Author Topic: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season  (Read 6425 times)

Ruanaidh

  • Guest
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2017, 09:00:49 PM »
After watching the replay I have no doubt that this game was determined by the bad umpiring decisions delivered by that twit with the black hair....And I never usually bag umpires.

Offline tdy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2017, 10:27:33 PM »
While I love the effect of the keep the ball in rule it is atrocious in the way it is inconsistently applied.  We have some pretty stupid rules like the kick out from the square rule.  Who cares if they just run off. It's just play on then.  Rances free against playing on through the goals is an absolutely bloody stupid rule. Some anal teat invented it. Again who cares if they switch play from behind the goals.  We have a few bloody stupid rules to get rid of.  The interchange zone is the same just tag the other players hand before you enter the play.  White marks along the boundary line are stupidly anal again.

What they ought to get anal about is the runners filling space. I'd get rid of them as they get abused or make it an auto goal if they in anyway affect the play.


Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 63590
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Deliberate out of bounds call, decision Jayden Short Richmond v Western Bulldogs: Was it right or wrong?

KATE SALEMME
Herald Sun
7 May 2017


AFL GAMES record holder Brent Harvey has called for the league to make an immediate change to the deliberate out of bounds rule after a contentious decision against Richmond’s Jayden Short on Saturday night.

Short was penalised when he appeared to fumble the ball under pressure of two Bulldogs players in the last minute of the Tigers’ five-point loss to the Bulldogs.

The free kick essentially ended the game as the Bulldogs were able to hold onto the ball for the final seconds.

“You just can’t call that,” Harvey said. “As an umpire, that can’t be called.

“The initial part he’s trying to handball but in the second part he tries to grab the footy as well and his hand is getting held.

“I’m feeling for the umpires at the minute because their job is too hard. There’s so many rules — the deliberate is getting worse and worse.”

The AFL has this year introduced a stricter interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds rule and penalised players for not making enough effort to keep the ball in play.

Harvey said he “absolutely” felt for Short in that situation.

“That will not get paid again for the whole season,” he said.

“When there is players around you and you fumble the ball, the umpires never pay it. For some reason though (that was paid).

“In a close game, that’s costly.

“It’s unbelievable.”

Harvey, who retired after being moved on by North Melbourne at the end of last year after 432 career games, wants immediate change.

“I don’t think we wait until the end of the season because stuff like this is going to keep happening,” he told Fox Sports.

“So we (the AFL) need to go back and have a quick look at it and change the rule slightly because I still think if you’re not willing to keep the ball in, they’re going to pay it against you.

“And I still think that’s not deliberate out of bounds.

“So they’ve got to go back and tinker with it slightly.”

Richmond coach Damien Hardwick didn’t weigh in on whether the Short call was right or wrong but when pressed on the league’s rules he declared there are too many left to umpire interpretation.

“I don’t know, it was pretty hard to see it from the (coaches) box. I’m not sure exactly what it was from that one,” he said of the call.

“I’m not sure whether it’s that rule or all the rules to be frank.

“I feel really sorry for the umpires, the amount of interpretations they have to make. We just keep adding layer upon layer.

“So I don’t blame the umpires at all, at all. The holding the ball rule. How many interpretations are in that?

“It’s not their fault, they’ve got to go through five decisions to make an actual decision. I actually think they do a pretty good job, under the circumstances.”

Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge was at a loss to explain the deliberate rule and at times had to laugh while trying to answer questions about the rule in his post-match press conference.

“Ultimately if you’re kicking it out of a pressured situation and there’s smothering hands and the ball needs to go a certain way to clear the area,” he said. “Is that insufficient intent?

