Tweet
The Rohan decision is a perfect example of umpires NOT being able to correctly read players' minds. Anyone who knew a bit about the players and their abilities would realise that Rohan would've been trying to put the ball out in the open so that he could use his superior pace to get the ball without being pressured. Having it go out of bounds would've been the last thing he wanted! Not deliberate. No free kick.
-
Totally agree Scottee. Can't think of any other game where an umpire or referee is required to make an adjudication based on "what the player was thinking."
The Rohan decision is a perfect example of umpires NOT being able to correctly read players' minds. Anyone who knew a bit about the players and their abilities would realise that Rohan would've been trying to put the ball out in the open so that he could use his superior pace to get the ball without being pressured. Having it go out of bounds would've been the last thing he wanted! Not deliberate. No free kick. -
Exactly ... either we penalise all such infractions or none of them. Penalising some of them based on unknown "intent" causes controversy.
That's why we should consider penalising all of them the same.
Out of bounds on the full from a kick, handpass or ruck tap? Free kick.
Out of bounds without any other player touching it after a kick in? Free kick.
Out of bounds but not on the full after a kick, handpass or ruck tap with no other player touching the ball? Free handpass, all other players 10 metres away.
Out of bounds any other way? Throw it back in.
No intent required! Just penalise based on what happened. Not every umpire in the sport is endowed with AFL-level mind-reading skills."Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi finalComment
-
It's a good point. Stats don't tell the full story, but I think here they are reflect the fact that (to borrow from Paul Roos, or was it Max Barry?), a player's performance, like a team's performance is never quite as bad as fans make out, nor is it as good.
I think what's happening this week is a couple of things (a) fans are rating Rohan's game on the *potential* scoring opportunities he created. But the stats don't care about potential - they only care about what actually happened and in the end Rohan's involvement didn't put that many points on the board (b) the stats might be under-rating the value of Rohan locking the ball in the oppositions forward line and denying them use of the ball to generate their own scoring chances.
I think Rohan had an ok game. If he plays like that next week, he well might walk away with three goals and we'll all be saying "he's arrived". On the other hand, if we had lost on Friday by 2 goals, we might all be sitting here saying that Rohan's bad kicking cost us the game and he needs to go back to ressies.Comment
-
My question is....why do the AFL hate 'out of bounds' so much. It's not time wasting, they stop the clock FFS! Sure, it can relieve pressure and teams get time to man up while the throw in takes place but to penalise a team for last touch before OOB is just silly and unfair and way too harsh a penalty. The AFL would be far better to recruit umpires who have actually played footy, because it appears from their dumb performances that not many understand the intricacies and vagaries of general play.....and in a lot of cases, let the 'home crowd' make most of the decisions for them, except at the SCG of course! I believe the biggest problem with footy these days is the "Laws of the Game' commitee and the idiots who adjudicate those laws in games......there's too many 'grey areas' in the rules and the umpires have not got the awareness or game knowledge to separate the crap from the obvious. It's a blight on our game and constantly brings into question the integrity of the competition and those who run it.......because it just makes it too easy for a biased umpire to swing things a certain way, ie: cheat. You only have to look at last years GF to understand that.....Last edited by stevoswan; 2 July 2017, 12:50 PM.Comment
-
The problem is that watching 15 throw-ins in a row is boring, and without some sort of penalty for forcing the ball over the boundary, defenders are going to make that play nearly every time. The game will turn into one long session of "throw it in, hit it over the boundary 15m towards the other teams goal, throw it in, hit it over the boundary 15m towards the other teams goal etc".
I don't think recruiting umpires that have played the game will make the situation better. How do you know these umpires *haven't* played aussie rules? Maybe they are not AFL standard, but it's not like they have never played, and don't know the game and how to play it. They work with AFL players every week and know the game just as well as we do. They are not stupid.
I agree that there is too much left to interpretation and mind-reading though and would like to see the game made easier to officiate. It's far too easy to get calls when you have to read the minds of players.
Having said that, I'm going to say something very unpopular...I like the way the game is being umpired today.
Case 1 - Out of bounds/deliberate rushed behind rule. Players work hard to keep the ball in play now, which makes the game exciting, particularly when they have the ball against the goal-line. It gives the opposition a chance to win it. In the old days, if there was any pressure on a player in the goal square they would just handball it through for a behind and set up again. Or nearly as bad, bomb it out to the wing and hope it goes over the boundary. Now they have to run it out, or kick it under pressure so that it stays in play and there is a chance for both teams to win it. There is competition for the ball and the game is "live", rather than just being a more-or-less dead ball situation.
Case 2 - Holding the ball is dead. Good. I for one am glad it's gone. "But you have to reward the tackler!" I hear you cry. Here's a newsflash. Very few tackles these days are rewarded with a HTB free kick...and yet teams go on tackling! Coaches get upset if their team is not tackling enough! Are they stupid? No. Tackling is a big reward already - it stops the player running and it puts pressure on the disposal. The fact that we don't have to stop play every time there is tackle makes the game more exciting to watch. When Kennedy crunches someone and the ball comes bouncing out from a dinky little kick for Parker to contest then that is great. I'd much rather watch that than see a free kick which stops play so that the opposition can set up and he can bomb it on the head of our forwards. (Even better is when Zak Jones runs 10m, gets tackled and bobbles out a little handball as he goes down that a teammate swoops on to score).
