Deliberate out of bounds.

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I think the rule in general is pretty good, but I think it's been adjudicated a bit inconsistently. They've made a few howlers along the way. Fine tune it a bit and I think it can be used to make the game better. If a player kicks the ball 30m+ and it takes a sharp turn on the bounce that significantly alters the airborne course of the ball, you can't call that deliberate. There's a balance that needs to be found. Picking the ball up and then jogging across the line when you have other options, is not a good look.

 

[PoppedCorn]

stupid rule
ball goes out
clock stops
its really quite simple

should be no deliberate what so ever
if you are clever enough to kick it along the ground under pressure in your defense back half and gain 30 meters and the ball goes out then so be it

 

[TW Sherrin]

a crap call is going to cost someone a game soon.

the call against Bruce was just too ridiculous to believe.

 

[Testekill]

stupid rule
ball goes out
clock stops
its really quite simple

should be no deliberate what so ever
if you are clever enough to kick it along the ground under pressure in your defense back half and gain 30 meters and the ball goes out then so be it

I think that if you're just bombing it to space along the boundary line then it should be considered deliberate, it's calls like the Josh Bruce deliberate that make it a horrible rule because there was no way that Bruce intentionally put it out of bounds.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I didn't think the Luke McDonald one would ever be topped, but that Josh Bruce one is sensationally bad.

Did you happen to catch the Bartel one on Friday night? Loose ball hits him in the leg and goes over the line, pffffffft, deliberate.

I think that McDonald is probably the worst. I'm sure he was already over the line when he touched the ball.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Enjoying the new interpretation. It's part of the reason behind why footy has become much more watchable this year

 

[footyshorts]

oh dear, what a mess this rule has become.

 

[roomagic1984]

Dear god... How the hell did Rohan get penalised! And Hanners also. It is a great rule to have, but you can't penalise for a skill error or an accident.

 

[m0zza]

Dear god... How the hell did Rohan get penalised! And Hanners also. It is a great rule to have, but you can't penalise for a skill error or an accident.

Both were consistent with how the rule has been paid this year
Kick to the boundary and you risk conceding a free if the ball happens to go out
I don't entirely agree with it but that's how it is

 

[base615]

Both were consistent with how the rule has been paid this year
Kick to the boundary and you risk conceding a free if the ball happens to go out
I don't entirely agree with it but that's how it is

Rohan tried to boot it upfield and it shot off the side of his boot in the opposite direction he was intending it to go.

I was originally quite complementary about the change in interpretation as it was resulting in fewer stoppages and more exciting play around the goals but it's become a joke when obvious errors are called deliberate.

If Rohan's warranted a deliberate call then why not JPK's boot towards goal which went into touch about 10m wide?

 

[Stopher]

Yep, no problems at all with the rule being tightened, but it's gone way too far. You can tell by player reactions they genuinely don't understand the rule as it stands. That's not right.

 

[falcons2]

Hannebery decision spot on
Rohan WTF

 

[roomagic1984]

Hannebery decision spot on
Rohan WTF

He tried to dribble it to his team mate but didn't execute it correctly. Shouldn't be punished for a skill error.

 

[Stopher]

He tried to dribble it to his team mate but didn't execute it correctly. Shouldn't be punished for a skill error.

Yep, he could see the opponent coming towards him so attempted the grubber kick to prevent the smother. Ridiculous call.

 

[falcons2]

He tried to dribble it to his team mate but didn't execute it correctly. Shouldn't be punished for a skill error.

I'll take on your point but I disagree. The player chooses to go along the boundary line. If it goes out free kick. Every free kick given is a punishment for a skill error.
These decisions are making for a better game.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the rule in general is pretty good, but I think it's been adjudicated a bit inconsistently. They've made a few howlers along the way. Fine tune it a bit and I think it can be used to make the game better. If a player kicks the ball 30m+ and it takes a sharp turn on the bounce that significantly alters the airborne course of the ball, you can't call that deliberate. There's a balance that needs to be found. Picking the ball up and then jogging across the line when you have other options, is not a good look.

