Now it's 'sufficient intent'

lostclarity
‘Sufficient intent’ may be the latest take on climbing god-like into a player’s mind to tell him what he thought as he put a ball out of play. It’s a tragedy when a football rolls out of bounds. Time for a god-like pronouncement on ‘intent’. No taboo operates when a ball is punched out of bounds to stop a mark; benefit of doubt applies to a rushed behind in a heated goal square. Both fair.

Movement of the ball through open flanks has always been a freedom, a feature of the game prior to the advent of the supernatural.
We live in an era where two football codes are now neck and neck. They have both invaded enemy territory as part of coveted, national ascendancy. The rugby generals must be laughing behind cupped hands as we Nero-fiddle with what used to be clearly the best game in the country. Let’s get back to truth, AFL. Aussie Rules has turned into Rules. The AFL tells us now how to see what we see for ourselves.
You need to Login to Post a Answer in the Forum

When Richmond were penalised against the Dogs late in the game for this. The biggest thing that annoyed me was (aside from killing off any chance of Richmond winning) the decision wasn't made as would be in a general play sense.

It was made based wholly on the context of the game situation at that particular time.

That same situation occurs at the same point in time in any other quarter, other than the last, its a throw in each time.

Talkback Forum

Racing And Sports offers our users the chance to get involved with spirited discussion about major racing issues on your Talkback Forum. They may include chatter about racing matters, issues relating to the website, sporting conversation, betting matters and more. Please be aware that Racing And Sports now moderates Talkback to ensure posting guidelines are adhered to. The views expressed on Talkback are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Racing And Sports. You must be a registered user to write postings or send messages to other users.

Latest Posts