North await AFL's word on incident

Once a Defender handballs the football through the goals it is prima facie a free kick unless the umpire is satisfied it was unintentional or is uncertain or in doubt. Hayden Kennedy said Firrito did not use a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. Then he was tackled in the goal square at the kick off line. He then strongly handballed the ball 8-9 metres to and several metres beyond the Goal Line. The strength and length of the handball was seen as deliberate and intentional. Hence a free kick was awarded. To me, it appears clear that Firrito like many coaches, players and spectators did not know and understand the rule. He did not try to disguise his intention to give the umpire a valid reason not to award a free kick. A player takes a big risk if he handballs the ball through the goals.

It seems that there's an aspect of the distance involved - that because Firrito was near the top of the goal square that the distance of 8-9 metres was a key factor. Surely being tackled was a key factor too. The behind the goals video they show on 'Whistle blowers' shows McKenzie and Tarrant under the general flight of the ball - that's vicinity ticked for me. Hayden Kennedy talked very much about 'Justin' (Schimitt) and his decision making with respect to the free - the use of the very distinct 3rd person showed that he wasn't hanging him out to dry necessarily, but, wasn't entirely commending the free kick either i.e. by indicating that the outcomes of 'Justin's decision making was what 'WE' would apply normally. Generally on this sort of free kick - we really want the umpires to be looking for reasons not to pay it. This rule serves a purpose to avoid the time wasting rort - the effective shot clock style rort that Hawthorn exposed. This rule did not - I suggest - intend to penalise Firrito in this situation. Umpires perhaps need to be educated on the 'spirit' of this rule. Other frees kicks - head high and in the back - go for your life and be over officious if you must.

gameofmarks,, I have just read your 7.25pm post. Where do you find the AFL's videos on the Rules of the Game? These videos are not the Rules. The statement to which you refer is, in my opinion, in conflict with the actual Rule. There is no basis in the actual Rule to support the Video Statement which adds the words "when not under immediate pressure (is being tackled or about to be tackled) from the opposition". There is no basis in the Rule for adding those words to amplify or explain the words "the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender" that actually are included in the Rule. The normal rules of interpretation require the Rule to be interpreted on its own without adding extra words. When viewed this way the "benefit of the doubt" clearly is intended to refer to the word "intentionally". So, if an Umpire has doubt whether the Defender's action was intentional then he should not award a free kick. The proper question every time is whether or not the action of the Defender was INTENTIONAL. If the action was unintentional there is no free kick. If the Umpire is unsure whether the action was intentional then the benefit of the doubt applies and there is no free kick. Only if the Umpire is satisfied that the Defender's action was intentional should a free kick be awarded. Whether or not the Defender is under immediate pressure or is about to be tackled or is being tackled is not the determining factor. If the Defender is under pressure there are no words in the Rule that would justify the Defender intentionally handballing the football over the Goal or Behind Line. In my opinion the Video Statement is clearly in conflict with the Rule and should not be followed.

And also refer to the AFLs videos on the Rules of the Game. The video on Deliberately Rushed Behinds states clearly in writing the following: A free kick shall be awarded against a player from the defending team who intentionally kicks, handballs or forces the football over the attacking team’s scoring line when not under immediate pressure (is being tackled or about to be tackled) from the opposition. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender. Seems pretty clear to me and Firrito should not have been penalized. Seems the umpires are making the rules up as they go along.

Pumping Dougie, Thank you for your 5.21pm post. I think many AFL supporters think they know the Rules. Also many of the players think they know the Rules. When I was watching the Kangaroos game on TV I was mildly surprised by the umpires decision. (Incidentally I have since watched a replay closely several times including pausing the action.) On reflection I think that was probably partly because I thought players, and Firrito in particular, would know the Rules. I was late joining the debate on this subject. After thinking for a while it occurred to me I did not know the Rules with precision. Bit like the Road Rules. I had a look on the Internet and found the rules under the name "Laws of Australian Football 2016". I now suspect some AFL coaches and many players don't know the Rules fully. Clubs should remedy this. Firrito's ignorance cost his team an easy goal and a bad start to the game.What should he have done? I think there were three other North players in the vicinity. He should have tried to kick the ball clear or handballed towards one of the other North players. It is interesting that Rule 15.6.1 (c) relating to intentional out of bounds does not include a "benefit of the doubt" element like Rule 15.7.1 intentional or rushed behind.

scrolling

D Fitz, good post. I've never seen this relatively new rule in print before. I agree with you 100%. Based on how the rule is written, Firitto's actions clearly meet the criteria and warrant a free kick. But I always thought (at least based on how the media reported this rule, introduced 6 years ago) that the defending team was allowed to rush it through if under genuine pressure. Clearly the rule doesn't support that. So I'd suggest the problem here is in how the rule has been communicated by the AFL and the media to clubs and the public, not in the umpire's interpretation of it.

