
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?
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?