Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Superboot wrote:The elephant in the room, as Joffa puts it, is the concept of 'deliberate'.
Implies intent, and you'd have to be a mind reader to sort that one out.
Every other new rule brought in over the past 20 years requires the umpires to make an interpretation in one way or another. Last night's example was one of the best yet. Was Joey intending to put the ball out of bounds? Was he intending to do it and pretending not to? Brilliant effort if that's the case.
Bingo!!!
Unless the umps are The Great Luigi (for those that remember Hoges) then they shouldn't pay any deliberate OOB decisions at all.
It's time to scrap the rule as it causes more confusion than any other. 80m kicks that bounce a dozen times being called deliberate. What a joke. Every week you will see many examples of poor deliberate calls. The best one is when the player attempts the handball through the points but accidentally hits the point post. This is somehow deliberately out of bounds. The players intent was to concede a point not a throw-in. Idiots! The rule is fundamentally flawed. Time to go!
The AFL bring in rules to keep the ball alive and keep the speed of the game going then try to counter act that with another rule to slow it down. If a stoppage occurred every time the ball went out of bounds, you'd get your opportunity to slow the game down. There is no clear advantage to one team over another in this situation.
BigMart wrote:I someone seriously saying they called the maguane decision at the time, how one eyed is that....it was horrendeous, a mistake.....like last night...
Unlike last night, it changed the result of the game...
Hardwicks over reaction
It was a mistake, we cant worry about that, we cant control the mistakes by others, so why worry about that, we had opportunities....
Not.....very pragmatic
The McGuane decision was a joke and altered the result of the game. 9 seconds to go and he kicks and pushes the ball over the boundary from about 20m out with no attempt at all to keep it in. If it had been paid Gram would have been kicking for goal after the siren from 20m out. This was after less obvious ones had been paid against Blake and Gwilt in the last quarter.
There's a difference between a "soft" free kick and an absolutely ludicrous decision the cuts at the fundamental laws and structure and "feel" of the game. Gieshan (you know who Im talking about) is a dimwitted fool who is hopeless at his job and should have been sacked a long time ago. It's really quite simple: If you gain 50 or more meters in the kick, it's not deliberate. A kick of 50 or more meters toward your own goal is eqaul to a kick to a contest. If there are no other options and nothing to go to and a player bombs it forward and it goes out of bounds, it's not effing deliberate! The act of gaining territory ceases to make it deliberate. We all knew this as five year olds for frigg's sake!
Sainternist wrote:How on earth could that umpire justify such a poor decision? Joey wasn't even trying to kick the ball to touch, it took a crooked bounce, not to mention went about 80's metres down field before crossing the line.
of course he was trying to put it out. you could see him look up and then bang it as long as he could. that said, there's no way it should have been paid.
still, sooking about umpiring decisions is an even worse look when you win.
FFS, it's not a case of sooking about winning or losing. It's a question about the rule itself - how it is applied and how the umpires are interpretting it.
Jeez Louise... why can't people get that through their skulls?
I feel concerned for when the game is becoming more and more grey area come into the game after the rules committee keep making changes and unpires confuse in the process.
Curb your enthusiasm - you’re a St.Kilda supporter!!
If a ball is kicked towards the boundary and lands within a moderate distance (say 10m) of the line then it is fair to assume the intent was to kick it out of bounds - FREE KICK
But if the ball was kicked on a different line and then changed direction after a bounce to go OOB
or if the ball landed a long way short of the line (say 30m) but "luckily" kept bouncing and goes out - NO FREE KICK
The switchover point should be around 20m.
If the first bounce is 20m or more from the boundary then no free if it rolls out.
Doesn't need a rule change.
Just needs The Geish to show some common sense.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
Wasn't there a very similar decision that went against Akermanis in the 09 prelim? I think Aker's was a little more direct to the boundary. Either one was really more an attempt to buy time and space with the acceptance that OOB was a good result.
