View Full Version : Harley - Out of Bounds?
How was it OOB when the ball was never brought back into play?
Metallica_Man
10 Jun 2007, 20:37
He slipped over when he went to kick it, probably called play on so he was over the line at the time
Stupid decision really
SriLankanCat
10 Jun 2007, 20:37
I think he made a move to play on and hence it was "play on"... he slipped and fell and as he was out of bounds the umpire was right to call it out of bounds..correct decision in my opinion
Bradesmaen
10 Jun 2007, 20:38
Its not a stupid decision, its the rules. THe rule from OOF is as soon as you come over the white line, its play on. Since he slipped over the white line and then stepped back over, its OOB!
Metallica_Man
10 Jun 2007, 20:39
Its not a stupid decision, its the rules. THe rule from OOF is as soon as you come over the white line, its play on. Since he slipped over the white line and then stepped back over, its OOB!
Did he slip over the white line though? I might not have seen it correctly but it looked like he didn't go over the line
Bradesmaen
10 Jun 2007, 20:41
Looked like he did to me <shrug>
thegerman
10 Jun 2007, 20:43
Its not a stupid decision, its the rules. THe rule from OOF is as soon as you come over the white line, its play on. Since he slipped over the white line and then stepped back over, its OOB!
He actually didn't slip over the line, in fact he didn't even make it to the line. He slipped on his first step.
The rule is that once you make a movement off the line, it is play on. Funnily the AFL Umpiring fraternity have the interpretation that if you are over the line and play on, in one movement, it is ok. However if you slip or fall or stop and make another movement, i.e. change direction, then it is out of bounds.
It is a fair decision, however if it were at the Telstra dome where they have that fake grass, would you recall it ??
I just think that common sense should prevail, whereby a slip isn't playon, the player can go back and re-kick. However a total change of direction in the movement of playing on, would then be interpreted as out of bounds for a throw in.
SriLankanCat
10 Jun 2007, 20:43
Looked like he did to me <shrug>
He never crossed the line but once the umpire calls play on if ur still over the line it is out of bounds....
Its not a stupid decision, its the rules. THe rule from OOF is as soon as you come over the white line, its play on. Since he slipped over the white line and then stepped back over, its OOB!
He was a good meter BEHIND the line when he fell over. As far as i have read the ball MUST be brought into play before it can be called out of bounds again.
WynyardCat
10 Jun 2007, 21:43
Nope, the rule is once the mark is set and you are standing out of play, it's the same as if you were in play. You go to play on and slip or step backwards or sidewards off the mark and remain out of play, it's either out of bounds or a rushed behind depending on where you are.
NakedDeadGuy
10 Jun 2007, 22:41
Didnt step off his line as far as I saw, horrible decision.
What had me stuffed was the Mooney free to Basset in the first - the ball was within 5 metres, didnt collect him high, didnt trip him, and as far as I know theres no rule for a free to be paid for being a ********. Have no idea what it was actually paid for.
The Blake free in the square is whats wrong with the game today - yes, he had a hand in the back but it in no way affected the contest, and when they pay that in the square and give away a goal and wont pay dropping the ball like a spud at the other end, (GAblett) its no wonder these game wrecking cheating maggots get the abuse they do. McGregor took a mark and goaled with one hand covering Harleys #2 - didnt affect the actual contest, but what really shits me is if they pay one they have to pay them all.
Jim Boy
10 Jun 2007, 22:47
Just to get technical, rule 16.5.1 (a)
A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking,
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.
Basically once you start heading in one direction (regardless of where the mark is) you can't deviate from that until you enter the field of play. By slipping over, he deviated.
Just to get technical, rule 16.5.1 (a)
A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking,
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.
Basically once you start heading in one direction (regardless of where the mark is) you can't deviate from that until you enter the field of play. By slipping over, he deviated.
Thanks jimmy. This may seem stupid. But if he feel flat on his ass he wouldn't have deviated off the mark :p how would have that been adjudicated? I just find it weird because you see players doing that mistake many times throughout the year and most times the umpires show common sense and give the player a second chance.
Brasil2007
11 Jun 2007, 01:28
Thanks jimmy. This may seem stupid. But if he feel flat on his ass he wouldn't have deviated off the mark :p how would have that been adjudicated? I just find it weird because you see players doing that mistake many times throughout the year and most times the umpires show common sense and give the player a second chance.
I wouldn't call stopping - slipping or otherwise - "deviating". No doubt one of those obscure interpretations that some wizard with too much time on his hands thought up. I can understand changing direction over the line but falling on your ass just adds insult to injury.
Just to get technical, rule 16.5.1 (a)
A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking,
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.
Basically once you start heading in one direction (regardless of where the mark is) you can't deviate from that until you enter the field of play. By slipping over, he deviated.
I find it strange that they dont mention anything about kicking it over the mark, when the umps make you do it.
catattack
12 Jun 2007, 01:06
I haven't seen the replay of the incident and cannot entirely remember whether the ball actually touched the ground.
The rule is that beyond the boundary line, you must approach "over your mark." Once you step over the line, if you indeed intend to play on, you may deviate from your line and do so. If you deviate before the line, or do not correctly come over your mark, it shall be deemed a boundary throw in.
Now, i don't think Harley deviated from his line, however, if he indeed touched the ball down on the ground when he slipped, the boundary throw in is correct because the action of touching the ball on the ground - whether intentional, accidental or not - implies 'play on.'
You are allowed to attempt a kick, attempt a handpass, pivot, look around, etc, so long as you do not step off your mark. You should never, under the laws of the game, be called to play on in those circumstances.
So basically, if the umpire calls 'play on' and the ball is out of play, the correct decision is a boundary throw in and the player surrenders possession of the football.
However, let's say Harley had the ball for his allocated 10 seconds before and the umpire called 'play on.' Harley is not deemed out of bounds even though the ball is out of play, unless he deviates from his line, or his apprehended or corralled by the opposition player standing on the mark.
That is just one of the anomalies with the rule. The same applies to kick ins; if a player is called to play on, he still must correctly dispose of the football from inside the square.
Harley - Out of Bounds
Yeah, but more importantly, back in favour.
Good on ya, skipper.