“I don’t know how it went tonight, how many were paid and weren’t paid but there were definitely ones that weren’t paid that were paid last week. So the insufficient intent, is it clearer or less clear? I don’t know.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/richmond/deliberate-out-of-bounds-call-against-richmonds-jayden-short-in-loss-to-western-bulldogs-slammed/news-story/29003ffd78b394aedad5e6a46d2452bd

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 63590
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2017, 04:03:43 AM »
'On replay, it looked a bit harsh': AFL football operations boss Simon Lethlean

afl.com.au
8 May 2017


THE DECISION to pay a deliberate out of bounds free kick against Richmond's Jayden Short in the dying seconds against the Western Bulldogs was a borderline call, AFL football operations boss Simon Lethlean says.

With 25 seconds left in Saturday night's match and Richmond trailing by five points, Short pushed the ball forward in attack, before fumbling it out of bounds.

The 21-year-old was penalised for deliberately tapping the ball out deep in his team's forward pocket.

Lethlean said the decision appeared to be correct when watching it in real time.

"Watching the Short one live, I actually thought it was the right call," Lethlean told radio station 3AW on Sunday.

"On replay, it looked a bit harsh, because you can make an argument that he fumbled the ball a bit more than, perhaps, pushed it out."

The umpiring department will review the decision on Monday and speak to the umpire responsible as part of its routine post-round procedure.

Lethlean said the League would continue to instruct umpires to maintain a more stringent interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds rule despite the contentious final-minute decision to penalise Short.

"In that situation in the forward pocket, he had three opponents above him waiting to (ping him) for holding the ball," Lethlean said.

"He may well have thought, 'I'll push it out here, stop the clock and get a stoppage and try and get a goal from that'.

"At the time, the umpire thought he wasn't doing everything he could to keep it in."

After the game, Tigers coach Damien Hardwick said he felt "really sorry" for the whistleblowers because rules required far too much interpretation in the modern game, while Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge likened the deliberate out of bounds interpretation to an episode of Fawlty Towers.

Lethlean labelled Beveridge's post-match comments "a moment of levity" and said he had no issue with the remarks.

The latest controversial umpiring decision comes just days after the AFL Laws of the Game committee clarified the deliberate out of bounds rule.

On Thursday, Lethlean said players who showed "insufficient intent" to keep the ball in play risked having a free kick paid against them.

Western Bulldogs defender Matt Suckling, who applied pressure on Short near the boundary and appealed for the final-minute free kick, said he believed the young Tiger fumbled the ball.

"I just thought he tapped it out of congestion and it rolled out of bounds," Suckling told Fox Footy.

"These days, you've got to have so much intent to keep the ball in (so) I thought I may as well appeal for it.

"It's in their forward 50 so I suppose he's not really trying to get it out but it doesn't look like he's trying to keep it in."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-07/outs-of-bounds-call-borderline-says-lethlean

Offline Owl

  • Magnificent Bastard
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6011
  • Bring me TWO chickens
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2017, 07:41:54 AM »
They just pick that one decision out of all of the ones they plucked out of their arses against us lol jesus, it was a umpmolestfest.  They should of handed our team the morning after pill after the game finished
Lots of people name their swords......

Offline MintOnLamb

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
  • You have to think anyway, so why not think big? DT
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2017, 08:03:30 AM »
And yet you can punch the ball out deliberately in a marking contest.
Go figure.
If the ball goes out the opposing team of the team who last touched it should be able to handball it in. End of story.

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2017, 08:20:58 AM »
At the very least just come out and say we got it wrong. FFS! You potentially lost us the game, the least you can do is say it was a bad call. It's doesn't cost the AFL anything!!
I watched it again yesterday and he clearly fumbled the footy out of bounce. Pretty clear and simple.

The one against Miles earlier in the game was equally as bad. How can you pay deliberate out of bounce if your teammate picks it up on the line?? To the point the umpires have to converse about it??

Add that to the 25 to 13 free kick count and imo it has cost us that game.

Offline Lozza

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2017, 08:27:23 AM »
And yet you can punch the ball out deliberately in a marking contest.
Go figure.
If the ball goes out the opposing team of the team who last touched it should be able to handball it in. End of story.
The other one I don't get is interfering with the player in a marking contest, essentially it seems that you can destroy someones kidneys in a marking contest as long as you complete the mark, misjudge the flight of the ball and suddenly its a free kick to the defender. With eyes only for the ball i really can't see the difference, Jack jumped early on a couple of occasions but one in particular he clearly had eyes for the ball but in doing supposedly impeded the defender but because he didn't take the mark it was a free against him.

