Deliberate out of bounds.

Remove this Banner Ad

falcons2 said:
In recent years they have stopped defenders chopping arms, tighted hands on and in the back, now the 10m rule. Give the poor defenders a break. I see what you mean but if punching the ball in a contest is a free then every pass inside 50 will be too the boundary so if the forward doesn't mark it they'll get a DOOB free.
Click to expand...

To be clear, by 'defender', I meant a guy going a punch when another guy is trying to mark, could be anyone/anywhere.

That said, the point of the change is to keep the ball on the field and in play...I can't really see a reason why that shouldn't also require punches to at least try to be in bounds.

Your second point is more interesting. If a player just lets a ball roll out when they have opportunity to take possession then they can never receive a free.
Click to expand...

People talked a lot about the Kreuzer kick on Thursday...I thought the kick, in itself, deserved DOOB except that there was a definite question about if the Richmond player (McIntosh?) could have reached it, which seemed dodgy to me.

Conversely, earlier a Richmond player (Grimes) got to the ball first with 2 Carlton players pressuring him, paddled it ahead of him as he looked for options and after working out he couldn't get clear tapped it again so it went over the line...Now no question it was deliberate, but being first to the ball was a clear DISadvantage.

I really hate it when the best decision is NOT to get to the ball first and/or play the ball, but that seems to be how this one is going. (I hope that changes).


I also note something said by a commentator on the night (Carey?) that when you have to go over the line, better to kick it 20 rows back so it'll take time to come back and you can set up....Again, not a desirable development, but it would be a 'smart play'.
 
Gavin Excell said:
With far more consequences
Click to expand...

That doesn't change how tough the decision is or make it tougher to umpire though.

It will also become less frequent as players make more of an effort to keep it in.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well there it is. The DOOB in the dying seconds. First thought was gotchya! But the front on vision has the flight of the ball parallel with the boundary but the oval ball has the last laugh and heads to the boundary. Probably the only one for the night. If that's the standard, harsh I think but ok lets see what happens over the next few games.
 
falcons2 said:
Well there it is. The DOOB in the dying seconds. First thought was gotchya! But the front on vision has the flight of the ball parallel with the boundary but the oval ball has the last laugh and heads to the boundary. Probably the only one for the night. If that's the standard, harsh I think but ok lets see what happens over the next few games.
Click to expand...
Would've been deliberate any other year IMO. You dispose of the ball into space, within a couple of metres of the boundary, you have to account for the possibility of copping a bad bounce.

These guys know what they're doing. They go down the boundary in the hope it goes out and makes it harder for the opposition to centre the ball.
 
falcons2 said:
Well there it is. The DOOB in the dying seconds. First thought was gotchya! But the front on vision has the flight of the ball parallel with the boundary but the oval ball has the last laugh and heads to the boundary. Probably the only one for the night. If that's the standard, harsh I think but ok lets see what happens over the next few games.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty stiff on Richmond until I saw the behind the goals view which demonstrated the lack of Tigers near the ball's trajectory. I think the fact the player (sorry, genuinely can't recall) didn't actually complain after having given away the free kick sort of revealed that he was just trying to get away with one
 
I just had another look at the replay of that and there weren't any Tigers anywhere near that ball. It can't even be claimed that it was a 'shank', as it was a handball. The Tiger player new exactly what he was doing, he just needed to do it better.
 
giphy.gif


Sorry bout the quality, AFL doesn't want to upload in HD to Youtube.
 
quotemokc said:
Almost looked like he was trying to sweep it inside to his 2 teammates
Click to expand...
The jump by the Collingwood player is the only thing that might influence "intent", but given where it landed I don't think you can say the umpire made the wrong call on the interpretation of the rules
 
quotemokc said:
giphy.gif


Sorry bout the quality, AFL doesn't want to upload in HD to Youtube.
Click to expand...
I probably wouldn't have given it myself. It does look more like he's trying to handball long to a teammate or at least into space. At the very least though it's a ******* terrible handball and a bad decision. Would have been better off kicking long up field. Might have looked to the ump also like he was trying to disguise a deliberate as an inbound handball.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It was a call consistent with last round, so no problems there, but it's a stupid change of interpretation. What is a defender supposed to do in that situation? He's near the line with two Pies coming at him. He can't escape over the line. If he kicks/handballs along the line and it goes out, it's a free. If he brings the ball back inboard, there's a high risk of a turnover in the defensive 50. The best option he had was to accept it was going to be a free to Collingwood, but just try to get it to cross the line further away from the goals.