Hi PB, I set out to respond to some of your observations but I hit the wrong key again and its gone into the ether. I give up. You make many valid points and it's becoming both hard to umpire and hard to follow umpires. 1. Firrito was not entitled to any benefit of the doubt because the Umpire concluded he INTENTIONALLY sought to concede a behind. No one, Firrito included, has suggested he did not intend to concede a behind. 2. Benefit of the doubt relates to the defender's intention. The other aspects you mention are not mentioned in the Rule. 3. The Rule exists and should be applied all season or deleted or modified. But deletion would invite abuse by defenders. I agree there is muddled and confused thinking and muddied water. Someone like you should be on the Rules Committee. The Committee should issue a paper and allow people like us to comment. I enjoyed reading your contributions

D Fitz - nicely put - 'additional detailed posts'......rather than 'rambling rants'. :-)

I typed another detailed post but hit the wrong key and lost it. Essentially I think Rule 15.7.1 is quite clear. A defender is not permitted to INTENTIONALLY concede or rush a behind. I think the AFL statement is wrong when it says " “If he (Firrito) was closer to the goal, the umpire probably doesn’t pay it." Whether Firrito is closer to the goal is irrelevant. The determining factor is whether Firrito's action is intentional. Watching Firrito it was clear he intended to concede a behind so the free kick was correctly awarded. If Firrito was closer to the goal and did the same thing it would still be clear he intended to concede a behind so a free kick would still apply. If Firrito had intended to handball to Tarrant no free kick should apply even if the ball went through for a behind. The Rule requires the umpire to determine the defenders intention. He can only do this by interpreting the defenders actions. In Firritos case I think it was very clearly his intention to concede a behind . But in a case where the umpire is in doubt the Rule says no free kick. I have not seen Firrito or anyone else say he did not intend to concede a behind. When I made this post I was not aware of PB's additional detailed posts.

Listening to Hayden Kennedy on 'Whistle Blowers' he's come out trying to support Schmitt but as Nat Edwards mentions that Firrito is being slung around in the tackle and with 2 North players (Tarrant and McKenzie) in the vicinity that that combined with the pressure of being tackled should constitute an activation for benefit of the doubt. Kennedy then admits he acknowledges the arguments for and against. And then states they've only paid 6 of these frees this year. Which effectively admits that given the capacity to mount a strong case against the free then it really shouldn't have been paid. What is annoying is that after the false deliberate call on Luke McDonald (rnd 6 v Doggies) that Hamish Hartlett got the benefit of the doubt running the ball over the line on the wing (why didn't the field ump confer with the boundary ump??).

D Fitz: There's about 3 points around this. 1. why was Firrito 'not entitled to any benefit of the doubt'? 2. what is the 'benefit of the doubt' supposed to consider? The intentionality? Or the amount of pressure applied? The number of options available? 3. we haven't seen a call like this all season. So - why start now. And if the umpires in that game deemed his effort intentional then why was Hartlett allowed to run the ball over the line further up the ground without penalty (clearly an umpiring error?) - which highlights the muddled and inconsistent approach by the umpires who seem confused themselves on this one as well as the 10 metre exclusion zone. What we have to be careful with is the calls from some ill-educated commentators/observors for the rule around the ground to be applied the same along the goal line. Do that and a defender is no longer able to make a despairing dive to knock through a bouncing ball that is headed for the goals and force it as a touched behind - - because along the boundary that would be a deliberate free every day of the week. So - make the call now - a universal rule or not? Can defenders still try to deny a goal. There are many now who also want the spoiler who punches the ball out of bounds to get pinged as well. Sadly - we are rapidly moving towards a 'last team touched it' gives away a free in the style of basketball or soccer. Do that and we will lose parts of our game that are already under threat. 1. ruckmen. 2. stoppages/set plays 3. and this is already happening - the contest for the ball. Players are already pulling out of the chase and the arms up appealing for a free kick is an ugly blight on the game this season in particular. We must keep mindful on our boundary line policing that we do NOT have a rectangular field. Nor a round ball. Our curved boundary line is a curse for defenders who try to clear the ball (gain territory) to the most neutral territory. Ironically forwards will often be happy to draw a boundary throw in in the fwd pocket rather than risk only scoring a behind and turning it over and that is so rarely paid deliberate. We also have a requirement that a tackled player must move the ball on. In the case of Firrito he took on the defender, burned his prior opp card, and executed a legal disposal as is his primary responsibility. Unfortunately while some umpires talk of the players 'sole intention' being to put it over the line - in this case - why tackled, his primary requirement is correct disposal. The effect of that is secondary - so long as he doesn't kick it out on the full. Firrito has spun around to where he knew a team mate to be only to see Schulz blocking Tarrant so what should Firrito do given the tackle time is fast running out for him. This is where the 'benefit of the doubt' kicks in. For the AFL press release to bring into it an irrelevance of "He had an option or two before he was tackled" is deflective. Nowhere does the rule talk about prior opportunity as playing any part. Let alone - that it's only because his first efforts were to keep the ball alive and away from the goals that he got tackled. So - no idea why the presser mentions options prior to being tackled.

