Round 10, Swans v Carlton.

[liz]

Bit of a shame the Channel 7 after match coverage concentrated on us probably losing two players to suspension AND 3 umpiring decisions that went against Carlton. (Have to admit the decisions were wrong.)

However, I couldn't give a damn! I'm on a high and will be till our next game. We beat the Blues - again! - and continued the great run we've had against them since those soulless vultures hovered over us and waited for us to die in the 90s!

GO YOU MIGHTY BLOODS!

Were the other two the insufficient intent oobs against Cripps and Curnow? They looked pretty regulation calls to me compared to how this highly judgement rule is typically adjudicated. I’ve seen plenty of more dubious calls made.

[Dow]

I would love Buller to get the next 3 weeks in the seniors to see if he is worth persevering with

[imuninformedtwo]

I’m amazed at the suggestion Amartey isn’t guilty or there were mitigating circumstances. I love our players but that was a clear cut bump that got the head. Even if you allow for a slight diversion from the McInerney contact, the Blues player had already sidestepped towards Amartey, who had a single thing in mind.

As for McInerney, I love him to bits but he’s got to get it out of his game. To be honest, he wasn’t far off clipping Boyd high in the Amartey incident.

[UUaswan]

I’m amazed at the suggestion Amartey isn’t guilty or there were mitigating circumstances. I love our players but that was a clear cut bump that got the head. Even if you allow for a slight diversion from the McInerney contact, the Blues player had already sidestepped towards Amartey, who had a single thing in mind.

As for McInerney, I love him to bits but he’s got to get it out of his game. To be honest, he wasn’t far off clipping Boyd high in the Amartey incident.

Bumping is for amateur footy

In AFL, if you hurt them your suspended, if you don't hurt them you still don't have the ball

Sounded like Cox wasn't too happy about both of them.

Get a few back and lose a few, Make a winnable game difficult

[Sandridge]

Were the other two the insufficient intent oobs against Cripps and Curnow? They looked pretty regulation calls to me compared to how this highly judgement rule is typically adjudicated. I’ve seen plenty of more dubious calls made.

Yes, they were. Matthew Richardson was adamant they were the wrong decisions and thought that the calls were indicative of the umpires not having "a feel" for the game. He thought that Cripps and Curnow were just trying to make space for themselves to run onto the ball and questioned why those two players would want the ball to go oob for a 50/50 throw in when their team was losing and needed to attack.

[Kafka's Ghost]

Yes, they were. Matthew Richardson was adamant they were the wrong decisions and thought that the calls were indicative of the umpires not having "a feel" for the game. He thought that Cripps and Curnow were just trying to make space for themselves to run onto the ball and questioned why those two players would want the ball to go oob for a 50/50 throw in when their team was losing and needed to attack.

A similar call went against Sydney earlier in the game, when it was pretty clear the player wanted to run onto the ball. At least the umpires were consistent on this, even though they didn’t seem to consider the slippery conditions.

[liz]

A similar call went against Sydney earlier in the game, when it was pretty clear the player wanted to run onto the ball. At least the umpires were consistent on this, even though they didn’t seem to consider the slippery conditions.

If you're referring to the one I can recall (and you might not be, there may have been another), the loose ball was already much closer to the boundary line than in either of the Cripps or Curnow incidents. There were several players - from both teams - chasing the ball - and any one of them might have chosen to poke the ball towards the boundary line, either because they really were intent on taking it out of bounds or just because any player who made contact was bound to knock it out. Neither side was more or less advantaged by it going out, given it was close to impossible for the ball to stay in given the number of players around the ball. It was a Swan who poked it out, and the commentators immediately said words to the effect of "you can't get away with that" when Carlton were awarded a free. I didn't have a problem with the free kick in the general context of how the rule is applied. But it was no more egregious a knock out than the Cripps or Curnow incidents.

Now that I understand it was Matthew Richardson complaining, it makes sense. He's one of several commentators who seems to struggle with the concept behind several rules introduced since he stopped playing. He probably thinks it is meant to be for "deliberate out of bounds", rather than "insufficient intent to keep the ball in".

[Roadrunner]

If you're referring to the one I can recall (and you might not be, there may have been another), the loose ball was already much closer to the boundary line than in either of the Cripps or Curnow incidents. There were several players - from both teams - chasing the ball - and any one of them might have chosen to poke the ball towards the boundary line, either because they really were intent on taking it out of bounds or just because any player who made contact was bound to knock it out. Neither side was more or less advantaged by it going out, given it was close to impossible for the ball to stay in given the number of players around the ball. It was a Swan who poked it out, and the commentators immediately said words to the effect of "you can't get away with that" when Carlton were awarded a free. I didn't have a problem with the free kick in the general context of how the rule is applied. But it was no more egregious a knock out than the Cripps or Curnow incidents.

Now that I understand it was Matthew Richardson complaining, it makes sense. He's one of several commentators who seems to struggle with the concept behind several rules introduced since he stopped playing. He probably thinks it is meant to be for "deliberate out of bounds", rather than "insufficient intent to keep the ball in".

