Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

[Matty10]

After ScumBugg gets 6 games suspension, I reckon Mills won't be quite so targeted!

I don't think that a suspension to Bugg will prevent other clubs from targeting Mills, but a strong on-field reaction from our players might.

Papley's reaction was not like the Hawthorn 'line in the sand' moment, but it may well have contributed to Bugg's poor performance that night and serve to illustrate to others that targeting one of the Swans will not be tolerated.

Teams stopped potting the Hawks when they realised they were up for any physical challenge. An understanding of the Swans resolve might help do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Velour&Ruffles]

You are expecting too much of the umpires.

The objective of that rule is to keep the ball in play. Rohans kick and Shaw's last night, didn't. Penalty is harsh, but fair (and good in my opinion). The commentators have a whine but they are dinosaurs.

1. I'm not expecting too much of the umpires. All I'm expecting of them is to consider whether a player INTENTIONALLY kicked the ball over the boundary line. That's exactly what the rules require them to do - no more and no less. As soon as they resort to your "pre-canned" cookie-cutter decisions they are ignoring the actual rule and failing to consider what the player's INTENTION was.

2. No, the objective of the rule is not to keep the ball in play. The objective of the rule - just read it, I reproduced it for you - is to stop players kicking or otherwise forcing the ball OOB INTENTIONALLY. It is not the same thing. Players are not obliged to do everything they can to keep the ball in - the rule doesn't say that. If they were obliged to do that, nobody could let the ball dribble OOB in front of them when they could possibly stop it .... yet we see that all the time, and players are not penalised for it. Players ARE obliged not to themselves INTENTIONALLY put it OOB - that's what the rule says.

[barry]

Same thing. The umps can't read minds. It's impossible. Once you get past that, you'll understand.

[Meg]

Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

Sorry to do this, but I'm going to introduce some actual facts here. The rule says:

15.6FREE KICKS ? RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
[I]15.6.1When Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
:
(c)intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line without the football being touched by another Player;[/I

V&F you have quoted the rule for 2016. It has changed for 2017 to say:
----------------------------
15.7 FREE KICKS ? RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS

15.7.1 When Awarded

A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:

........

(c) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the ball in play;
------------------------------

This still requires the umpire to make a subjective judgement ('sufficient intent to keep the ball in play') and personally I think Gary's desperate chase following the ball certainly was intent to keep the ball in play - but I can also see why the umpire might judge it was not 'sufficient intent' (as Gary had options other than to kick the ball forward).

So under the 2017 law I don't think it is as clear cut as you suggest.

[neilfws]

Watching this game really made me realise how much of our early season woes were simply down to key players carrying injuries or suffering poor preseasons. Jack, Parker, Hannebery back on song makes such a difference.

Thought McVeigh was pretty sharp on return too and Towers deserved credit for effort and some handy plays. Much better than the previous week.

Thought Melbourne wheeling Bugg out for the media was just rubbish. But not as rubbish as the C7 team "well that's alright then, he's suffered enough, can't we do the hearing early" suggestion. It's not like he's the first player to punch someone in the head. Let him suffer until Tuesday like everyone else, then give him his 6 weeks minimum.

Finals, who knows, but I'm enjoying this season a lot more than I thought I would 6 weeks in.

[DaveyCaper]

Australian football is not the only sport where umpires/ referees have to gauge intention. In baseball, if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, it is a walk but can be thrown out of the game if it is intentional. In basketball, intentional fouls have additional consequences.

The best related sport rule is a rule that has changed in (ice) hockey. It used to be a penalty if a player intentionally shoots a puck over the glass, which would occur if a team was being hemmed in their defensive zone. The rule was changed, however, that calls for a penalty whenever a team shoots the puck directly over the glass. I don't think there is something similar that could be put into footy. Even with this, there are still rules that hockey referees have to"read minds" - intentional offside coming to mind.

[dejavoodoo44]

Australian football is not the only sport where umpires/ referees have to gauge intention. In baseball, if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, it is a walk but can be thrown out of the game if it is intentional. In basketball, intentional fouls have additional consequences.

The best related sport rule is a rule that has changed in (ice) hockey. It used to be a penalty if a player intentionally shoots a puck over the glass, which would occur if a team was being hemmed in their defensive zone. The rule was changed, however, that calls for a penalty whenever a team shoots the puck directly over the glass. I don't think there is something similar that could be put into footy. Even with this, there are still rules that hockey referees have to"read minds" - intentional offside coming to mind.

Umm, I really don't know much about ice hockey, but would players shooting the ball over the glass, cause the occasional nasty injury in the crowd?

[Meg]

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'?

I agree with other posters' responses re Mills as a target because of his value to the Swans. But I also suspect Callum does have a bit to say out on the field and he is a physical player - not in a dirty, sniping way but in a niggling fashion that adds an annoyance factor.

If you look at the video footage from Friday night, Mills gave Bugg a forearm push off as Bugg was running past him, as both players were positioning themselves for the kick-in. Bugg retaliated with the punch to the jaw - absolutely no excuse for that but it wasn't out-of-the-blue.

