In Australian Rules Football, when the ball goes out of bounds...

Remove this Banner Ad

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 23, 2000
25,354
21,094
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
In Australian Rules football, when the ball goes out of bounds, I believe it should be a free kick against the team that last touched it.

The VFL went half way in 1967, when they decided that "out of bound on the full" would result in a free kick to the opposition and it was arguably the best rule change in the last 40 years. A pearler of a change.

To me, it is common-sense. Whether it be basketball, Soccer, Rugby League (excpet in the 40-20 rule) and basically any ball sport, the team that last touched it loses possession.

To me, the ugliest part of our sport, is the continual scrimmages around a boundary throw-in. This would totally be abolished, if the rule was introduced, as teams would do everything to keep the ball in play. Even though the deliberate out of bounds rule exists, it is only enforced if the player doesn't gain ground. If they gain 20 metres but kick to the line, there is no penalty, and that is an ugly part of the game.

Thoughts?
 
Didn't we trial this rule in a lightning premiership at Waverley a few years ago??

I think the idea has some merrit, except for when someone is under pressure but deliberately handballs or knocks the ball onto their opponent and thus wins back possession. That would be one of my main concerns, especially if it results in a shot at goal with no pressure on the kicker. Perhaps if that sort of thing happened, they could also include a rule where you couldn't have a direct shot at goal from one of these free kicks.

Go Cats!!
SeinDude
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I liked the idea that was propsed by (I think) Mick Malthouse a few years ago when he suggested the idea that if the ball went out between the 50m arcs, then it should be paid a free kick as per the out of bounds on the full rule. However, if the ball goes out of bounds (but not out on the full) between the 50m arc and the goal posts, then it should be thrown in.

That way, you get the tension of the 50/50 ball in the forward/back lines, but the throw in scrimmages are eliminated in the midfield.
 
Originally posted by SeinDude


I think the idea has some merrit, except for when someone is under pressure

What's being under pressure got to do with it, Seiny? The idea is to keep the ball in play. Under the curent rule, they're technically not allowed to go for the boundry line anyway.

Originally posted by SeinDude
deliberately handballs or knocks the ball onto their opponent and thus wins back possession.

That can happen in any sport. I once saw Dough Hawkins handball the ball onto an opponets foot to get an "out of bounds on the full" in his favour. That's part of the luck of the game. It happens in Basketball reguarly, but the positives of keeping the ball in play for outweigh any negatives.
 
the idea has some merit,but i think it should be only inforced in the middle of the ground(between the two 50 metres zones)as it would be too harsh on a defender who is ,say punching the ball for a spoil,to be penalised by a kick for goal by the opposition forward in his foward 50.
 
I disagree Dan, what happens if during a Grand Final there is a player who accidently gets in the way of a kick out of a pack, or a handball and the ball trickles over the line? Opponent player goes short and finds a teammate, goal, win.

We would also see the farcical sight of players standing back as they wait for the ball to roll out of play, knowing that they will get the ball. It will look stupid.

Also we will see players deliberately handpassing or kicking the ball into opposition players so they get the free kick. Once again, the player without the ball would be in the worst position.

Leave it as it is.
 
Only would agree to something like that if there was a five metre line all around the ground, and anything five metres or more would result in a free kick, but not a shot at goal, anything inside five metres a throw-in as normal and no such thing as deliberate or not.
That would make it clear cut and take pressure off the umps.
 
Originally posted by Shinboners
I liked the idea that was propsed by (I think) Mick Malthouse a few years ago when he suggested the idea that if the ball went out between the 50m arcs, then it should be paid a free kick as per the out of bounds on the full rule. However, if the ball goes out of bounds (but not out on the full) between the 50m arc and the goal posts, then it should be thrown in.

That way, you get the tension of the 50/50 ball in the forward/back lines, but the throw in scrimmages are eliminated in the midfield.

I don't like that idea, because In my view he 50 metre arcs are only there for a distance guide. They have never had anything to do with the rules of the game.

If a 40-metre arc was introduced in 1986 instead of 50, would Malthouse still have the same idea? What about if it was a 60-metre arc that was introuced back in '86?

The one thing about our game, is that same rules apply all over the ground. I don't see why the rule should not be used just because the goals are nearby. If that's the case we might as well introduce a rule where goals can't scored from any free kicks (i.e "in the back", holding the ball, etc) inside 50.

In my view, the rule should be policed indentically all over the ground.
 
