SA Footy

Does this rule exist in the SANFL? During yesterday’s West/Norwood match, a West player was about 3 metres away from the boundary line with Culpitt directly behind him, and he tapped the ball deliberately out. There were NO West players in the immediate area, just a few Legs players, and yet the umpired called for the ball to be thrown in.

The rule obviously doesn’t exist, is that right?

It's there, but extremely rare.

spell_check wrote:It's there, but extremely rare.

If it's there, then I have NO idea why this one wasn't paid. Seriously, you could see a more deliberate out of bounds.

NFC wrote:

spell_check wrote:It's there, but extremely rare.

If it's there, then I have NO idea why this one wasn't paid. Seriously, you could see a more deliberate out of bounds.

It wasn't paid because it's extremely rare.

Other than that I can't offer an explanation cause I didn't see it.

I have long thought that the rule should be scrapped and instead, a free handball should be awarded to the opposing team if the ball is disposed of out of bounds by hand or after bouncing at least once. Keep the free kick rule for out of bounds on the full and the boundary throw in should only be used if the umpire can't understand who touched it last.
I strongly believe this rule would work, it would definitely favour the side in possession, if there was a huge scrum of players crowding the area where the free handball is going to take place, then the player would handball it to the tallest team mate's advantage, and let him tap it on from there. Surely this would assist clearances and discourage players simply allowing the ball to run out, or the kick for space by the boundary line because the side doesn't have any players free.

If we look back on the state game against WA.The SANFL players soon learn't that the WA umpires pay this rule as a free kick .Pity the SANFL umpires can be fooled so !!

This is one free I've given up on in the SANFL. Its never paid as far as I can tell. My opinion is that it should be as in the AFL. If a team mate is not in the vicinity then it shouldnt matter how many times the ball bounces before going out. Pay the bloody free and stop this obvious defensive and time wasting ploy.

But at least the rule is consistent.

I'll bet as soon it's paid more often people will start to go on about consistency.

Ok, I refine my statement.

It used to be paid a few years ago, but not any more.

But again, it's consistent.

spell_check wrote:Ok, I refine my statement.

It used to be paid a few years ago, but not any more.

But again, it's consistent.

It should've been paid today at thebarton spelly

The thing that really annoys me about this rule and shows how the umpires have no idea about the game is for 10 years I haven't seen a deliberate out of bounds played once despite quite clearly seeing 100s of players deliberately take it out of bounds.
Then a week or 2 go I see a North player deliberately try to knock the ball through for a point, it hits the point post and its the only one paid as deliberate out of bounds despite that player trying to delibrately knock it through for a point.
Honestly, WTF?
Do these wankers have any idea about the game?

Mickyj wrote:

spell_check wrote:Ok, I refine my statement.

It used to be paid a few years ago, but not any more.

But again, it's consistent.

It should've been paid today at thebarton spelly

If you are talking about the last quarter incident, that's what I'm referring to.

Wedgie wrote:Then a week or 2 go I see a North player deliberately try to knock the ball through for a point, it hits the point post and its the only one paid as deliberate out of bounds despite that player trying to delibrately knock it through for a point.
Honestly, WTF?
Do these wankers have any idea about the game?

Sorry mate, but that 100% the correct interpretation and decision.

Another example of the defender tries to knock it/rush it through for a point, but misses the point post by a metre or so, then it is definitely a free kick as well for deliberate out of bounds.


So yes, the Wankers do have an idea about the game.

Rushby Hinds wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Then a week or 2 go I see a North player deliberately try to knock the ball through for a point, it hits the point post and its the only one paid as deliberate out of bounds despite that player trying to delibrately knock it through for a point.
Honestly, WTF?
Do these wankers have any idea about the game?

Sorry mate, but that 100% the correct interpretation and decision.

Another example of the defender tries to knock it/rush it through for a point, but misses the point post by a metre or so, then it is definitely a free kick as well for deliberate out of bounds.


So yes, the Wankers do have an idea about the game.