Is there any other sport that changes the way it is officiated as often and needlessly as the AFL? It's becoming almost impossible to watch a game with someone new to it and be able to explain what the heck is going on. Too many rules that are interpreted differently, not just season to season or round to round, but within the same damn game.
 
I don't like it. What we are seeing is players not trying to keep the ball in play when the ball bounces near the boundary, standing there waving their arms instead of collecting the ball. I thought the purpose of the rule was to keep the ball in play. Really harsh decision last night. My view is if the first intention is to get the ball of out a tight situation and the player is under pressure then it's not deliberate. The same interpretation that applies for rushed behinds.
 
I like the rule. It was a harsh call but it was there IMO.

Wasn't overly thrilled with the umps calls throughout the game though.
They were very inconsistent with holding the ball and when players were on it in a pack they were far too quick to blow the whistle for a ball up.

Probably a case of one ump being harsh, another not - which is poor as they need to be in sync and they definitely were not.
Very surprised by the lopsided free kick count.
 
Players will adapt and there's already signs of that happening. At times last night players were reluctant to let the ball go out or kick down the line, instead they'd chip/knock it around until a tackle was laid or even allowing an opposition player to gain possession in close, so they could be tackled or forced to take the footy across the boundary.
 
it might come to the stage that a player in vlaustins situation just stops in his tracks and puts the ball at his feet and says to the opposition "ok come and get it and i will tackle you in a bear hug when you bend down and pick it up and cause a ball up" and im not joking either.
 
Just saw one where an Adelaide player was basically tackled over the line and it was paid as deliberate.
 
Seedsfan said:
They need to stamp out the uncontested double handed punch over the boundary line. If you can punch with two hands you can mark
Click to expand...
On Friday night I think it was Hampson who tried to punch it through for a point, mishit it and it went out of bounds. Now I thought that was always a free if you tried to put it through for a point and missed.

From the three games I've watched closely, the umpires seem to have dialled it right back between round 1 and 2. They were paying everything in the Port Saints game last week but not so much this week. I preferred the week 1 interpretation.
 
kosifantutti said:
On Friday night I think it was Hampson who tried to punch it through for a point, mishit it and it went out of bounds. Now I thought that was always a free if you tried to put it through for a point and missed.

From the three games I've watched closely, the umpires seem to have dialled it right back between round 1 and 2. They were paying everything in the Port Saints game last week but not so much this week. I preferred the week 1 interpretation.
Click to expand...
Yeah I like the strict interpretation as well, it's always good to keep the ball alive
 
The new rule is good but as with all things the umpires it is hit and miss with consistency
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lethalsax
Umpiring Out of Bounds
Replies
6
Views
635
Adelaide Hawk
Adelaide Hawk
HairyO
Umpiring The Purpose Of Boundary Lines - Pies v Cats Game Discussion
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
161
Views
6K
Doc Hattori
Doc Hattori
El Doederino
Recalled boundary throw ins
Replies
3
Views
448
El Doederino
El Doederino
G
Umpire Integrity and Game Outcomes.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
RedV3x
RedV3x
J
Umpires having a duty of care for injured players
Replies
7
Views
295
faible
faible
VicBased
Barass a week/Cameron gets off come on AFL.
Replies
22
Views
527
VicBased
VicBased
Frederico_WA
Rules Official 2024 season rule tweaks
Replies
22
Views
1K
D-N-R
D

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top