New Umpiring Interpretation

[rjay 25,113]

I thought the way deliberate out of bounds tonight was interpreted was interesting.

It seemed to be a pseudo last touch decision.

You almost had to show cause as to why you should't have a free paid against.

Once I realised what was going on, I liked it...despite what others have said I thought they paid it fairly consistently.

I don't like the thought of a blanket last touch rule.

I hope they bothered to tell the clubs before the game though...

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,902]

Yeh, didn't like it at all.  Agree it was paid reasonablely consistently in terms of was paid consistently for both teams (one against Bernie was a shocker though).

How I don't think it is paid consistently though is:

1.  Was paid more frequently against defenders;

2. A huge number of spoils for which the clear intent was to find the boundary, but we're not paid;

3.  I'd also contend that on many multiple occasions players intentionally allow them selves to be tackled out of bounds - in my view this is a soft option and it should be paid either holding the ball or deliberate out of bounds of a player is tackled across the line.

Accept in the most obvious of cases, I really don't like this last touch type deliberate rule.

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[low flying Robbo 979]

Yep i liked the consistency last night. If it makes players try more to keep the ball in play then i guess it's a good thing. The Bernie one was tough, but that might have been given on reputation. If this keeps up I'm assuming Tommy Mac and Bernie will get pinged heaps this year.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

The Bernie one was ridiculous he could have just let the ball go out in the first place but tried to keep it in play.

whilst on umpiring that free kick Spencer got for a knee in the back in a marking contest was unusual. But the best bit about it was the umpires signal, he looked like karate kid. That can't be an official signal and had to be made up on the spot.

[Chris 2,892]

I liked the fact it was fairly consistent with a few missed, but there always will be. I don't like the interpretation of the rule though. Three instances stick out for me.

Wellingham kicked of the ground which looked clearly like he was trying to kick up the ground, shanked it, and got pinged for deliberate. It actually wasn't deliberate, it was just bad execution of skills, I am not really comfortable pinging someone for a skill error.

Bernie when he tried to hand pass while under pressure to keep the ball in, missed his target by about a foot to the right and was pinged for deliberate. Again I don't think he was actually trying to do that and it was just a very rushed hand pass under pressure that missed the target. Similar happened last year when he hand passed and it was about six inches out of reach of a team mate, ended up out of bounds and he got done. 

The third was Tom Mac. Short of handing the ball over to the Eagles I could see little else he could do. He was running, had a player hanging off him, had another WC player next to him, his only option is to hit the ball out in front and chase it. His only mistake was he hit it a little far to be able to get back to it. Really don't know what else he could have done. 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Agree this one umpired consistently, although I'm not a fan of it.

It seems like it's all about getting the players to disguise it better and not about actually keeping it in.

Others were not though. How they missed the high tackle on Harmes (which resulted in WC goaling) I don't know.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It's funny how in cricket everyone was excited about T20 cricket because of all the big hits and fast play and as a reuslt everyone was saying how Test cricket was dying.

Yet after a couple of gripping Tests in India everyone is loving it again.

That's how I see these new interpretations, the AFL is going for the short-term razzle dazzle that appeals to 10 year old kids with no attention span but really there is nothing wrong with a tight contest that is all about position.  I'm all for fast play and scoring, but if the game is too open and too much scoring then it is boring, we need a balance of open play and contests. 

Yes, there have been too many contests in recent years (too many players around the ball) but these new interpretations won't really address the problem, they just create new ones.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

32 minutes ago, Chris said:

Wellingham kicked of the ground which looked clearly like he was trying to kick up the ground, shanked it, and got pinged for deliberate. It actually wasn't deliberate, it was just bad execution of skills, I am not really comfortable pinging someone for a skill error.

That one also spun around on itself it was just insane that it was even considered deliberate let alone paid. When watching on TV you could hear umps started yelling "skill error" late last year but apparently they gave up on that last night.

[Chris 2,892]

27 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It's funny how in cricket everyone was excited about T20 cricket because of all the big hits and fast play and as a reuslt everyone was saying how Test cricket was dying.

Yet after a couple of gripping Tests in India everyone is loving it again.

That's how I see these new interpretations, the AFL is going for the short-term razzle dazzle that appeals to 10 year old kids with no attention span but really there is nothing wrong with a tight contest that is all about position.  I'm all for fast play and scoring, but if the game is too open and too much scoring then it is boring, we need a balance of open play and contests. 

