SA Footy

Yesterday twice in front of us there was a throw in awarded and not a free kick against the last player who's foot the ball vame off. With both of these the ball was 5m -20m away from the boundary line when it came off a players boot. One for each team.
When the (same) umpire awarded these he shouted out "unintentional".
I've tlked to several people including those that go every week and they'd never seen this before, they'd even see one player tap it onto another players boot to milk free kicks in the past.
Has the rule changed or was it always there and never used or is one umpire clueless?
I would have thought 99% of last touches would be "unintentional"?
Genuinely curious.

I think it needs to be a deliberate kick of the footy and not a deflection or ricochet.

This is the official SANFL last touch umpiring instruction video



As the Pirate says, it's has to be a clear last kick or handball for the last disposal law to be applied. At local footy level err on the side of "not a clear disposal" or "possibly touched" so throw it in please...

am Bays wrote:This is the official SANFL last touch umpiring instruction video



As the Pirate says, it's has to be a clear last kick or handball for the last disposal law to be applied. At local footy level err on the side of "not a clear disposal" or "possibly touched" so throw it in please...

Cheers for that, looking at that video the umpire got one wrong and one horribly wrong.
Did that change? When was that video released?
If it was like that from the start then a shit load of wrong decisions have been made.

Didn't see the 2 yesterday but my understanding is

Anytime if comes off the leg (below the knee) accidentally or otherwise ON THE FULL over the boundary it is a free.

Anytime it is a clear disposal (handball or kick) bouncing over the boundary it is a free.

Deflections, fumbles, ricochets bouncing over is a Throw In.

Yes, last intentional disposal (kick or handball) that goes out of bounds is penalised. If it goes out on the full off the boot accidentally that’s also a free, but if a ball is unintentionally deflected over the line off a boot and it’s not on the full it’s a boundary throw in.
Personally I think it is generally umpired very well, and despite initially being against the change, nowadays much prefer it to the lottery of deliberate out of bounds rule used in the AFL. At least it’s a black and white decision, and I like that aspect of it

Yeah, the first yesterday a South player kicked the ball along the ground to stop a North player from grabbing it about 5-10 metres away from the boundary.
The second was even worse when a North player kicked it from a longer distance with a dribble kick after having possession of it, it would have been deliberate under the old rule by lot of umpires!

Hazydog wrote:Yes, last intentional disposal (kick or handball) that goes out of bounds is penalised. If it goes out on the full off the boot accidentally that’s also a free, but if a ball is unintentionally deflected over the line off a boot and it’s not on the full it’s a boundary throw in.
Personally I think it is generally umpired very well, and despite initially being against the change, nowadays much prefer it to the lottery of deliberate out of bounds rule used in the AFL. At least it’s a black and white decision, and I like that aspect of it

I love it but wish it was more black and white. Just make it last touch is a free kick against (from kick ir handball) and don't let the umpire stuff up interpreations which they clearly did yesterday.

Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

PhilH wrote:Didn't see the 2 yesterday but my understanding is

Anytime if comes off the leg (below the knee) accidentally or otherwise ON THE FULL over the boundary it is a free.

Anytime it is a clear disposal (handball or kick) bouncing over the boundary it is a free.

Deflections, fumbles, ricochets bouncing over is a Throw In.

That's the way I understood it PhilH. I did not like it but think its great. It makes the game flow better.

But, Why do we have to have rules different to the rest of the country? Does the SANFL think its better.

bennymacca wrote:Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

For the game Wedgie watched:


Brooksby 19 touches (15 kicks, 4 handballs) 8 marks vs Barns 10 touches (6 kicks, 4 handballs) 3 marks.

bennymacca wrote:Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

Hard to answer, There is still a number of throw ins. Probably 8-12 frees that would have been throw ins.

BUT:

The rule has made the game better as we play more football rather than getting it out.

I think it is inevitable that this rule will be adopted by all. Not many liked it to start but it has gained favor.

DOC wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

Hard to answer, There is still a number of throw ins. Probably 8-12 frees that would have been throw ins.

BUT:

The rule has made the game better as we play more football rather than getting it out.

I think it is inevitable that this rule will be adopted by all. Not many liked it to start but it has gained favor.

I must be in the minority then, I still think it's a load of crap.

Grenville wrote:

DOC wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

Hard to answer, There is still a number of throw ins. Probably 8-12 frees that would have been throw ins.

BUT:

The rule has made the game better as we play more football rather than getting it out.

I think it is inevitable that this rule will be adopted by all. Not many liked it to start but it has gained favor.

I must be in the minority then, I still think it's a load of crap.

Keeping the ball in play through the corridor is a load of crap

Unintentional like^
The reason the rule is a load of crap is because many times it rewards players who are second to the contest & aren’t making the play.

heater31 wrote:

Grenville wrote:

DOC wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

Hard to answer, There is still a number of throw ins. Probably 8-12 frees that would have been throw ins.

BUT:

The rule has made the game better as we play more football rather than getting it out.

I think it is inevitable that this rule will be adopted by all. Not many liked it to start but it has gained favor.

I must be in the minority then, I still think it's a load of crap.

Keeping the ball in play through the corridor is a load of crap

That's why it is crap for mine

The rules shouldn't be adapted to force teams to play in a certain way

The beauty for Aussie rules for me is the tactical battle/different styles/ different approaches.

What about today's games is 90% of teams try and play the exact same way as one another

Happy to concede though the rule is not and wouldn't be a deal breaker between my attendance or not, I can live with the rule being enforced

Grenville wrote:

DOC wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Question for people who watch more SANFL than me - does this rule lessen the impact of ruckmen as they don't have boundary throw-ins to contest?

Hard to answer, There is still a number of throw ins. Probably 8-12 frees that would have been throw ins.

BUT:

The rule has made the game better as we play more football rather than getting it out.

I think it is inevitable that this rule will be adopted by all. Not many liked it to start but it has gained favor.

I must be in the minority then, I still think it's a load of crap.

No your not,the rule is crap.
Too many rules changed,it's not soccer or basketball......go back to the way it was.

PhilH wrote:Didn't see the 2 yesterday but my understanding is

Anytime if comes off the leg (below the knee) accidentally or otherwise ON THE FULL over the boundary it is a free.

Anytime it is a clear disposal (handball or kick) bouncing over the boundary it is a free.

Deflections, fumbles, ricochets bouncing over is a Throw In.

Sounds as contentious as the off side rule. Just a can of worms imo.
I’ve seen lots of times players are sheparding the ball across the line to win the free, whilst the opposition try to get close enough to tout the ball.

The rule needs to be one way or the other. Giving umpires discretionary powers will always lead to problems.