adjudicated.

Watch their video of the "new" "deliberate OOB" and then compare it with the way they're actually paying it.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-deliberate-out-of-bounds

Another video of interest to watchers of yesterdays game is this one:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-drawing-head-contact

Thanks for those links.  I can see why they have an inconsistency problem with the head ducking issue. Even the explanation is self-contradictory with the apparent onus on the tackler to avoid head high contact despite any ducking.    The running out of bounds example is so obviously deliberate whereas they now expect the player to break every bone in his body to twist back into play to avoid going over the line.  And god help you if you do a quick snap under intense pressure in a pack which goes 40 metres, bounces sideways and goes out.

[low flying Robbo 979]

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes, but the blood rule is not an "injury". the player is forced off by the umpire so technically it's not a voluntary interchange

i don't have a problem with that one, nor the player touching the post.

How long until we see a team out of interchanges with 5 minutes to go and 1 player absolutely spent who just can't play on... maybe he's had a cut thats been taped up earlier in the game. Pulls his tape off and goes "oh hey ump, i'm bleeding I better go off".....

[praha 10,329]

He was most definitely over the line. The angle wasn't great but the ball was held lined up with his left leg, which was entirely over the line. Irrespective of that, you could tell he went over the line during live play.

Having a replay system is pointless if you don't have the required technology to make an absolutely 100% certain call. 9/10 the camera gives you a *better* idea of a decision but you can never be 100% for things like touched balls because the broadcast cameras they use don't record slow-motion at a high enough framerate. It's a shambles. The face they rely on a blurred image to make a definitive call is embarrassing. I am shocked the AFL has let it continue for so long. They need high quality, high framerate line cameras.

On top of that, what professional league in the world holds a match for points at a stadium that can't even fulfil the basic obligations for the camera placement?

Embarrassing.

[Akum 2,660]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

I actually just saw that Brad Scott was unhappy about that situation that Petrie wasn't allowed to come back on. He is very lucky that Brown could come on in his place, no other game around the world allows an interchange if you've exhausted them despite injuries. 

It's simple, you play a man down until he comes back on. 

Amazing that even with 10+ goals from free kicks he can still be grumpy with rules/adjudication. God I hate the lot of them. 

North are the biggest whingers in the game's history. I'm surprised they don't get ridiculed for this at all.

Titus O???

[Tony Tea 2,792]

3 hours ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

Yes, it is. But expect the AFL to change it on the fly after what happened to North/Petrie on Sunday.

[Tony Tea 2,792]

And, of course, once the AFL changes the interchange-blood rule rule, watch them make further injury exceptions, and then further non-injury exceptions, and then do something completely different which is actually the same as it was in 1967, only in black and white.

[jnrmac 19,241]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-02/goal-umpire-got-it-right-afl

Well if you want to see the most bewildering goal umpire decision ever I suggest you look at this - also down in Tassie. Eddie Betts kicks through the middle of the goals. It hits the goal umpire and bounces back into play.

The call, play on. Un-fricken-believable.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by jnrmac

[demonoid 317]

I've only watched the end of the game in poor quality on phone but it certainly looks like stretch should have got a free for interference when going for the mark. Think it was Thomas that went back with the flight and jumped all over him when not watching the ball. I could be wrong but anyone else got thoughts on this?

[monoccular 16,310]

4 hours ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

Going off under the blood rule should surely NOT be counted as an interchange.  It is not a choice by the coaching team, it is an order by the maggots 

[monoccular 16,310]

4 hours ago, Pates said:

Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

No way. Imagine some psychopath (from Hawthorn, Norf, etc) in his last game in a GF running around biffing all and sundry to force the opposition to play with reduced numbers. 

[daisycutter 28,657]

Just now, monoccular said:

Going off under the blood rule should surely NOT be counted as an interchange.  It is not a choice by the coaching team, it is an order by the maggots 

tend to agree........but when said player wants to go back on it should then count as an interchange

so in petrie's case with no interchanges left he can't go back on (as was the case)

[Ash82 10]

Edited April 11, 2016 by Ash82

[mrtwister 650]

3 minutes ago, Ash82 said:

Even more amazingly, when you watch the video, the goal umpire starts to signal what appears to be a 'touched' call, then stops, then goes back to seen position, then says she thinks it's a goal. wtf?

Edited April 11, 2016 by mrtwister

[Ash82 10]

I just can't believe this was then reviewed and allowed to be a goal.. Again no outcry from the club or the media at the inept umpiring yesterday...It's only Melbourne...

Imagine Collingwood were cruelled like we were yesterday. Eddie would be calling for heads!!

[Phadraig 760]

Gotta trust the goal umpire there, she was in the perfect position to call it. It was obviously very close though

[monoccular 16,310]

4 hours ago, Pates said:

Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

No way. Imagine some psychopath (from Hawthorn, Norf, etc) in his last game in a GF running around biffing all and sundry to force the opposition to play with reduced numbers. 

[monoccular 16,310]

4 hours ago, Pates said:

Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

No way. Imagine some psychopath (from Hawthorn, Norf, etc) in his last game in a GF running around biffing all and sundry to force the opposition to play with reduced numbers. 

[ArtificialWisdom 3,909]

1 hour ago, Ash82 said:

ball has to be all the way across to me that is part way therefore play on... i didnt think that was really a bad call at all. a camera on the goal post would have been nice though...

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, Ash82 said:

Does Goldie fend off Stretch with a raised right forearm?

 

 

[ArtificialWisdom 3,909]

5 hours ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-11/blood-rule-forces-afl-rethink-on-interchange-cap

[jnrmac 19,241]

11 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

ball has to be all the way across to me that is part way therefore play on... i didnt think that was really a bad call at all. a camera on the goal post would have been nice though...

Yes but the umps get confused looking at the thick goal post rather than the line......