Nonsense.(to the original post)

We have a unique game with unique rules. Who cares what other codes do when the ball goes out?

What else do you want? Painted lines defining every 10 metres of the ground like in Rugby League?

How about bringing out the measuring stick to see if the ball travelled 15 metres when a mark is taken? The measuring stick is an integral part if "Grid Aahrn".

If you think the "40-20" is such a good idea in League, why don't we have a 20- 70(or something) in Aussie Rules?

Or make it illegal to tackle an opponent if he jumping is off the ground attempting to take a mark inside his own 50?

Once you start contriving rules to speed up a game , you destroy it's very fabric.

Some of the contrived "rules" in league and Union are laughable.

Afl footy is fast and rugged enough as it is. Leave it alone!!!
 
Originally posted by Catman
I disagree Dan, what happens if during a Grand Final there is a player who accidently gets in the way of a kick out of a pack, or a handball and the ball trickles over the line? Opponent player goes short and finds a teammate, goal, win.

If that happens in a Grand Final, so be it. What would happen in a Grand Final if a player accidentaly kicked the all out of bounds on the full, after it fell on his boot? Oops that rule alreadyt exists.

Anyone can come with the old "What if this happened in a Grand Final" argument. You can use that old chestnut for dozens of CURRENT rules. What if Nathan Buckely leavs the field for the blood rule and Collingwood lose the Grand Final by one -point etc etc, blah, blah. Heard it all before.

Originally posted by Catman
We would also see the farcical sight of players standing back as they wait for the ball to roll out of play, knowing that they will get the ball. It will look stupid.

No, you won't see that, because the player who last touched the ball would be going after the ball, doing everything he can to get it before it goes over the line. And besides, in a close game we see players deliberatley let the ball trickle over the line, to eat up time in a close game. It already happens.

Originally posted by Catman
Also we will see players deliberately handpassing or kicking the ball into opposition players so they get the free kick. Once again, the player without the ball would be in the worst position.

This happens in basketball, but the positives of keeping the ball in play outweight the negatives of players throwing the ball to deflect of another player. Instead, think of how much better it would be with players using the corridor, and keeping the ball in play.
 
Disagree.
Rule changes are usually for the good of the game.
The rule changes that stuff things up are the ambiguous ones such as the deliberate out of bounds one.
If a player knocks it through for a point, fine, if it touches the behind post a free. Refs always get it wrong, when they do police it is done in an inconsistent manner.
The rule does need a change, and it needs to be done in a way so that blind Freddy can police it simply.

Ps this was in response to Luthor, somehow lost his quote.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted by Dan26


I don't like that idea, because In my view he 50 metre arcs are only there for a distance guide. They have never had anything to do with the rules of the game.

If a 40-metre arc was introduced in 1986 instead of 50, would Malthouse still have the same idea? What about if it was a 60-metre arc that was introuced back in '86?

Who cares if it's a distance guide? If it can be used, why not? And is it any more arbritrary than the change for kicking distance for a ball to be marked changed from 10m to 15m?


The one thing about our game, is that same rules apply all over the ground. I don't see why the rule should not be used just because the goals are nearby. If that's the case we might as well introduce a rule where goals can't scored from any free kicks (i.e "in the back", holding the ball, etc) inside 50.

Same rules all over the ground? Don't we have different rules for the number of players allowed around the ball for ball ups depending on whether it's to start play after a goal has been scored or if it's in general play?
 
Originally posted by luthor


We have a unique game with unique rules. Who cares what other codes do when the ball goes out?


I don't like this line of thinking.

What if, in 1966, I propsed that any ball kicked out of bounds on the full is penalised. Would you, luthor, then claim that such a change would be bad because our game is unique?

In 1967 the VFL introduced that rule (for the better), even though people like you would obviously disagree with it (going by your post)

I don't like making changes for the sake of it, but sometimes, changes can be made for the better. For 89 years there was no 50-metre line drawn on the field. Was it somehow bad that the tradition of no 50-metre line changed in 1986 when it was introduced?

There have been various rule changes over the 100 year history of our game. If we were left with the sport, under the rules of 1897, it would be a strange (and not as attractive) sport.
 
Originally posted by Dan26
What's being under pressure got to do with it, Seiny? The idea is to keep the ball in play. Under the curent rule, they're technically not allowed to go for the boundry line anyway.