Yes, there have been too many contests in recent years (too many players around the ball) but these new interpretations won't really address the problem, they just create new ones.

Ahhhh, but what would the rule committee do if they weren't inventing new interpretations to rules to fix the problems caused by the last changes they made?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

54 minutes ago, Chris said:

I liked the fact it was fairly consistent with a few missed, but there always will be. I don't like the interpretation of the rule though. Three instances stick out for me.

Wellingham kicked of the ground which looked clearly like he was trying to kick up the ground, shanked it, and got pinged for deliberate. It actually wasn't deliberate, it was just bad execution of skills, I am not really comfortable pinging someone for a skill error.

Bernie when he tried to hand pass while under pressure to keep the ball in, missed his target by about a foot to the right and was pinged for deliberate. Again I don't think he was actually trying to do that and it was just a very rushed hand pass under pressure that missed the target. Similar happened last year when he hand passed and it was about six inches out of reach of a team mate, ended up out of bounds and he got done. 

The third was Tom Mac. Short of handing the ball over to the Eagles I could see little else he could do. He was running, had a player hanging off him, had another WC player next to him, his only option is to hit the ball out in front and chase it. His only mistake was he hit it a little far to be able to get back to it. Really don't know what else he could have done. 

Is it still the case that if you're under pressure and deliberately rush a behind that's deemed to be OK, but if you are under pressure and deliberately cause the ball to go out of bounds you're penalised? If so, I think the rules are flawed.  

[DeeSpencer 26,090]

53 minutes ago, Chris said:

I liked the fact it was fairly consistent with a few missed, but there always will be. I don't like the interpretation of the rule though. Three instances stick out for me.

Wellingham kicked of the ground which looked clearly like he was trying to kick up the ground, shanked it, and got pinged for deliberate. It actually wasn't deliberate, it was just bad execution of skills, I am not really comfortable pinging someone for a skill error.

Bernie when he tried to hand pass while under pressure to keep the ball in, missed his target by about a foot to the right and was pinged for deliberate. Again I don't think he was actually trying to do that and it was just a very rushed hand pass under pressure that missed the target. Similar happened last year when he hand passed and it was about six inches out of reach of a team mate, ended up out of bounds and he got done. 

The third was Tom Mac. Short of handing the ball over to the Eagles I could see little else he could do. He was running, had a player hanging off him, had another WC player next to him, his only option is to hit the ball out in front and chase it. His only mistake was he hit it a little far to be able to get back to it. Really don't know what else he could have done. 

I didn't mind any of those decisions:

Wellingham - don't shank it straight out under minimal pressure, that's time wasting. Give us the free.

Vince - probably shouldn't have been deliberate given how close Viney was for the handball but the mistake Bernie made was being aloof with the boundary line and then hand-balling it over. Much like the rest of Bernie's game last night - going half pace and fooling around won't get the umps on side. Had he chased after the ball and been in the mood to keep it in he probably would've nailed the handball up the line.

McDonald - paddling the ball 25m until it gets out of bounds will always be deliberate these days. He had a number of options - pick it up and fire off a fast handball whilst getting tackled. Paddle it away from the boundary line. Hover over it and let someone else pick it up. It wasn't entirely his fault that he ended up in such a difficult situation - in fact his brother had just skipped over the ball, but the new rule punishes individuals for their teams leaving them one out under pressure.

[Chris 2,892]

56 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I didn't mind any of those decisions:

Wellingham - don't shank it straight out under minimal pressure, that's time wasting. Give us the free.

Vince - probably shouldn't have been deliberate given how close Viney was for the handball but the mistake Bernie made was being aloof with the boundary line and then hand-balling it over. Much like the rest of Bernie's game last night - going half pace and fooling around won't get the umps on side. Had he chased after the ball and been in the mood to keep it in he probably would've nailed the handball up the line.

McDonald - paddling the ball 25m until it gets out of bounds will always be deliberate these days. He had a number of options - pick it up and fire off a fast handball whilst getting tackled. Paddle it away from the boundary line. Hover over it and let someone else pick it up. It wasn't entirely his fault that he ended up in such a difficult situation - in fact his brother had just skipped over the ball, but the new rule punishes individuals for their teams leaving them one out under pressure.

