Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

[Hotpotato]

Yep, exactly Liz, the rule sucks big time and the penalty of a gift goal is bloody ridiculous.

[Scottee]

I agree. I was far more concerned about the ridiculous Aliir free kick to Boyd and the inconsistent interpretation of HTB than that one.

What gets me is the blatant throwing that doesn't get pinged. Upward scoops are being used on a regular basis. I clearly remember Mike Pyke being pinged in front of goal for an upward scoop and the umpire explaining that it was a throw. Since when was anyone informed that it's suddenly OK?

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Steve]

Picken played it perfectly, I think it was just his footy smarts more than any specific briefing or coaching - slowed up enough to gave the ump the opportunity to say 'not under immediate pressure', but close enough so that he would have pounced had Mills taken possession.

Mills suffered from appearing a bit too casual in punching it through - part of that is probably the fact he's a smooth mover, and knocked it through confidently (thinking he was OK to do so).

I just don't like rule/interpretation changes where they're basically saying 'just disguise it better' - same thing applies with HTB and 'making a genuine effort'.

I think we can coach our guys a lot better though - Zak Jones was a classic example where you just have to make a fake attaempt to get the ball out, and the ump will ball it up.

I also think an area we've suffered in is when players have been caught in a good tackle, trying to either to get an unlikely disposal away, or letting the ball drop out - clearly pinning hopes on being seen to have made an effort or not holding it in.

These days, in those situations, you're actually better off keeping hold of it and trying to con the umpire that you just couldn't get it out. You'll still get pinged plenty of times, but that is one area the Bulldogs have got away with quite a few.

[mcs]

The longer this discussion goes on, the more misgivings I have about this new interpretation, irrespective of whether the free against Mills was the intention of the new interpretation.

When Mills was closing on the ball, Picken was close by. In the second or so that it took Mills to reach the ball (ahead of Picken), he had no time to turn around, make an assessment of where Picken was, and whether he was sufficiently close to apply actual physical pressure as soon as Mills took possession. Bear in mind how HTB is now being adjudicated. Had Mills taken possession and been immediately tackled by a Picken who had chosen to pursue him with more vigour (and Picken most certainly has the pace that would have enabled him to do so), what are the chances that he'd have been pinged anyway.

The combination of these new interpretations acts against the player who makes the ball his primary objective, and who gets to the ball first. That, to me, goes against the spirit of the game I love to watch.

As you always seem to do, you eloquently sum up my concerns about the interpretation as well. Especially given the role that 'perceived pressure' has in modern day footy. How often do you see players, when their team is under the pump, make errors and the like as a result of pressure they think is there, but is not in fact actual physical pressure.

I dislike the rule as it so heavily relies on interpretation, and could be made objective if they chose to do so. But your points about acting against a player that makes the ball his primary objective is an important one. I think the gradual erosion of 'prior opportunity' is going to have a similar effect in regards to HTB.

[Meg]

Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

The longer this discussion goes on, the more misgivings I have about this new interpretation, irrespective of whether the free against Mills was the intention of the new interpretation.

When Mills was closing on the ball, Picken was close by. In the second or so that it took Mills to reach the ball (ahead of Picken), he had no time to turn around, make an assessment of where Picken was, and whether he was sufficiently close to apply actual physical pressure as soon as Mills took possession. Bear in mind how HTB is now being adjudicated. Had Mills taken possession and been immediately tackled by a Picken who had chosen to pursue him with more vigour (and Picken most certainly has the pace that would have enabled him to do so), what are the chances that he'd have been pinged anyway.

The combination of these new interpretations acts against the player who makes the ball his primary objective, and who gets to the ball first. That, to me, goes against the spirit of the game I love to watch.

But Liz, Mills didn't make the ball his primary objective. His primary objective was to deliberately punch the ball through for a rushed behind . And that is illegal under Law 15.8.1.

I think I support the position that it has been reported Alan Richardson has suggested:

' .......... a deliberate rushed behind really is a black and white scenario: either you?ve deliberately rushed a behind or you haven?t. Pressure, as St Kilda coach Alan Richardson suggested this week, should not come into it.' .........

?When you?re a defender running back towards goal, it?s nearly the worst position to be in [to judge pressure],? Richardson told Fox Footy this week. ?He [Mills] would have felt like he was under pressure. I would adjudicate it like a boundary line so that there?s no confusion. Don?t worry about the pressure ? if an umpire adjudicates that it was deliberate, whether it?s that close or [further], that?s a free kick.?

Then it would be quite clear to defending players that they must try to clear the ball out of the goal square at all times.

Confusion over AFL rules a byproduct of policy on the run | Russell Jackson | Sport | The Guardian

[Ludwig]

The Swans should be taking acting lessons instead of wasting their time training footy skills.

[Meg]

I think we can coach our guys a lot better though - Zak Jones was a classic example where you just have to make a fake attaempt to get the ball out, and the ump will ball it up.

I agree.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I think we're getting diverted from the main issue here. The Mills free is debatable. The decision was disappointing but not a systemic error by the umpires.