Just as Houli's hit on Lamb last week was not out-of-the-blue and that didn't excuse Houli, I don't expect this will help Bugg in front of the tribunal.

[dejavoodoo44]

Watching this game really made me realise how much of our early season woes were simply down to key players carrying injuries or suffering poor preseasons. Jack, Parker, Hannebery back on song makes such a difference.

Thought McVeigh was pretty sharp on return too and Towers deserved credit for effort and some handy plays. Much better than the previous week.

Thought Melbourne wheeling Bugg out for the media was just rubbish. But not as rubbish as the C7 team "well that's alright then, he's suffered enough, can't we do the hearing early" suggestion. It's not like he's the first player to punch someone in the head. Let him suffer until Tuesday like everyone else, then give him his 6 weeks minimum.

Finals, who knows, but I'm enjoying this season a lot more than I thought I would 6 weeks in.

Yes, the commentators irked me as well. They seemed to think that Bugg and the Melbourne media team, were worthy of some sort of special regard, for performing PR 101.

[AnnieH]

Mills has been a target all year. The commentators think it was because he won the rising star.
I think it's because if he's negated, we have to work double to replace him.

19 behinds are 17 too many.
We should have won that game by over 100.

[Markwebbos]

I wonder if teams target Mills because they think it works i.e. He can be physically intimidated. Once one team "succeeds" every team copies.

Look what happened after we targeted JJ.

[Industrial Fan]

What's this @@@@?

The inference mr barry is that you are only adamant that The decision was right because your current troll target was the protagonist.

There is no point explaining to you why it shouldn't have been paid because your opinion is predetermined.

The one against shaw was fair enough. The response is always "what option did he have?" The point being the offense took away his options to the point that a long kick along the line was the best and only option.

I thought Melksham was unlucky in the same way that Naismith was the prior week for the blocking free that went to Newman. He was holding his position under the ball rather than pushing back to block the space. The only real alternative to that was to run right under the ball. If anything I thought Newman had infringed for an unrealistic attempt to mark / push.

[sprite]

Yes, the commentators irked me as well. They seemed to think that Bugg and the Melbourne media team, were worthy of some sort of special regard, for performing PR 101.

I felt MFC handled this poorly, should have had the Football Manager with him. Just read a prepared statement, "Apologising to Callum, Sydney, Melbourne club and supporters. As well as being prepared to cop his penalty". Simple no questions, he made a dill of himself when he tried to answer the questions. Simple really.

[Beerman]

Australian football is not the only sport where umpires/ referees have to gauge intention. In baseball, if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, it is a walk but can be thrown out of the game if it is intentional. In basketball, intentional fouls have additional consequences.

Basketball is an interesting case, and only some competitions have intentional fouls. (Note that in the NBA it is not enough for a foul to be purposeful, it must be excessive to be flagrant).

But in all the cases you mention, "intentional" is something that would come up rarely, unlike AFL.

The Rohan call was simply a mistake. I expect umpires to make mistakes - it's unavoidable.

I think they got the intentional call against the Bombers on the other side of the ground right, btw and it's a very fine line between those two situations.

[barry]

The inference mr barry is that you are only adamant that The decision was right because your current troll target was the protagonist.

There is no point explaining to you why it shouldn't have been paid because your opinion is predetermined.

Thats total BS. The converse is actually true. The AFL, umpires, commentators (excluding Carey) all agreed Rohans call was correct. Therefore the only ones debating it are the Rohan fanboi's who can somehow read his mind.

I also said the Gawn hitout should have been called a free too. Am I a gawn "troll target" too. Perhaps I'm also a "Shaw troll target" as well.
You are better than this childish BS, Industrial fan.

The one against shaw was fair enough. The response is always "what option did he have?" The point being the offense took away his options to the point that a long kick along the line was the best and only option.

The "what option did he have?" is no excuse. Geelong closed down all the attractive options, but he still had options.
And even if he didnt, the boundary is not an option.

It is quite possible that Shaw did intentionally kick it out 70m from goal knowing it would be a free kick, because with 10 seconds left, it was unlikely that Geelong could get a goal being 2 kicks out from goal.
... he was almost right!

I thought Melksham was unlucky in the same way that Naismith was the prior week for the blocking free that went to Newman. He was holding his position under the ball rather than pushing back to block the space. The only real alternative to that was to run right under the ball. If anything I thought Newman had infringed for an unrealistic attempt to mark / push.

- - - Updated - - -

Basketball is an interesting case, and only some competitions have intentional fouls. (Note that in the NBA it is not enough for a foul to be purposeful, it must be excessive to be flagrant).

But in all the cases you mention, "intentional" is something that would come up rarely, unlike AFL.

The Rohan call was simply a mistake. I expect umpires to make mistakes - it's unavoidable.

It wasnt a mistake, and no one from the AFL or umpire department has indicated it was a mistake. Where do you get this information from ?

I think they got the intentional call against the Bombers on the other side of the ground right, btw and it's a very fine line between those two situations.

Also Soccer has "simulation" as a penalty, where the referee has to determine if the player dived or was hit.