Rules Insufficient intent is out of control

[BF Tiger]

Funny thing is at least twice on Friday night Carlton players running with the ball casually moved sideways when confronted by a opponent and went out of bounds. Didn't hear anyone call for insufficient intent.

Coz no-one watches Carlton.

 

[Hot Dogma]

Funny thing is at least twice on Friday night Carlton players running with the ball casually moved sideways when confronted by a opponent and went out of bounds. Didn't hear anyone call for insufficient intent.

Don't be silly. Nick Daicos is the only player in the league who does this and he always gets away with it. #NicBias

 

[ShadowCat]

Worse one of the round was when Mullin got in front of Charlie Cameron and desperately lunged to spoil the ball out after it bounced near his head.

They called that insufficient intent. A thousand times a game we see spoils get punched over the boundary line. But because the ball bounced, it's now not sufficient. Never seen that happen before.

F*cking absurd.

 

[Walshawk]

Yet you can deliberately walk it out of bounds, deliberately fumble it out of bounds, and often even deliberately handball or punch it out of bounds.

But if it comes of your foot, no matter your intention, it is a free kick. Utterly Rediculous.

 

[Great8]

Last touch would be a disaster imagine a pack of 8 players around the ball then it spills out of bounds and the dumb umpires have to determine who it came off

I was cynical when the SANFL introduced the rule at first and I honestly think it has been an excellent change.
It works really well and I am shocked the AFL hasn’t looked at but perhaps they don’t want to admit that a “lower comp” can do things better than them

 

[BigPond101]

I was cynical when the SANFL introduced the rule at first and I honestly think it has been an excellent change.
It works really well and I am shocked the AFL hasn’t looked at but perhaps they don’t want to admit that a “lower comp” can do things better than them

How does it work if a player handballs or just knocks the ball into the opponents leg so it's technically a kick? The skill level is so much higher and AFL is their fulltime job I assume all clubs would develop strategies around trying to make the opposition 'kick' the ball out of bounds. Thus every contest near the boundary could turn into a bit of a farce. Especially in forward 50 which is usually flooded

But anyway it would be good see it trialled

 

[Thrawn]

Get rid of the deliberate rule entirely.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think last disposal is the way to go, it has to be a kick or handball, if it is tapped over then it’s a throw in.

It’s still ripe for a bit of mischief, ie players purposefully tapping it over rather than taking possession, but probably better than what we have now.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I love the insufficient intent rule. Has improved the game considerably.

Don’t @ me.

 

[RedWhite4Ever]

Just get rid of it entirely. It's so stupid and it infuriates me no end when the camera cuts to the umpire sprinting in with his arm extended and motioning with his hand. Just dogshit. No consistency with it. Just throw the ball back in.

Watching games from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's it was strategic for a player, especially a back-man or defender to "kick for and gain territory" and find the boundary line for safety. Ball gets thrown in and play resets. Simple, easy and equal. No sooking fans etc.

The other things that infuriate me and are absolutely killing this sport at the moment are:

• The chopping of the arms in the marking contest. You know it is going to be an immediate free kick to the full forward or forward. Killing the full back or defenders etc. position and effectively killing this sport. Can't spoil if the forward has his arms in the air trying to take the mark. Ridiculous rule.
• The contested mark where the player can't spoil if he is running into his facing his opponent to contest . This is so freaking stupid!! As per above you are killing the defenders position and you may as well let your opponent take the mark because it is an automatic free kick.
• The rushed behind rule. Scrap it immediately and f*$k it right off. Stupidest thing ever implemented into the sport.
• Ducking the knee to entice the high tackle. You duck the knee; it's play on or holding the ball. Sort this dogshit out immediately. It's killing the game.
• The standing rule. Dogshit - get rid of it. It's so dumb.
• Score review. Put small flashing lights on the top of the goal posts if it "hits the post" etc. So dumb.

The game has morphed into an Umpires game of interpretations. It's why I stopped watching halfway through last year. Especially the ducking of the knee.

 

[HairyO]

Yes, it has been working wonderfully well in the SANFL for the past few seasons, not sure why the AFL doesn't give it a try.

When I played U6 footy we had 15 on the field. It worked wonderfully well.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I was cynical when the SANFL introduced the rule at first and I honestly think it has been an excellent change.
It works really well and I am shocked the AFL hasn’t looked at but perhaps they don’t want to admit that a “lower comp” can do things better than them

Yes, in the first season, supporters weren't particularly enamored of the rule because it was a change, but by the second season nobody was complaining about it and now a comfortable part of the game.

