that decision (I'll be the first)

[Moccha]

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 !!

Not us!

[Enrico_Misso]

Agree.
The Geish needs to provide two things
- confirmation that it was an incorrect call
- and guidelines on the correct interpretation of the rule

[kosifantutti23]

Not the worst decision I've ever seen. Joey didn't go straight up the ground and he didn't look for a team mate, so the umpire is going to think he's kicking it towards the boundary.

I still can't work out the 50m against Riewoldt (not Gilbert, although I had to watch and listen five times to work that out)

[degruch]

Out-f******-rageous.

Apparently we have to kick to the opposition's advantage, or risk a free kick. And, of course, NOW they announce they are getting tough on DOB.

AFL UMPIRES manager Jeff Gieschen has backed a deliberate out-of-bounds call against St Kilda's Leigh Montagna at the Gabba on Thursday night, even though the midfielder's kick gained around 60 metres for his team.

Montagna gathered the ball in the Saints' defensive 50 during the third term and looked up to see a wall of Brisbane Lions opponents.

He kicked long towards the half-forward flank, and the ball skidded over the boundary line, aided by a greasy surface.

Gieschen explained that Montagna's intent, not the distance the ball covered, was the key question in assessing the decision.

The umpires boss therefore supported the field umpire in determining that Montagna was trying to get the ball out of play.

"It was a big call, there's no question about that," Gieschen said on his weekly afl.com.au show OPSM What's Your Decision?.

"Montagna picks up the ball and runs towards goals, but then he changes his mind a little bit when he looks up and sees no teammates in the vicinity.

"He could have kicked it through the corridor, but he elected to run out wide and then kick it as hard as he can to the boundary line."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Of course, did we expect anything different? Defending the indefensible once again.

[Mr Magic]

I look forward to seeing the consistency that this interpretation of the DOB rule will now be officiated with over the coming weeks.

I believe the umpires are being issued special 'headsets' to help them in their use of esp to determine players' mindset when disposing of the footy.

[Superboot]

Gieschen explained that Montagna's intent, not the distance the ball covered, was the key question in assessing the decision.

As we suspected, it all comes back to Gieschen's psychic powers

[Moccha]

Predictable! or as Eastern would write - predictable!!

[ozrulestrace]

For those who can remember "Happy Days" and the Fonz's inability to say the "wr" word and a whole episode devoted to the Fonz finally developing the ability to say "I was wrong"
Well, methinks the Geisch and the umps and the AFL have a similar complex and the inability to admit to an error.

In order to avoid the "wr" word they as an organisation could defend any poltical, economic, military, or criminal decision as long as they avoided having to say they were wrong.

What a joke!

[kosifantutti23]

Gieschen explained that Montagna's intent, not the distance the ball covered, was the key question in assessing the decision.

As we suspected, it all comes back to Gieschen's psychic powers

Isn't that what the deliberate rule is all about? If the umpire can't make a decision on intent, he can never pay deliberate.

[Moccha]

Again I need to ask the Geish what the lotto numbers will be for this week.

What a card this guy is.

[Dr Spaceman]

Again I need to ask the Geish what the lotto numbers will be for this week.

What a card this guy is.

Watch the replay and turn the audio right up.

As Joey kicks the ball he is heard to say "where the f*** is the forward line"

Obviously the ump misheard this and thought he said "where the f*** is the boundary line"

[bergholt]

here's what i posted way back on the first page of this thread. it still holds:

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.

[matrix]

gwilt gathered the ball on the weekend, under a little pressure and instead of trying to get a handball or quick kick down the line he just waltzed over the boundary line.

deliberate as all f***
obviously no free

joey kicks one trying to gain distance, 40 plus meters towards the boundary line, to gain distance and hopefully someone will run onto it

free paid, deliberate

wanker decision
by a wanker umpire
backed up by a wanker head umpire

[Superboot]

Gieschen explained that Montagna's intent, not the distance the ball covered, was the key question in assessing the decision.

As we suspected, it all comes back to Gieschen's psychic powers

Isn't that what the deliberate rule is all about? If the umpire can't make a decision on intent, he can never pay deliberate.

Well, that's true.

I remember a game a couple of years ago when Max Hudghton tried to punch the ball through for a behind, but miscued with the ball hitting the behind post. You know what I'm going to say next, don't you?

This one came down to basic maths, rather than psychic abilities viz.:

Deliberate + out of bounds = deliberate out of bounds

I wonder what they'd do with one of Gram's shanked kicks?

[Johnny Member]

Gieschen explained that Montagna's intent, not the distance the ball covered, was the key question in assessing the decision.

As we suspected, it all comes back to Gieschen's psychic powers

Isn't that what the deliberate rule is all about? If the umpire can't make a decision on intent, he can never pay deliberate.

Yes, you are correct.

It should solely be about intent and in that regard, I have no issue with the umpire making that judgement call (although I disagree with it).

To assume it was his sole intent shows a lack of football awareness, so I think the umpire got it wrong. But hey, that happens.


My issue with this decision, is once again with the AFL and their bending of the rules, and their blatant lying about it. And on top of that, the stupidity that constantly gets shown in regards to setting the rules of the game.



Montagna did the only thing he could have done in that situation. Any football watcher with half a clue would realise that it was not an option to kick it directly to 4 Brisbane players. Nor was it an option to hold onto the ball whilst under pressure.
The best thing for him to do, was to kick it long and wide into the only space in front of him - which is what he did.

Remember, he has no obligation to keep the ball in the play according to the law.
There is also no law that says if the ball is accidentally kicked out of bounds, then you get pinged.

Dare I say the umpire, if interpreting the law as it's written would have probably come to the same conclusion.

But the problem is that he wasn't doing that. He was following orders from the AFL to 'clamp down' on it. I take the term 'clamp down' to mean 'throw out the rule book and ping blokes for not attempting to keep the ball in play and ping them for accidentally kicking the ball out of bounds'.


What Geischen is saying, is that the rule has now changed without anyone being made aware of it.

One of two things have happened here (or perhaps both)...

1) The rule has been altered to make players obligated to keep the ball in play.
2) If a player accidentally kicks the ball out of bounds, then he is now going to be penalised.


My question is when did the rule change? And the next question is, why did the rule change? And, who else outside the AFL headquarters knows about it?
And finally, can you please stop changing the f****** rules of the game and simply apply some common sense?

[Eastern]

Predictable! or as Eastern would write - predictable!!

Exactly !!

[Life Long Saint]

The latest publicity shot of the Giesh!!!