Deliberate out of Bounds

[am Bays]

Mate the intent of the rule is to keep the ball in play.

If in trying to rush a behind a player misses and it goes over the boundary line or hits the behind post bad luck free kick for deliberate out of bounds if it is not touched by another player....

His intent was to put the ball out of play, unfortunately his skill error meant he missed so while his intent wasn't to put it out of bounds it do go out of bounds...free kick

The laws of the game aren't perfect but that is how the law is.

It is like the new front contact law (15.4.5.(n) player B may not intend to touch a player A front on but because he is half a second late getting to the ball and contact is made above teh shoulder bad luck it is a free kick. He didn't intend to do it but contact was made above the shoulder from a frontal direction....

As I said I'm prepared to nominate you for the rules commitee to change the interpretation.

[smithy]

As I said I'm prepared to nominate you for the rules commitee to change the interpretation.

He'd make the bundy girls boundary umpires..

[Grahaml]

The rule is fine. And I think it's fair enough to be pinged for trying to rush a point and missing. The player's tried to take the ball out of the field of play on purpose, and should be penalised.

Handball in rule won't work. Imagine a player on the wing being given a "free handball". The opposition set up a zone within 25m or so (a player's usual handball limit) and there would be nobody in a position to get the ball. End result? A ball up 95% of the time, a free kick to someone the rest of the time. If you want to make a rule like this, it has to be a kick.

[Wedgie]

See that's where I have the issue, the rule isn't "deliberately putting the ball out of play", the rule quite clearly states that you shall not put the ball deliberately out of bounds.
Common sense says that if you're deliberately trying to put the ball through for a point then the last thing you are trying to do is put it out of bounds.
I wouldn't have an issue if the rule said you'll be penalised if you try to put the ball deliberately out of play but it doesn't, that's my point.
Common sense.

[redandblack]

I've also always thought that was a most illogical rule.

The very fact that you are trying to score a point invalidates 'deliberately' putting the ball out of bounds.

Given that a free is almost never paid in SANFL for deliberately out of bounds makes it even more ridiculous.

PS: Even as a West supporter, we should have been penalised once yesterday for a 'normal' deliberate.


The SANFL: Home of the soft free for 'too high'.

[twosheds]

I go with Wedgie on this one, doesnt matter how you read the rules if you are trying to put it through the points you are 100% NOT trying to put it out of bounds. This is the problem with lots of "interpretation" rules ( or Laws for the pedants among us ) the best umpires adjudicate to the spirit of the law not the letter of the law. That is why up until a few years ago our umps were so much better than AFL ones from a spectator point of view now we just slavishly follow along like a whipped dog and our game is worse for it.

[Mickyj]

I've also always thought that was a most illogical rule.

The very fact that you are trying to score a point invalidates 'deliberately' putting the ball out of bounds.

Given that a free is almost never paid in SANFL for deliberately out of bounds makes it even more ridiculous.

PS: Even as a West supporter, we should have been penalised once yesterday for a 'normal' deliberate.


The SANFL: Home of the soft free for 'too high'.

And the get reported for bumping a guy while he is near the ground league.I know a rule passed down by the AFL.

[Dog_ger]

Maybe we should all worry a little more about our teams efforts than worry about the standard of umping...?

[Mickyj]

Maybe we should all worry a little more about our teams efforts than worry about the standard of umping...?

True .

[twosheds]

Maybe we should all worry a little more about our teams efforts than worry about the standard of umping...?

Maybe so but nothing wrong with some healthy discussion; at least it hasn't degenerated into an abuse fest like so many topics do. Personally I'm reasonably happy with my teams efforts so far

[Psyber]

See that's where I have the issue, the rule isn't "deliberately putting the ball out of play", the rule quite clearly states that you shall not put the ball deliberately out of bounds.
Common sense says that if you're deliberately trying to put the ball through for a point then the last thing you are trying to do is put it out of bounds.
I wouldn't have an issue if the rule said you'll be penalised if you try to put the ball deliberately out of play but it doesn't, that's my point.
Common sense.

Maybe, but then why is the three points for doing it being tried in the pre-season. Obviously somewhere in AFL administration it is being seen as at least akin. It is deliberately curtailing play, and only goes on because it costs you a 1/6th of a goal, not a goal as in other sports.

[Mickyj]

Maybe we should all worry a little more about our teams efforts than worry about the standard of umping...?

thinking more about this .This is the only thing most fans agree with that the umpiring stinks more often than not .