Ruanaidh

  • Guest
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2017, 08:35:06 AM »
They just pick that one decision out of all of the ones they plucked out of their arses against us lol jesus, it was a umpmolestfest.  They should of handed our team the morning after pill after the game finished
And once you add the ones we didn't get, that the Dogs did... :banghead  :banghead

Offline MintOnLamb

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
  • You have to think anyway, so why not think big? DT
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2017, 11:07:52 AM »
The melb/haw game yesterday when higans put his hand in the back of the defender, pushed him out of the contest and no free, what a joke. Couldn't have been a clearer infringement/ free kick.
If melb had won that would have been a major talking point.
As Haw won it was swept under the carpet

Offline Yeahright

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9278
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2017, 02:11:20 PM »
And yet you can punch the ball out deliberately in a marking contest.
Go figure.
If the ball goes out the opposing team of the team who last touched it should be able to handball it in. End of story.

Similar to a quick throw in to avoid the line out in rugby

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 63590
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2017, 01:57:09 AM »
AFL happy with deliberate out of bounds

John Salvado
AAP
May 9, 2017


AFL boss Gill McLachlan is happy with how the contentious deliberate out-of-bounds rule is being adjudicated, despite acknowledging the umpires made a couple of mistakes in round seven.

Richmond's Jayden Short was harshly penalised for fumbling the ball over the line in the dying seconds of the five-point loss to the Western Bulldogs, denying the Tigers one final shot at victory.

GWS co-captain Callan Ward was also controversially adjudged to have deliberately put the ball out of bounds in the shock loss to St Kilda on Friday night.

"There are always some mistakes," McLachlan told reporters on Monday.

"I think respect for umpires is an incredibly important part of our game at the community level and the elite level. They do a very tough job."

McLachlan believes most supporters have a solid understanding of how the new interpretation of deliberate out of bounds should be applied.

"They understand it and on the weekend there were a couple of mistakes," he said.

"Football is going really well so in the absence of other noise we focus on two mistakes.

"I think we are not talking about the important role the rule changes have made to the quality of the game.

"When you make change there are always challenges."

The AFL Laws of the Game committee gave the new interpretation of the rule its seal of approval last week, although several coaches, including Luke Beveridge from the Western Bulldogs, remain far from convinced.

"The insufficient intent, is it clearer or less clearer? I don't know," Beveridge said on Saturday night.

"I feel like, is this Morecambe and Wise or Fawlty Towers? I'm not sure."

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/afl/a/35358138/afl-happy-with-deliberate-out-of-bounds/#page1

Jackstar 1960

  • Guest
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2017, 06:32:28 AM »
We have got Rosebury , Deboy and Mollinson umpiring this week . Decent umpires.especially Rosebury

Offline The Machine

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2017, 07:39:44 AM »
At the very least just come out and say we got it wrong. FFS! You potentially lost us the game, the least you can do is say it was a bad call. It's doesn't cost the AFL anything!!
I watched it again yesterday and he clearly fumbled the footy out of bounce. Pretty clear and simple.

The one against Miles earlier in the game was equally as bad. How can you pay deliberate out of bounce if your teammate picks it up on the line?? To the point the umpires have to converse about it??

Add that to the 25 to 13 free kick count and imo it has cost us that game.


 :clapping sick of it!

Online YellowandBlackBlood

  • Long suffering….
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9492
Re: Frees For and Against Tally for the Season
« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2017, 07:53:40 AM »
And yet you can just run by the ball and not pick it up after an opponent has kicked it and it rolls towards the boundary with you showing no intent to keeo the ball in but it's your opponent that gets pinged for deliberate. Go figure!
OER. Calling it as it is since 2004.