I really don't have a problem with the ruling as long as it's a consistent one. It discourages flooding numbers back behind the ball. It may not be deliberate in a literal sense, but I don't think a player who kicks beyond everyone is really taking the game on. I think Joey would have been quite happy to see it slip out.
(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;
All the 'criteria' that people talk about on here and in the media is uneccessarily complicated.
Did he purposely kick it out of bounds? If yes, then it's a free kick. Regardless of how far the ball goes, or how many players are around it or him.
If not, then it's not a free kick.
In this case, the umpire deemed that he did intentionaly kick it out of bounds.
I don't agree with the decision.
The issue here, is that apparently the Rules Committee have pressured the umpires to 'come down harder' on this rule.
What the f*** does that mean? They've asked the umpires to stop following a simple rule, and make up their own rules?
Does that mean the basic and simple rule and interpretation of:
(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;
has been changed to mean something else now?
Does it mean that previously the rule hasn't been followed by the umpires?
In Joey's case, he surely had the realistic intention of kicking it to space to buy some time for him and/or his mates to get numbers there.
His only other options were to kick it straight to a group of Lions players, or hold on to the ball whilst under pressure.
If you're following the rule properly, then I can't see how they could pay a free kick. I think to categorically determine he intentionally kicked the ball out of bounds is a wrong decision.
Obviously the rules committee have changed their minds and decided the ruling now is something along the lines of 'if he might have intentionally kicked it out of bounds'.
I wonder if they're planning on changing the rule book and/or telling anyone about this rule change?
Last edited by Johnny Member on Sat 23 Apr 2011 9:39am, edited 4 times in total.
joffaboy wrote:
Montagna had nobody at all to kick to so he threw it on the boot. It bounced some 20 metres inside the boundary and then went at right angles to just roll over the line.
How in f##ks name can that be called deliberate? And if that is the correct calling, every single kick in general play that goes over the boundary has to be called deliberate.
I agree.
The rule doesn't mention anywhere that the player has an obligation to keep the ball in play.
It simply and clearly says that he can't intentionally kick, handball or force the ball out of bounds.
So Joey was completely within his rights to kick it long to the only space on the ground that realistically gave his team any chance of maintaining possession - and that was the space on the outer flank that he kicked it to.
The fact that it went out of bounds (albeit an advantage to us) doesn't mean it was his intentionally put out of bounds.
Whether the decision is right or wrong there is one sure thing. The rule must stay. We have enough ball ins as it is. Imagine with the players skills today if we didnt have the rule. It would kicked out of bounds so much more. Argue about the decision but surely not the rule.
No one is arguing it was an error.....ridiculous call
What is being discussed is its relevence, and accepting the ump made a mistake and the generally make 1 howler a week
Its when that howler directly effects result, ala maguane.....is when it becomes a real issue....
Then the mistake has consequences have wider ramifications
We saw 5 saints kick out on the full thursday.....none have been highlighted in the news....poor mistakes....we saw Kade Simpson do it once and i have seen it 20 times afterwards......it had more significance.....
But it was still just a mistake.....simpson wont be at echuca this week
I don't think people are arguing that the rule should go. The decision seems to not stand in isolation at present but be a consistent new application as directed by the powers.
Interpretation can change the rule clearly as this would not have happened under last years interpretation.
If the AFL has identified that they have given instructions as to a tightening of the interpretation and it is highly visible then surely the rule has changed. they are inseperable.
I've never seen a bad St.Kilda player - that's just how they are.
I don't think people are arguing that the rule should go. The decision seems to not stand in isolation at present but be a consistent new application as directed by the powers.
Interpretation can change the rule clearly as this would not have happened under last years interpretation.
If the AFL has identified that they have given instructions as to a tightening of the interpretation and it is highly visible then surely the rule has changed. they are inseperable.
There is not a chance in hell that when the Rules Committee sat down to draw up this one that they ever perceived that a kick like Joey's should be penalised.