What we really need to be discussing is the systemic bias that the umpires are showing against us in favour of the Bulldogs. A 2:1 ratio of frees when we are a team that is not only one of the best tackling sides (albeit not as good as we used to be), but also a team that that is usually first to the ball, is very concerning. Even more concerning is the fact that the umpires don't penalise them for borderline throwing the ball and penalise us for having no prior opportunity. Umpiring like this goes against the intent of footy; protect the player going in to get the ball.

[neilfws]

And I've never been an umpire but it looks to me like a pretty tough gig

Retired umpire speaks out. Uninformed criticism makes him so mad, throws chicken nuggets!

Why the AFL experts are wrong to bash umpires

And for those of you who like some stats with your free kick debate:

Footy Forensics Statistics what explains free kick counts 2017 AFL season

Oh look, may as well throw this one in too:

As AFL fans fume about free kicks, it's time to bust some umpiring myths - Sport - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[MattW]

I thought the 'perceived pressure' rule worked fine, and quite liked the skill of the defenders conceding in that scenario - you beat the attacker to the ball and you're rewarded with the option to concede a behind.

I was initially against the Mills free kick; the new rule looked ugly applied in that scenario with Picken's arms outstretched and harsh as it took the game away from us.

However, if players start taking no chances and seek to dispose of the ball in that situation, we might see some impressive skill as players keep the ball in. Further, those peeling off the chase, like Picken, will be penalised because they'll give the defender time to dispose of it, motivating them to keep running.

[dimelb]

Thanks for your research neilfws, those articles are well worth reading and give a somewhat different perspective to the umps' job.

[bodgie]

You can't really objectively blame the individual umpires. They are amateurs for @*^> sake. In semi-control of a bunch of hyper-trained professionals. Although in the heat of the mo they cop it and in individual cases sometimes deservedly in a subjective way!

You can, though, blame the system which the AFL has skewed towards a system of rolling interpretations that vary from umpire to umpire on the field at the same game, week to week and year to year and game to game. They have tinkered with all aspects of the game from rules to recruiting to manufactured teams so that it is in a bit of a mess. There appears no clear goal about where the game is going that makes sense to fans of teams in different states.

Millsgate is a classic controversy. A technically justifiable decision that shows unresolved conflicts with several rules in one instance, and the now questionable spirit of the game.

[Steve]

Regardless of everything else, that Jordan Bannister article highlights to me one of the greatest concerns.

There's just no way they're being honest with the umps if via their own assessment they're telling them they only make 2.2 errors per 400 decisions.

Probably also they're fudging those figures to make the umps feel good about themselves by including basic, obvious functions like calling play on or a ball up as a 'decision'.

It is doing the umps a disservice to tell them they're not making mistakes when they are.

They're obviously only addressing the howlers as mistakes, and bundling 'correct' and 'I can see why you paid that (but technically it probably wasn't a free, and/or you didn't apply that same interpretation consistently during the game)' into the one category of 'we won't call that a wrong decision'.

It is no doubt a tough gig, but the umps are paid $100K+ to do what is a part-time second job, so they can hardly play the 'I'm virtually just a volunteer' card to deflect scrutiny.

[Ludwig]

It is no doubt a tough gig, but the umps are paid $100K+ to do what is a part-time second job, so they can hardly play the 'I'm virtually just a volunteer' card to deflect scrutiny.

Is that true? Are umps really paid that much? Sounds like a great gig.

I may come out of retirement and give it a go. I'd be perfect for the job, because:

• I find the rules of he game confusing, and
• I'm biased

[liz]

But Liz, Mills didn't make the ball his primary objective. His primary objective was to deliberately punch the ball through for a rushed behind . And that is illegal under Law 15.8.1.

I think I support the position that it has been reported Alan Richardson has suggested:

' .......... a deliberate rushed behind really is a black and white scenario: either you?ve deliberately rushed a behind or you haven?t. Pressure, as St Kilda coach Alan Richardson suggested this week, should not come into it.' .........

?When you?re a defender running back towards goal, it?s nearly the worst position to be in [to judge pressure],? Richardson told Fox Footy this week. ?He [Mills] would have felt like he was under pressure. I would adjudicate it like a boundary line so that there?s no confusion. Don?t worry about the pressure ? if an umpire adjudicates that it was deliberate, whether it?s that close or [further], that?s a free kick.?

Then it would be quite clear to defending players that they must try to clear the ball out of the goal square at all times.

Confusion over AFL rules a byproduct of policy on the run | Russell Jackson | Sport | The Guardian

But the current (ie "new") interpretation doesn't ban players from deliberately rushing behinds. It just narrows the range of circumstances in which a player can deliberately rush a behind without being penalised. My reading (or listening) of the media discussion is that, had Picken been touching Mills, Mills would have been under actual physical pressure and thus would not have been penalised for rushing a behind. But it would still have been a deliberate act. So Richardson's suggestion that it is black and white whether a rushed behind is deliberate isn't reflected in the current interpretation.

And if we take it to extremes, how does one classify a ball touched on the goal line by a lunging defender? What is the defender's aim? To prevent a goal, but by the same token, it is to turn a goal into a rushed behind. So the defender's deliberate action gives rise to a rushed behind. How is that not deliberate?