Problem is - Tarrant at that point was behind Schultz so he's gone over the top of his opponent - he can't just hold onto the ball in the tackle, and he can't be expected to have to handball to an opponent in their goal square.

When all else fails we should actually refer to the relavent law of the game namely 15.7.1 repeated below: DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHIND 15.7.1 When Awarded A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender. Well Firrito as a defender intentionally handballed the football over Port's Goal Line or Behind Line and he was not entitled to any benefit of the doubt. So the umpire correctly awarded a free kick to Port. If Firrito had intentionally handballed the football in the same way but over the Boundary Line next to the Behind Post a free kick would have been awarded so there is no significant difference in what Firrito actually did.

Okay - The AFL released a statement backing the decision. “He (Firrito) was at the top of the goalsquare, he handballs with real force three to four metres over the line. He had an option or two before he was tackled,” it said. “If he was closer to the goal, the umpire probably doesn’t pay it. “It was quite a distance from the goal line and the umpiring department are happy with the decision to pay it.” I'm wondering what the option or two before he was tackled were. Perhaps a handball to Tarrant on the goal line?? Perhaps do like Hartlett did around the boundary latter on and just run the ball straight over as that seems to get the umpiring tick more often than not. The notion of taking on a tackler shouldn't come into it. He's done that initially rather than rushing a behind after all. Once tackled then the 'prior opportunity' comes into consideration with respect to holding the ball - but - not for a deliberate rushed - surely. And the notion of deliberate is supposed to give benefit of the doubt to the defender. When being tackled the player has the primary goal of executing a legal disposal. He did that. This is what annoys me. So long as he doesn't kick out on the full then move on.

I don't mind the bounce in the square idea. I think Firrito was unlucky, but I can also see where the umpire is coming from. Firitto could have put the ball anywhere he wanted and chose to handball over the top of an opponent to get a behind. He probably should have at least aimed the ball at Tarrant.

Alas this was a very, very experienced umpire who stuffed this one up - Justin Schmitt. How has he been briefed? Luke Ball is dropping the ball it appears. They started the year okay under Wayne Campbell.

A couple of commenters here have stuck to the topic - while others have opted for a 'bag North' approach. This free kick is an important moment for the AFL. If it is deemed correct then it's a game changer as there is no valid situation to force a behind if - while being tackled - that the handball still must not go over the line. This will mean the end of 'rushed behinds'. It can't not. Because - up to now 'pressure' was someone very close to you. In this case - Spud is being tackled and defenders all over the AFL world will tell you he did the right thing, get rid of it hard and strong for a behind because when you're tackled in front of goal you can't get too precious about it. As it was - Tarrant was near by but covered and McKenzie was in behind him but it (handball) went over his head - normally that meets the players in the vicinity test too. What I'm waiting for now is that players get pinged for deliberately tapping a bouncing ball through for a 'touched behind'. Because - that's as deliberate as anything. While this may sound silly the question on this is how far down this path do we go?? The key on this topic is the AFL rules created the incentive to rush a behind. Firstly the bucket of balls (not so much a rule) and 2nd the removal of the requirement to await the goal umpires waving the flags. Defensive sides would prefer to concede a behind many times compared to an out of bounds stoppage in the back pocket. Forward sides would rather hit the boundary than risk a behind. Teams go 'coast to coast' from kick ins - that's what the AFL wanted - and that's why a concession of 1 pt is little deterrent to many sides nowadays. So - the incentive is created and they AFL got made to look silly by Hawthorn in 2008. Perhaps the change that is required is that you don't get a kick in anymore?? Bounce at the top of the square instead? Perhaps - a rushed behind becomes a bounce at the top of the square in all cases - and a kick in for the attacking side missing. Remove the grey area.

I said it's unlikely things that had never happened in 2016 would repeatedly happen. How often do you expect things that have never happened to repeatedly happen?

Hey TWAS, I thought North were definitely going to be shoe in's against a bottom 10 team? I mean they hadn't lost to any this season. Who cares about the ABYSMAL form of North when you have that meaningless stat to base predictions on. Right? Right?