The problem may well be they fact the rule is called deliberate out of bounds. Wellingham did not deliberately put the ball out of bounds, neither did Vince, you could even argue McDonald didn't as his intention was purely to keep the ball off the WC players.

Maybe the name of the rule needs to be changed if we go with this interpretation. Maybe a rule name like 'carelessly out of bounds' or 'your skills suck and it went out out of bounds'

[Wrecker45 3,378]

54 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I didn't mind any of those decisions:

Wellingham - don't shank it straight out under minimal pressure, that's time wasting. Give us the free.

Vince - probably shouldn't have been deliberate given how close Viney was for the handball but the mistake Bernie made was being aloof with the boundary line and then hand-balling it over. Much like the rest of Bernie's game last night - going half pace and fooling around won't get the umps on side. Had he chased after the ball and been in the mood to keep it in he probably would've nailed the handball up the line.

McDonald - paddling the ball 25m until it gets out of bounds will always be deliberate these days. He had a number of options - pick it up and fire off a fast handball whilst getting tackled. Paddle it away from the boundary line. Hover over it and let someone else pick it up. It wasn't entirely his fault that he ended up in such a difficult situation - in fact his brother had just skipped over the ball, but the new rule punishes individuals for their teams leaving them one out under pressure.

DeeSpencer I like a lot of your other observations but this is just ridiculous. 

1) The fact he made the effort to collect it and not just run over the boundary with it or shepherd it out demonstrates 100% he was trying to keep it in.

2) You're somehow guessing his mood and then suggesting if he "nailed" the handball it wouldn't have gone out of bounds and therefore no free kick. It is a deliberate out of bounds rule and has nothing to do with precision (or mood).

[Wrecker45 3,378]

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

The problem may well be they fact the rule is called deliberate out of bounds. Wellingham did not deliberately put the ball out of bounds, neither did Vince, you could even argue McDonald didn't as his intention was purely to keep the ball off the WC players.

Maybe the name of the rule needs to be changed if we go with this interpretation. Maybe a rule name like 'carelessly out of bounds' or 'your skills suck and it went out out of bounds'

Your skills suck and it went out of bounds is already covered, it just can't bounce first.

Agree with other posters that the players who let themselves get tackled over the line to avoid both deliberate and holding the ball is a far worse crime than some of the "deliberate" out of bounds decisions last night.

[nutbean 8,838]

11 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

DeeSpencer I like a lot of your other observations but this is just ridiculous. 

1) The fact he made the effort to collect it and not just run over the boundary with it or shepherd it out demonstrates 100% he was trying to keep it in.

2) You're somehow guessing his mood and then suggesting if he "nailed" the handball it wouldn't have gone out of bounds and therefore no free kick. It is a deliberate out of bounds rule and has nothing to do with precision (or mood).

It's the vibe..

[rjay 25,113]

2 hours ago, Choke said:

Agree this one umpired consistently, although I'm not a fan of it.

It seems like it's all about getting the players to disguise it better and not about actually keeping it in.

Others were not though. How they missed the high tackle on Harmes (which resulted in WC goaling) I don't know.

Everyone knows players try to disguise the deliberate....a bit like the wrestlers with the foreign object in the trunks that everyone but the ref can see.

Now the umpires are taking it to be most instances are disguised and only clearing the real legit instances.

All 3 mentioned above were disguised instances and all should have been called.

Wellingham was hitting the boundary as was Vince, they both moved the ball to the line side of their teammates and Tommy Mac was blatant.

The player needs to be actively trying to keep the ball in not pretending anymore.

[Chris 2,892]

43 minutes ago, rjay said:

Everyone knows players try to disguise the deliberate....a bit like the wrestlers with the foreign object in the trunks that everyone but the ref can see.

Now the umpires are taking it to be most instances are disguised and only clearing the real legit instances.

All 3 mentioned above were disguised instances and all should have been called.

Wellingham was hitting the boundary as was Vince, they both moved the ball to the line side of their teammates and Tommy Mac was blatant.

The player needs to be actively trying to keep the ball in not pretending anymore.

Are you really suggesting Wellingham meant to kick the ball off the side of his boot, and then have it spin on its end and bend to the boundary? Wow that bloke has some talent!

[DeeSpencer 26,090]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

DeeSpencer I like a lot of your other observations but this is just ridiculous. 