Dan,

As I said in my original post, I think your idea has some merrit providing you can't have a direct shot at goal as a result of one of these free kicks.

soccer - must throw ball back into play
basketball - must pass back into play

Mind you, Aston Villa showed the other week that they can conceed a goal from throwing the ball back into their own net!! :D

Go Cats!!
SeinDude
 
Originally posted by Shinboners


Who cares if it's a distance guide? If it can be used, why not? And is it any more arbritrary than the change for kicking distance for a ball to be marked changed from 10m to 15m?

I just don't see why the rule must be changed just because the ball is within 50 metres of goal. If it is good enough to award a free kick for out of bounds 100 metres away, why not one metre away?

A holding the ball free kick can result in a goal if it is awarded close to goal, just like it could happen 100 metres from goal. Same principle.

Originally posted by Shinboners
Same rules all over the ground? Don't we have different rules for the number of players allowed around the ball for ball ups depending on whether it's to start play after a goal has been scored or if it's in general play?

The rules are the same all over the ground, in terms of awarding free kicks. It's not as if the rules for a free-kick change just because a player is close to goal.
 
Any rule change which reduces the level of subjectivity currently present in the officiating of our game would be welcomed. By that, I mean that presently we have a wealth of laws that are dependent on the judgement of the men in white, and are therefore vulnerable to as many differnet interpretations as there are umpires and occasions to implement decisions. Effectively we have the equivalent of about a dozen LBW rules in football.

The suggested rule amendment - as a by-product - would take away the "DELIBERATE !!!" rule. That's one of the subjective one's gone. But if a free kick is awarded for a simple out of bounds, I believe that there should be no score allowed from that disposal (like a soccer throw-in).
 
There IS a rule that needs not so much changing as tightening up!

It's the holding the ball rule as it applies to centre square ball-ups and boundary throw ins.

I'm sick of seeing ruckmen (Primus and Darcy in particular) not directing the ball to a team-mate but GRABBING possession of the bloody thing and THEN trying to get a perfect handpass to someone.

When it works, fair enough. But when it doesn't work, they are being caught HOLDING THE BALL STONE COLD!!! Do we ever see a free for a HTTB infrimgement when this happens???

Oh Noooooo!!!!. let's just have another ball up and give them another chance to do it again. In other words they can grab it and make no attempt to IMMEDIATELY dispose of it all day long without fear of ever getting pinged.

If the HHTB rule were enforced against ruckmen correctly, we wouldn't have to worry about making up yet another rule to clear the ball away from stoppages.

The Rules Committee should encourage Ruckmen to be AFL Ruckmen instead of encouraging them to emulate Rugby front rowers setting up second phase play!!!
 
Any rule changes should firstly benefit the game and be simple.
At the moment we have two boundary rules plus the Fullback kicking in rule .Change it to two.
If it's kicked out - kick it back in.
If it's touched out - throw it in .
Can't get much simpler than than out .
Reduces the "kicking for touch" and deliberate kick out .
Just as when we introduced the "on the full rule " we have the same debate and the same adjustments made by the players !
 
Any rule changes should firstly benefit the game and secondly be simple to implement .At present we have 2 boundary rules and a rule when the full back kick in .Change it to 2 only .
If it's kicked out - kick it back in .
If it goes out by hand - throw it back in.
Can't get any simpler than that .
This reduces the "kicking for touch"and deliberate kicking out and also reduces some negative tactics .
When the "out on the full " rule came in , the same debate and the same player adjustments occurred
 
Originally posted by Dan26


I don't like that idea, because In my view he 50 metre arcs are only there for a distance guide. They have never had anything to do with the rules of the game.

I thought the 50 was used so that if a player marked inside the umpire had to line him up. If he marked outside the umpire didn't have to. I've never seen an umpire line up any player from outside 50. Granted, not many players can kick that far though.
 
I agree with SeinDude and Dan.
When the ball is forced over the boundary line, a free kick will be awarded to the opposition player closest to the ball (at the time) as it goes over the boundary line. Just like Basketball, just like soccer.

I agree with SeinDude that you shouldn't be aloud to create a scoring shot from this rule. This rule could involve some luck, IE - Deliberately handballing the ball onto an opponent to force the ball over the boundary line.

The deliberate rule is not used correctly, and if it was, there would be no need for this thread to be started. What is the point of creating a rule if it is not used correctly within the laws of our great game?
 
Not a bad idea Dan, but I think it would be way too unfair for defenders.

Like what would Leppitsch supposed to have done in the last few minutes of the grand final instead of what he did (when he punched the ball away from Josh Fraser)?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

In Australian Rules Football, when the ball goes out of bounds...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top