[Rushby Hinds]

Hypothetical

Grand final, scores are tied, deep into time on last quarter.

Defender under pressure, has the ball, thinking of rushing the ball back through the points, looks at the points, but does a shocking (on purpose) handball and misses the points and the ball goes out of bounds. (doesn't need to be on the full Wedgie).

He then points wildly at the points and gestures "thats what he meant to do"......

To make it more realistic. Nearly every game there is possibly one or two "Rushby Hinds". If you werent getting pinged for deliberate, and you were pretty confident of winning the stoppage, you would repeat the above every time, as long as you remembered to act like you meant to put it through the points.

(Unless you were the Western Bulldogs and capable of doing a "coast to coast", so a kick in from a point will probably end up at a shot at goal within 20 seconds)

[am Bays]

Hypothetical

Grand final, scores are tied, deep into time on last quarter.

Defender under pressure, has the ball, thinking of rushing the ball back through the points, looks at the points, but does a shocking (on purpose) handball and misses the points and the ball goes out of bounds. (doesn't need to be on the full Wedgie).

He then points wildly at the points and gestures "thats what he meant to do"......

To make it more realistic. Nearly every game there is possibly one or two "Rushby Hinds". If you werent getting pinged for deliberate, and you were pretty confident of winning the stoppage, you would repeat the above every time, as long as you remembered to act like you meant to put it through the points.

(Unless you were the Western Bulldogs and capable of doing a "coast to coast", so a kick in from a point will probably end up at a shot at goal within 20 seconds)

Thanks for stealing my thunder Rushby , I was about to post this scenario...Imagine if my nomination was succesful ad our beloved site admin became a member of the rules committee watch for this scenario to happen every match as players accidently on purpose "miss" rushed behinds...

Hence why the intent of the rule to "keep the ball in play" is applied to a poorly executed rush behind...

[twosheds]

See that's where I have the issue, the rule isn't "deliberately putting the ball out of play", the rule quite clearly states that you shall not put the ball deliberately out of bounds.
Common sense says that if you're deliberately trying to put the ball through for a point then the last thing you are trying to do is put it out of bounds.
I wouldn't have an issue if the rule said you'll be penalised if you try to put the ball deliberately out of play but it doesn't, that's my point.
Common sense.

Maybe, but then why is the three points for doing it being tried in the pre-season. Obviously somewhere in AFL administration it is being seen as at least akin. It is deliberately curtailing play, and only goes on because it costs you a 1/6th of a goal, not a goal as in other sports.

Just having a chuckle at that AFL ump with the annoying voice who feels he has to explain everything ( even if no-one disputes it ) running in patting his bum saying "you deliberately curtailed play, you deliberately curtailed play"

[redandblack]

Rushby, that scenario is adequately catered for under the current rules. If the umpire thinks he was deliberately trying to handpass out of bounds, he's penalised. It doesn't cut across the situation where if it's obvious that the player was trying to rush a point he's not penalised.

As for the pre-season situation, comfortably the most illogical rule ever written is the play on if it hits the post scenario.

Imagine your Grand Final scenario if scores are level. A s..t kick after the siren, scraping in for a point wins the game, a good kick that just misses and hits the goal post doesn't.

Brainless gimmick rule.

[Psyber]

See that's where I have the issue, the rule isn't "deliberately putting the ball out of play", the rule quite clearly states that you shall not put the ball deliberately out of bounds.
Common sense says that if you're deliberately trying to put the ball through for a point then the last thing you are trying to do is put it out of bounds.
I wouldn't have an issue if the rule said you'll be penalised if you try to put the ball deliberately out of play but it doesn't, that's my point.
Common sense.

Maybe, but then why is the three points for doing it being tried in the pre-season. Obviously somewhere in AFL administration it is being seen as at least akin. It is deliberately curtailing play, and only goes on because it costs you a 1/6th of a goal, not a goal as in other sports.

Just having a chuckle at that AFL ump with the annoying voice who feels he has to explain everything ( even if no-one disputes it ) running in patting his bum saying "you deliberately curtailed play, you deliberately curtailed play"

When KG was umpiring it would have been, "Dribbling cur tailing play!"

[purch]

ok ok...just to complicate matters;

Technically, isn't the ball 'out of bounds' after a behind has been rushed? Its certainly 'out of the field of play' -
If so, then (technically) a deliberate out of bounds free kick should be paid if a behind is deliberately rushed.

Perhaps someone can clear up the full definition of 'out of bounds'...