For the second time in three rounds the AFL has come out and admitted its umpires made a bagful of mistakes in the matches just gone.
In round one it was a swag of 50-metre penalties against Richmond that gave Carlton a few more goals than they should have, and thereby messed up a lot of innocent punters who’ve tipped the Blues twice since, thinking they were actually half decent against the reigning premiers.
Now it’s the ‘insufficient intent’ rule, a rule so bound to fail that even its name suggests it doesn’t know what it’s about.
MORE: The Rover's top 10 underachieving AFL players | Crows struggling to re-sign free agent
The AFL came out on Tuesday and said they’d got it wrong three times, and when they admit to three you know it’s 11, especially when at least a couple of those they conceded were stuff ups can easily be argued to have affected the results of the matches they happened in.
I was watching Brisbane make an amazing comeback against ladder-leaders Port Adelaide, loving the pluck of a bunch of young kids playing on the road (not always a good thing, I should emphasise to parents out there).
The Lions had dragged themselves to within a goal with less than four minutes to play when Mitch Robinson thumped the ball out of mid air in the centre square, watched it sail a good 40 metres forwards and another 40 to the right, till it landed about a foot inside the boundary on its way into the crowd.
Mitch Robinson was penalised for this kick. #AFLPowerLions pic.twitter.com/iQ4VxKadG2
— AFL (@AFL) April 7, 2018
Whistle: “Tweet.”
Umpire: “Insufficient intent.”
Port Adelaide crowd: “What? We’ll take it, but …”
The Rover: “#&**% $@#* you *&@@$%.”
The next day I’m watching Geelong trying to hold off West Coast in the last quarter and it all happens again, but different, as Cat Jack Henry slips on the multi-billion dollar turf at Optus Stadium leaving a skid mark worth my annual salary.
Why’d he slip? Because he was doing as good a job as I’ve ever seen a defender do to turn around and actually stay in play after picking up the ball at full pace three metres inside the boundary line.
Whistle: “Tweet.”
Umpire: “Insufficient intent.”
West Coast crowd: “Take that, Victorian scum.”
The Rover: “#&**% $@#* you *&@@$%.”
This is ridiculous.
Both those decisions may have affected the outcome of the matches. West Coast kicked a goal and gained momentum, Brisbane didn’t and lost it.
This might sound stupid, but the rule worked better when it was called ‘deliberate out of bounds’.
Why? Because umpires had to decide if it was a deliberate action, plus we got to yell out “Deliberate!” which is a lot more suited to drunken rage than “Insufficient intent!”
But it’s the same thing, you say, but it’s not.
Then: “What did the player do?”
Now: “What could the player have done?”
If the umpire can actually work that out then it might not be so bad, but it’s such a complicated concept that it would take a jury of 12 men, good and true to get a fair judgement.
Mitch Robinson can’t think clearly enough to, in a split second, kick a ball out of the air to within a metre of the boundary from inside the centre square, and if he could then he’d be smart enough to know not to do it when his side has all the momentum.
But we know Mitch isn’t that smart.
Unfortunately neither are the rule makers.
