All of the above arguments are completely valid.*
I still thought it was a very poor decision from Spurr. With the deliberate rushed behind a hot topic of debate, esp. after the Mackenzie one from the week before, it was obvious that the umps would be gunning to show that they're on top of the rule. I wasn't in the least bit surprised when, rightly or wrongly, the deliberate was called. I already had my head in my hands before the whistle went to mouth.
*In fact, watching the vision again, I don't think Mackenzie was under less pressure than Spur. With Spur there were three Freo players (inc. Spur) to one Richmond player, whereas Mackenzie had three St Kilda players right on his tail, and all four running at high speed.
I considered Mackenzie's an obvious deliberate, but really, according to the rule as it currently stands, which gives benefit to the defender and has pressure as an exonerating circumstance, it was fine to pay it as a rushed behind. According to that same rule, Spur's should also be considered a legitimate rushed behind.
No doubt, therefore, that the umpires have been massively inconsistent here, and are pushing the interpretation of the rule closer to the deliberate OOB rule, where there's an onus on the player to keep it the ball in play. But I still think Spur was taking a massive risk in kicking it through, given all the coverage the Mackenzie (and other) case got. Supposedly, the umpiring department even sent a memo to clubs explaining that they'd "got it wrong" on those earlier instances.