Not a good look for who? I have never heard in 40 years spectators talking about players jogging the ball over the line until now. Under no pressure then it's a fair call but just 1% of pressure it should be a throw in.
I also don't have such a problem if the ball is kicked deliberately down the line but there should be a distance rule, 20m or longer it is a throw in. Name me another sport in the world where you are penalised for kicking the ball in your direction??
The rule is against all natural instincts, the object of the game is to keep the ball off your opponents not give them a 50/50 chance all the time. By making them kick to a contest to give their opponent an even chance is against the object of the game.
You should be able to kick it 20m plus down the line and hope the ball finds touch to get a throw in.
I actually don't understand how the sport survived for 100 years, obviously the game was crap as they have changed every rule, spectators must of been leaving the games all the time asking themselves why they are watching such a crap sport.

 

[Stopher]

Remember Montagna's 75m gained, yet called deliberate OOB despite it bouncing about 10 times? That was a belter.

 

[m0zza]

Not a good look for who? I have never heard in 40 years spectators talking about players jogging the ball over the line until now. Under no pressure then it's a fair call but just 1% of pressure it should be a throw in.
I also don't have such a problem if the ball is kicked deliberately down the line but there should be a distance rule, 20m or longer it is a throw in. Name me another sport in the world where you are penalised for kicking the ball in your direction??
.

I can't think of another code that does not give the ball to the opposition when it goes out
The boundary throw in is unique to AFL

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I can't think of another code that does not give the ball to the opposition when it goes out
The boundary throw in is unique to AFL

Like I said mate we are so lucky we have the people we have running our game now, they are finally fixing a sport which was in disarray for 100 years. Those poor saps that watched all those years a boring poorly ruled sport. Thank god for AFL house!!!

 

[Olian]

Both were consistent with how the rule has been paid this year
Kick to the boundary and you risk conceding a free if the ball happens to go out
I don't entirely agree with it but that's how it is

The intention has to be deliberate, given Rohan was running at full speed to intercept the ball in the centre square, deliberate out of bounds was harsh.

I think the rule is great as it stops the number of throw ins.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Like I said mate we are so lucky we have the people we have running our game now, they are finally fixing a sport which was in disarray for 100 years. Those poor saps that watched all those years a boring poorly ruled sport. Thank god for AFL house!!!

The same people who used to give it to the opposition for any out of bounds? The same people who at one point didn't pay a free for out on the full? Rules have changed constantly over the last 100 years.

 

[Wallaby]

I can't think of another code that does not give the ball to the opposition when it goes out
The boundary throw in is unique to AFL

In NFL, possession can only change if the defensive side actually physically takes possession. If the ball is fumbled over the sidelines, the attacking team retains possession.

Both Rugby League and Union have occasions where a side can kick the ball forward, but out of bounds, and still retain possession. They both also have situations (line-outs and scrums), where the side receiving the ball have to put it into a competitive situation (admittedly with some advantage to the side with the put-in) to actually 'gain' possession.

So, in 3 of the 5 football codes, sometimes it goes to the opposition, sometimes possession is retained, and in Aussie Rules, we have a 'neutral' situation.

 

[Hoops]

I've been giving this some thought and the umpires are obviously told that if the ball is kicked and there is no team-mate within ??? (open to interpretation) and the ball goes out of bounds than it will be deemed 'deliberate' even if it's not deliberate. It could be a bad kick, clearing kick or you have no other choice kick or handball for that matter. The fact that it's open to umpires interpretation means that the call is always inconsistent and it drives us supporters mad.

So something that might work (???) for this particular 'wasn't to a team-mate' part of the rule is by taking the interpretation out of the umpires hands and and have a black and white rule that in reality is a harsher out on the full rule.

you would mark a dashed line 9m in from the boundary to line up with the top of the goal squares and any time the ball is kicked or handballed and lands on the full between the boundary and the dashed line and rolls over the boundary line without being touched then it's a free kick to the opposition. no exceptions - including a bad shot on goal.

The other aspects of the DOB rule can remain the same unless someone comes up with a more black and white rules.

Another potential use for this dashed line is when there's a ball up between the two markings then the umpire can pull it away from the boundary as a spot to ball it up.

 

[roomagic1984]

Baguley's deliberate in the last quarter. What was he meant to do?

 

[yebiga]

What exactly is wrong with extending the touch rule used in kicking the ball in from a behind and extending it throughout the ground???
Any chance we could reduce interpretation of intent by umpires and let them adjudicate facts?
I blame Gerard Healy