@mjhenderson84 Just flicked it back on - saw a block/Shepard/impediment (Gawn on Lycett) +20m from a marking contest directly in front of ump, no free.
As expected, BS interpretation, it won’t last.
@mjhenderson84 Nope, connected that free kick to the media beat up around Daicos + workplace bullying and figured the AFL is doing their temp rule interpretation change BS to ‘address it’ and turned it off.
@mjhenderson84 Yes we can. In fairness to this game, this ump should be calling ALL intentional contact outside 5m a free. Doubt that occurs.
That free is a step change from the previous interpretation, a knee jerk reaction to the BS surrounding Daicos being roughed up.
Fair play, move on…
@mjhenderson84 *intentional.
That type of play/block occurs 10’s of times a game, paying that as a free kick is not how that interpretation has been made historically.
But if we are to be literal, as you suggest has taken place, let’s call ALL intentional impeding contact outside 5m, a free.
@mjhenderson84 Okay, whilst we’re being literal in this rules interpretation, let’s watch the game burn as all international contact outside 5m, in an attempt to impede, is to be called an opposition free kick. That’s what you’re saying.
This ain’t netball, contact is a fair part of the game.