Mel Bourne

Or just desperately trying to find sense in the utterly senseless.

All fine mate. In summary, IF that umpire noticed the touch and that it had caused a noticeable deflection, then quickly ran his mind through the rule book only to discover the call was left up to his “vibe” and then made the call.... But of course that’s not what happened!!! It was gutless, costly rubbish!

I was wrong to state as blithely as I did that an opposition player touching the ball between release and the boundary would rule out deliberate. As I said earlier, logic guided me to that conclusion. I did however correct my stance when the notion of “interpretation of the rule” came into play, and said I’d be happy to be enlightened about what the rule actually is. As we’ve seen from Mazer’s post, the rules are not clear enough to definitively tell us. Personally, there was a part of me that wanted the call to be the correct one, if only to take the sting out of what to the naked eye was nothing but a horrendous decision. Just posted it because there was a very lively and nuanced discussion about it on the AFL Reddit page and thought it interesting enough to share here. I kinda wish I hadn’t

C’mon dude. Why the angst? As I said in my last post, I’m willing to be educated on this rule. Nobody has done that yet. Edit: I hadn’t seen Mazer’s post at the time of writing this because I was engaged in a weird act of self-defence.

I meant that I doubt the rule us if an opposition plsyer touches it voids a deliberate call. I know that’s what you meant. And I’m saying that because you “doubt” the rule is that, means it’s a grey area and perhaps not something that can be so emphatically shut-down. Logic says to me that a player in Spargo’s position touching the ball would immediately make it a “dead ball”. I’m willing to be educated here, but I’m yet to see anybody properly explain the minutiae of the deliberate rule in this particular scenario. I realise we’re into semantics here, but let’s face it, it all is unfortunately.

Very true, but they’ve proven they can whereas we’re all still waiting for Sam’s breakthrough game. He’s yet to kick over three in a game, and while that shouldn’t damn him, it would be better for him to beat that personal best sooner than - if he’s allowed- later.

I’ve watched it slowed-down and the footage is well and truly “inconclusive”. Not sure how you can be that confident.

Hang on Bin. Your first sentence was pretty emphatic, but by the third paragraph you were saying “I doubt”. Which kind of implies that it’s a bit of a grey area, no? Look I thought the call was bovine excrement too, and nine times out of ten it would be called deliberate without anywhere near the scrutiny it’s copped. It’s interesting to note that a lot of “neutrals” commenting on that thread I posted from are saying that without Spargo’s deflection it might have found it’s way to the running Ingerson, which is unlikely but not impossible (as for whether he did in fact touch it is also debatable, but I’ve watched it a few (too many) times now and the ball does seem to deviate immediately after release, but I wouldn’t be confident making a decisive call. But the main reason I said “case closed” is because I think it’s in all our best interests to put a full-stop behind it either way.

Sure. But I only posted about this particular decision, which is the one folks are most upset about. Look I was angry about the umpiring after the match yesterday, but if you’re still angry about it I recommend you find something very zen to do. It’s wasted energy.

If the ball makes contact with an opp player it can’t be deliberate.

Neutrals on all AFL forums: - “Wow! That was the game of the year! So exciting! Well done both teams. Shame there had to be a loser”. Melbourne supporters: - “Our team sucks. Everyone sucks. Sack them all.”

New vision has emerged which sees the ball deflecting off Spargo’s hand. This is why he didn’t complain. case closed.

He’s meant to score.

Might want to let the club know that. They’ve got him down as a midfielder/forward.

Folks who are including Viney as an “in” might be disappointed. There’s been very little to suggest he’ll be ready anytime before Queen’s birthday.

Bowey is better based on what? Lockhart is a defender. Bowey is a midfielder/forward.

Found one! - Lockhart. He should have played instead of Jetta. Easy to say in hindsight, and was just as easy to say in foresight.

Thank you.

There he is.

Kozzie has been missing for two weeks.

Strangely still not worried about this.

Didn’t know you could bounce the ball while being tackled. Handy.

Anyone watching Kayo? Rivers hasn’t kicked that goal yet.

Our first quarters. What the hell, Demons?

Would love a Dees version of the barrel bag.