As plugger says, the rule is a good one. But regardless of any instructions to crack down on deliberates, this particular decision was just wrong.
The worst decision I have ever seen! I have never been so angry because of an umpires decision in a long time! The more annoying thing is, if it was collingwood they would have an apology by now, wheres ours?
Ricky Ponting was given out in his debut innings on 96......
Shane Warne out on 99, in what turned out to be a big no-ball....
Mistakes.....get over it....
We know umpires make them, we know its a tough job, hell a goal umpire could have cost us a gf with a mistake.....and that decision required no interpretation......
The beauty of sport is the ability overcome.....being a true sportsman is accepting the umps decision, fair or otherwise....
BigMart wrote:Ricky Ponting was given out in his debut innings on 96......
Shane Warne out on 99, in what turned out to be a big no-ball....
Mistakes.....get over it....
We know umpires make them, we know its a tough job, hell a goal umpire could have cost us a gf with a mistake.....and that decision required no interpretation......
The beauty of sport is the ability overcome.....being a true sportsman is accepting the umps decision, fair or otherwise....
I'd bet the AFL don't think it was a mistake at all.
I reckon that in line with 'cracking down on it', the umpire did precisely what he was asked to do.
That's my issue. Umpires make mistakes. No issue there.
It's the idiotic rules committee and the AFL that bothers me. Keep it simple for the umpires, and for the players.
I'm really surprised at the seeming consensus it was a bad call. I can see where the argument is, but I'm really surprised to see it being so vehemently argued by media as well as on here.
It was a kick to space, no St Kilda players within a country mile. Sure, it took a turn on it's way out of bounds, but it certainly wasn't a pass... it also had zero impact on the game. Brisbane was going to get that ball if by some miracle it had stayed in.
Can't say I would have been shocked to see the ump call a throw-in, but certainly wasn't surprised to see it called deliberate either. Wasn't surprised at all to see Saintsational didn't like it - but fascinated that the media for once agrees....
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
BAM! (shhhh) wrote:I'm really surprised at the seeming consensus it was a bad call. I can see where the argument is, but I'm really surprised to see it being so vehemently argued by media as well as on here.
It was a kick to space, no St Kilda players within a country mile. Sure, it took a turn on it's way out of bounds, but it certainly wasn't a pass... it also had zero impact on the game. Brisbane was going to get that ball if by some miracle it had stayed in.
Can't say I would have been shocked to see the ump call a throw-in, but certainly wasn't surprised to see it called deliberate either. Wasn't surprised at all to see Saintsational didn't like it - but fascinated that the media for once agrees....
I think the gist of the argument for it being a bad call was the fact that a ball that a player who kicks a ball that bounces fifty metres inside the line could hardly be expected to be deliberately kicking it out of bounds. If it pitches left, so be it. Bad call. Had no bearing, tho.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
Enrico_Misso wrote:Geishan needs to apply commonsense.
If a ball is kicked towards the boundary and lands within a moderate distance (say 10m) of the line then it is fair to assume the intent was to kick it out of bounds - FREE KICK
But if the ball was kicked on a different line and then changed direction after a bounce to go OOB
or if the ball landed a long way short of the line (say 30m) but "luckily" kept bouncing and goes out - NO FREE KICK
The switchover point should be around 20m.
If the first bounce is 20m or more from the boundary then no free if it rolls out.
Doesn't need a rule change.
Just needs The Geish to show some common sense.
If we think back to why the AFL felt the need to introduce this rule in the first place it certainly wasn't to stop this sort of thing.
Moccha wrote:I'm wondering if Geishen has tried to defend the umpire on this ridiculous decision?
He never defends the umpires, he just tells everyone else to go suck eggs. That's why they have such ground level support when they make a mistake...not!
Because of all the publicity, they'll probably have to explain the decision but because the round is so drawn out it won't be until Wednesday, and by that time most people will have forgotten about it !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
and from that kick, Lions took the ball down for a goal
