Common sense on deliberate out of bounds

Remove this Banner Ad

gytre

Premiership Player
Apr 14, 2004
3,091
11
Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
C'mont/L'pool/Packers/Inter/Canucks
I like how this new you-can't-rush-a-behind rule is being applied because it still allows a behind to be rushed, but only when the defender is under pressure and has no other option.

But why can't they apply the same common sense interpretation to deliberate out-of-bounds? I hate it with a passion that defenders get constantly penalised for this rule even though they may be under extreme pressure and have no other option available other than to give the ball up to the opposition. It's absolute bollocks. Surely defenders should be allowed to be defenders? When a defender is under extreme pressure and has no other option available, he should be allowed the safety of the boundary line!
 
Rushed behind rule should be treated exactly the same as deliberate out of bounds. Ridiculous there's 2 interpretations for similar actions.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I agree with the OP.

I hate it when a defender is being tackled, he's near the boundary line, he has to dispose of the ball (kick or handpass). If it goes out of bounds, accept that his primary intention was to effect a correct disposal when tackled. They never pay 'deliberate' if a forward does the same thing.
 
The defender doesnt deserve an 'out' in any situation. You dont get one in the middle of the 50, why do you deserve one on the boundary?
Because in the middle of the fifty you have other options. When you're hard up against the boundary line surrounded by opponents, a defender may have no other option but the boundary line. It's completely against the spirit of fair play and fair adjudication to not give a defender an "out".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top