I disagree, if you're intent is 100% to knock it through for a point then your intent is 0% to take it out of bounds on the full.
YET I see deicisions go every week when the intent is 95% to knock it out of bounds.
How can someone who has 0% intent on knocking it out of bounds be penalised but someone who has 95% intent on knocking it out of bound not be penalised.
LOGIC SAYS IT MAKES NO SENSE!!
If the umpires had a shard of sense between them they'd work this out, they dont though.
It's simple logic and maths.

15.6 FREE KICKS — RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
15.6.1 When Awarded

(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the
Boundary Line without the football being touched by another
Player;

Doesn't matter he intentionally aims for the safety of the behind line but misses it a la Rodger Delany in the 91 State game v WA it is a free kick for deliberate out of bounds. It is what all umpires across the country anre instructed to do and how to interpret that rule.

If you want to change it I am prepared to nomminate you for the rules committee until then that it how it is....

Also happy to lend you the AFL umpiring DVD for the 2007 rule changes and interpretations....

Wedgie wrote:

Rushby Hinds wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Then a week or 2 go I see a North player deliberately try to knock the ball through for a point, it hits the point post and its the only one paid as deliberate out of bounds despite that player trying to delibrately knock it through for a point.
Honestly, WTF?
Do these wankers have any idea about the game?

Sorry mate, but that 100% the correct interpretation and decision.

Another example of the defender tries to knock it/rush it through for a point, but misses the point post by a metre or so, then it is definitely a free kick as well for deliberate out of bounds.


So yes, the Wankers do have an idea about the game.

I disagree, if you're intent is 100% to knock it through for a point then your intent is 0% to take it out of bounds on the full.
YET I see deicisions go every week when the intent is 95% to knock it out of bounds.
How can someone who has 0% intent on knocking it out of bounds be penalised but someone who has 95% intent on knocking it out of bound not be penalised.
LOGIC SAYS IT MAKES NO SENSE!!
If the umpires had a shard of sense between them they'd work this out, they dont though.
It's simple logic and maths.

And a big hello to the umpire who contacted me twenty minutes ago to tell me that I was 100% correct

See you soon mate.

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:15.6 FREE KICKS — RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS
15.6.1 When Awarded

(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the
Boundary Line without the football being touched by another
Player;

Doesn't matter he intentionally aims for the safety of the behind line but misses it a la Rodger Delany in the 91 State game v WA it is a free kick for deliberate out of bounds. It is what all umpires across the country anre instructed to do and how to interpret that rule.

If you want to change it I am prepared to nomminate you for the rules committee until then that it how it is....

You've contradicted your own post.

The rules says "intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Bounday Line".
Surely if you're you intentionally kick, handball or try to force the football between the goal and point post you're 0% trying to force it over the boundary line.

Common sense, obviously of which the umpires and you have none of.

Its not rocket science, if you're intentionally trying to do (a) then youre not intentionally to do (b).

PS If the rules said something like "if you try to intentionally give away a point and you stuff up and accidentally send the ball out of bound then that shall be deemed as being deliberately trying to hit the ball out of bounds and a free kick will be given against you" I wouldnt have a problem.
The problem is the umpires are all mindless drones who are advises to do the wrong thing because their advisor can't even understand the very rules they play by.

Wedgie wrote:The problem is the umpires are all mindless drones who are advises to do the wrong thing because their advisor can't even understand the very rules they play by.

being incorrectly advised doesn't make you a mindless drone Wedgie.

Wedgie wrote:PS If the rules said something like "if you try to intentionally give away a point and you stuff up and accidentally send the ball out of bound then that shall be deemed as being deliberately trying to hit the ball out of bounds and a free kick will be given against you" I wouldnt have a problem.
The problem is the umpires are all mindless drones who are advises to do the wrong thing because their advisor can't even understand the very rules they play by.

In many sports if the ball goes out of bounds the person who touched it last has given a free kick, or hit, or throw, to the opposition. I wonder how that would effect the game - less playing wide perhaps?