1) The fact he made the effort to collect it and not just run over the boundary with it or shepherd it out demonstrates 100% he was trying to keep it in.

2) You're somehow guessing his mood and then suggesting if he "nailed" the handball it wouldn't have gone out of bounds and therefore no free kick. It is a deliberate out of bounds rule and has nothing to do with precision (or mood).

I agree with Chris above that the rule needs a name change.

Bernie had 2 options:
1) Shepherd it over and let it run out
2) Attack it properly and keep it in

I've got no problem with players getting pinged who run the ball over the line even if they then disguise a handball to keep it in. 

Either way I'm angry at Bernie for his lack of awareness and desperation and for generally floating around like the 3rd McDonald brother. He needs a rocket  put up him before round 1 (and then to be given the job on Riewoldt).

[Willmoy1947 4,148]

Didn't like the Bernie one at all, and it seemed as though it was because it was him to me. Ok though for a couple of WC (water closet) players to take it over the line without penalty. Didn't think they were that consistent, especially when we were just getting back into the game near the end.

[Chris 2,892]

So I was curious and looked up the actual wording of the law. 

A free kick is awarded when a player;

(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds on the Full;

(b) in the act of bringing the football back into play after a Behind has been scored, Kicks the football over the Boundary Line without the football first being touched by another Player;

(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line without the football being touched by another Player;

(d) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground;

(e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has signalled that the football is Out of Bounds, except for a Player who has carried the football over the Boundary Line under this Law 15.6.1 or a Player awarded a Free Kick under these Laws; or

(f) hits the football Out of Bounds on the Full from a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or a throw in by a boundary Umpire.

'C' is the relevant rule in this case. It is based on intent. Intent is a very hard thing to conclusively determine and as such the AFL in their mighty wisdom are outlawing actions they think match the intent. A system always destined to fail. I would be happy if it was governed as the rule says (which isn't what happens now), but would like to see added to it words to the effect of 'or intentionally allows the ball to cross the line without taking all reasonable steps to prevent that happening. 

'E' is also interesting, you this happen a bit and I have never seen it penalised. It is a stupid rule anyway so why even have it remain in the rule book.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,902]

The biggest problem I see with the rule is that it penalises defenders disproportionately to forwards and has the potential to gift too many goals via free kicks, which when it occurs really destroys the spirit of the game as it has the potential for games to be too heavily influenced by bad umpiring.

[bandicoot 1,395]

17 hours ago, rjay said:

I thought the way deliberate out of bounds tonight was interpreted was interesting.

It seemed to be a pseudo last touch decision.

You almost had to show cause as to why you should't have a free paid against.

Once I realised what was going on, I liked it...despite what others have said I thought they paid it fairly consistently.

I don't like the thought of a blanket last touch rule.

I hope they bothered to tell the clubs before the game though...

Terrible rule. How can the umpire guess what the player is thinking? They should be trying to get rid of 'grey' rules. Instead they expect the umpire to be a mind reader.

even worse it that you are dealing with an unpredictable ball. Intent is based on the randomness of a ball bounce. 

Wellingham descision was a perfect example. 

it will cost a team a final one day 

[rjay 25,113]

9 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Terrible rule. How can the umpire guess what the player is thinking? They should be trying to get rid of 'grey' rules. Instead they expect the umpire to be a mind reader.

even worse it that you are dealing with an unpredictable ball. Intent is based on the randomness of a ball bounce. 

Wellingham descision was a perfect example. 

it will cost a team a final one day 

If you want to take out the grey area then last touch needs to be the new rule...

Not so much of a fan myself but it may be on the way.

...by the way maybe we should go for a round ball as the randomness of the bounce has already cost the Saints a flag and I'm sure others.

I'm not serious about the round ball by the way but how some have gone on about centre bounces, unfairness, and the problems with the oval ball who knows what will happen down the track.

[Moonshadow 17,677]

At some point it will go against 'last to touch' over the boundary. Reason they'll use is that it keeps the ball in play and more likely to play down the corridor 

[sue 9,146]

The interpretation may have been consistent (well, at lest as consistent as the imlementation of most of the other rules) but I don't liek it or see the need for it.

 

On another matter, at one stage an Eagles player marked the ball while standing still and did not move. The Melb player ran straight towards him and the umpire called hold hold when he was still 5m away from him.  WTF?