So although the Rohan call was clearly wrong, as was the no-call against Gawn, I'm happy to suck it up in the interest of having a great game to watch. Incidentally, although Rohan clearly didn't want the ball to go out, what will be the effect of the call against him? Next time he's in that situation, he will focus on kicking it as short as possible, keeping, at the risk of not having time to win the foot-race. The ball will be in play and we'll get to watch an exciting contest. I like that.Comment
-
I want to watch exciting, fast play too but I prefer it to be played with a fair result at the end. Would you like a close GF decided by a dubious OOB call or heaven forbid a "it went off you so the opposition can now win the most important game of the year with a non deserved free kick and stuff it whether you were the better side on the day or not" mandatory call......?? I know I wouldn't....and your call on Case 2 is a little misguided, as the ball spilling out doesn't always end up in the hands of the team who did the initial tackle. I like the 'no prior opportunity' rule and the fact that if you do have prior and hold on to it or illegally dispose of it you get pinged. If it spills out in the tackle (with no prior), yes play on and keep the game moving. A 50/50 contest deserves a 50/50 outcome. Sure, tackling is a pressure tactic but does need to be rewarded every now and then, especially if you've tackled well enough to stop the other player from kicking or handballing, ie: disposing of it legally.Comment
-
I don't. I get that after the Carlton game and Mills' roughing up, we've had to learn how to fly the flag and the youngsters seem to have taken this up particularly, but all this action did was enable the umpire to award a cheap free to the least deserving player on the ground.
I also don't approve of Papley's "dog act" comments - this is not his job and these types of remarks have a way of coming back and biting you on the ass, especially when you tend to sail close to the wind like Tom.
I love the chap but one of the leaders needs to be having a quiet word with him about boundaries.Comment
-
Same as the free against Buddy on Rance - you can't push a player off his feet at any time.
But I agree with others that the umps could have had a better feel for the situation and said to Bugg "just get up, that was pretty tame in light of what could have happened to you". They are obviously sensitive to retaliation escalating an incident, the whole 'third man in' thing, but I still think they could assess it in the broader context of the situation (even more so when it doesn't create an all-in).
I thought the umpires should have been quicker / more proactive in moving things on - they are actually very fortunate that Papley's push was the worst of the retaliation. There was obviously always going to be some push-and-shove, but you're asking for worse to occur by letting everyone come in. It only takes 1 ump to make the report and deal with that side of it, the others can keep the game going.Comment
-
That's problematic because it means if a player touches another player and they fall down it's an automatic free. The belief was that Rance could have stayed on his feet but chose to take a dive to milk a free.
Players shove each other all the time. It's surely up to the umpires to determine whether the force involved warrants a free kick. Otherwise players will fall down every time and be rewarded.
I think Barry has a point in that there is a disconnect between how the game is umpired and how fans like us expect it to be umpired.
Deliberate OOB is one where we expect the umpires to think about the players intention but they clearly don't or they never would have pinged Gaz.
Holding the ball is another. In the GWS v Geelong game, Whitfield (I think) got tackled and dropped the ball toward his foot but missed and effectively dropped the ball = incorrect disposal. My view of it is that's holding the ball, but the umpire clearly explained that if you have no prior opportunity and make a "genuine attempt" (and don't actually throw it), it's not HTB, even though there has not been a correct disposal.
It feels like these interpretations need to be explained more clearly including to the commentators.Comment
-
AFL is actually the sport which least hates the boundary. In almost all other sports, last touched it gives the ball up.
Back on mind reading, are the mind readers on here absolutely sure Rohan didn't want a boundary throw in, stoppage which the swans love. I don't seem to recall that even if he got it there were any options up forward.
- - - Updated - - -
If you think about it, rohans optimal play was to kick it close to the boundary, such that he could use his speed to get their first, but if no options he could be tackled over the line for a ball up.Comment
-
On another topic relating to the game, why is Callum Mills being targeted so much? Does he mouth off and unduly annoy his opponents or is he just subject to bullying by the big 'he men'?Last weekend in Sept 05 - The best weekend of my life!Comment
-
I'm no expert but I think a couple of things are happening with Callum.
1. He is a Rising Star, in every sense, and that arouses envy in the opposition. Down with the tall poppy! (And he is indeed a very tall poppy - ours!)
2. He is a very good footballer and if an opposition can bring him undone in any way, at any level, they'll have a go. Think us shutting down Johannisen, and being copied by every team since.
I think he is already good, and is possibly going to be a genuinely great footballer. He is very determined and will, with the help of his mates, find a way through.He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
He is seen as a key playmaker for us and young so an easy target for some attention to distract him from his game. Already a very good player who reads the play beautifully, will be a gun.
After ScumBugg gets 6 games suspension, I reckon Mills won't be quite so targeted!Comment
Comment