The problem is that this rule is so subject to interpretation, hence the controversy. Do we need another rule like the HTB which is so difficult to interpret with any degree of consistency? I think this oob rule needs a rethink. I don’t have a problem with the way it was- use it as a form of defence with a throw in. The umps can’t be relied upon to make these iffy decisions- in theory a wrong decision here can decide a game.

[liz]

The problem is that this rule is so subject to interpretation, hence the controversy. Do we need another rule like the HTB which is so difficult to interpret with any degree of consistency? I think this oob rule needs a rethink. I don’t have a problem with the way it was- use it as a form of defence with a throw in. The umps can’t be relied upon to make these iffy decisions- in theory a wrong decision here can decide a game.

I don't think the rule is any more subject to interpretation than most of the other rules we have in our game. My gut feel is that it's actually applied more consistently than, say, HTB, or high contact frees where a player contributes to that high contact, or any of the myriad of technical ruck rules that bewilder even the ruckmen, or holding in the contest, where a slight retardation 200m away from where the ball is at the time is more often paid as a free than when a player within half a metre of the ball is clearly retarded as he tries to chase and collect.

[MattW]

The problem is that this rule is so subject to interpretation, hence the controversy. Do we need another rule like the HTB which is so difficult to interpret with any degree of consistency? I think this oob rule needs a rethink. I don’t have a problem with the way it was- use it as a form of defence with a throw in. The umps can’t be relied upon to make these iffy decisions- in theory a wrong decision here can decide a game.

I like the rule as it is now. I think it's generally clear when it will be called insufficient intent and I think it's called pretty consistently. It reduces fake fumbles / acting and encourages keeping the ball in play. I find the criticism of it pretty overdone.

[stevoswan]

Yes, they were. Matthew Richardson was adamant they were the wrong decisions and thought that the calls were indicative of the umpires not having "a feel" for the game. He thought that Cripps and Curnow were just trying to make space for themselves to run onto the ball and questioned why those two players would want the ball to go oob for a 50/50 throw in when their team was losing and needed to attack.

AFL umpires and the AFL as a league haven't had a 'feel for the game' for years now. It's so frustrating for fans to witness, especially fans who are former or current players who do know a thing or two about the game.

Let's face it, most umpires are failed players.

[stevoswan]

The problem is that this rule is so subject to interpretation, hence the controversy. Do we need another rule like the HTB which is so difficult to interpret with any degree of consistency? I think this oob rule needs a rethink. I don’t have a problem with the way it was- use it as a form of defence with a throw in. The umps can’t be relied upon to make these iffy decisions- in theory a wrong decision here can decide a game.

Most AFL rules are open to interpretaion.....which is what makes it so easy to basically cheat or be influenced by bias while adjudicating our game.

Most umpires come from Victoria, hence Swans fans frustration most weeks of the season.

[Kafka's Ghost]

If you're referring to the one I can recall (and you might not be, there may have been another), the loose ball was already much closer to the boundary line than in either of the Cripps or Curnow incidents. There were several players - from both teams - chasing the ball - and any one of them might have chosen to poke the ball towards the boundary line, either because they really were intent on taking it out of bounds or just because any player who made contact was bound to knock it out. Neither side was more or less advantaged by it going out, given it was close to impossible for the ball to stay in given the number of players around the ball. It was a Swan who poked it out, and the commentators immediately said words to the effect of "you can't get away with that" when Carlton were awarded a free. I didn't have a problem with the free kick in the general context of how the rule is applied. But it was no more egregious a knock out than the Cripps or Curnow incidents.

Now that I understand it was Matthew Richardson complaining, it makes sense. He's one of several commentators who seems to struggle with the concept behind several rules introduced since he stopped playing. He probably thinks it is meant to be for "deliberate out of bounds", rather than "insufficient intent to keep the ball in".

I was at the game, and the incident you’re referring to was probably too far away from my vantage point in the Brewongle Stand to accurately judge how close to the line the ball was when it was poked out. Totally agree regarding Matthew Richardson not appreciating the “insufficient intent rule”, and I’ll have to watch the full replay to hear what the commentators said.

[Kafka's Ghost]

According the “suppository” of wisdom on the AFL site, the Swans are too reliant on their midfield stars…as opposed to Carlton, whose midfield stars were comprehensively beaten, and lost the match. Or indeed, any other team in the competition. As far as I can see, every team is reliant on its midfield to get the job done in every game.

[UUaswan]

According the “suppository” of wisdom on the AFL site, the Swans are too reliant on their midfield stars…as opposed to Carlton, whose midfield stars were comprehensively beaten, and lost the match. Or indeed, any other team in the competition. As far as I can see, every team is reliant on its midfield to get the job done in every game.

So insightful arent they, id suggest Warner and Heeneys dependence would be lesser if Gulden, Mills and Paps were available

As we follow Sydney so closely you can see how bad some of the analysis is, then you think I wonder how many other teams they really dont have a clue about.

Lazy analysis