 

[Handsuper47]

Any penalty that requires an umpire to determine intent is always going to be flawed. The league would be better off with a rule that says if the ball goes out of bounds with no other player within 10 metres of the ball, then a free kick is paid.

That does however, require umpires to be able to judge 10m...which we know they can't do as they butcher the 15m rule.

So maybe just make it like soccer. If you cause the ball to go out, the other team get to bring it in.

I would like to see that. As funny as it was seeing Richmond in the 2000's make a mockery of rushed behinds, it was a good thing they fixed up that rule and it should also happen here.

 

[1970crow]

So it should not be called Last Touch. And this would mean it’s now fair game to paddle, punch, walk or watch the ball across the line without repercussion?

No it wouldn’t, deliberate remains.

 

[Drummond]

No it wouldn’t, deliberate remains.

Exactly right. Still remains, but far less decision making to do for umpires.

Honestly, time to trial it and bring it in.

 

[janty]

Yet you can deliberately walk it out of bounds, deliberately fumble it out of bounds, and often even deliberately handball or punch it out of bounds.

But if it comes of your foot, no matter your intention, it is a free kick. Utterly Rediculous.

The defender holding the ball above the head, doing a 360 out of bounds and getting away with it is terrible....except when Harris Andrews does it then I have no problem with it.

 

[jdisc]

I like it, especially when the player fakes a handball to "keep it in" that goes to a player standing out of bounds

has a similar vibe to those players that punch the ball while holding it into themselves to avoid being pinned for HTB

AFL just loves having it's rules that forces players to do something performative

 

[Spirit Level]

Just make it last touch unless you're kicking into your FWD 50, if you can hack it in there and get it OOB then you're allowed to reset and get a throw in

 

[Partridge]

Yes, it has been working wonderfully well in the SANFL for the past few seasons, not sure why the AFL doesn't give it a try.

Got a chuckle watching my demented father-in-law blow his lid on Saturday night when a few went against Geelong. Been trying to point out how insane it was for all of last season, like all supporters he had no issue with it when the same decisions would go in our favour. Even for the AFL it's an astonishingly stupid interpretation.

Very simple, very easy, solution. Pay deliberate when it is ..........actually deliberate. As was done previously. 99% of the time the umpires got it right, because it's pretty simple.

 

[Sentinel]

I think last disposal is the way to go, it has to be a kick or handball, if it is tapped over then it’s a throw in.

It’s still ripe for a bit of mischief, ie players purposefully tapping it over rather than taking possession, but probably better than what we have now.

Agree with this - make it last disposal (kick or handball) and if you get tackled/run it over the line whilst in possession, a la Nick Daicos against the Bulldogs, they can simply judge it on prior opportunity like they do for HTB.

As for tapping it, I think it's a matter of control - if you're in control of it and tap it towards the boundary, that's paid against, as opposed to a fumble/juggle. Which is basically how they already adjudicate that.

This removes all bogus 'intent' discussion. It's harsher on an attacking side kicking inside 50, but so be it.

 

[Sttew]

Just now a Freo player kicked it 40m up field to a teammate on the wing. Missed him, and it rolled out.

Insufficient intent paid. What the actual heck?

Just bring in last touch, like enough already, if you want pretty much continuous play just change the rule.

Simple solution - last player to touch football that goes out of bounds has free awarded against him to opposition player closest to where ball went out.

That's fair and will eliminate contentious interpretation by umpires. Will also save the AFL $$$$ on the number of boundary umpires needed.

The one that pi55es me off is the opposition player who follows the ball going out when he could easily have taken control of it

 

[Rabish Binney]

Got a chuckle watching my demented father-in-law blow his lid on Saturday night when a few went against Geelong. Been trying to point out how insane it was for all of last season, like all supporters he had no issue with it when the same decisions would go in our favour. Even for the AFL it's an astonishingly stupid interpretation.

Very simple, very easy, solution. Pay deliberate when it is ..........actually deliberate. As was done previously. 99% of the time the umpires got it right, because it's pretty simple.

100% correct.

The rule should be 'deliberate', not 'insufficient attempt'.

 

[fargothegreat]

This rule is very easy to fix.

Just change the definition of 'out on the full' to include any kick or handball that doesn't touch another player before going over the line.

If it goes off hands or is spoiled over the line, it's a throw-in, but otherwise its a free.

 

[Gavin Excell]

It's a well-intentioned rule but it's utterly stupid. It's basically an umpire telling a player "I can read your mind".

It's pretty clear
The umpires award the free kick depending upon the noise of the crowd

 

[FrankDrebin]

I dont mind the strict interpretation. If it makes it easier /more consistent then change it to some variation of 'last touch' but who on earth actually enjoys watching boundary throw ins? The more the ball is in play the better.