Last touch rule

Should we introcue a "Last touch rule?"

  • Yes - I want us to be like soccer

    Votes: 9 13.4%
  • No - Stupid idea

    Votes: 58 86.6%

  • Total voters
    67

Remove this Banner Ad

hawkman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
26,670
32,685
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
Deflection, spoil, ricochet = not deliberate
Hand pass = deliberate
Bouncing kick = not deliberate (just like ootf)
Inside D/F50 = not deliberate (unless first bounce of ball from kick is not close to team-mate)
Ball originates from either arc but crosses in between the arcs = not deliberate

Basically, only call it as last touch if it's from a hand pass over the line in-between the arcs. If you get a touch on it, it's a throw in. Even if the hand pass bounces or deviates.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, I just don't like the term "deliberate" being used to officiate rules as it's so woefully open to interpretation

Just don't make rules open to interpretation, make them solid and as close to zeros and ones as possible. Soccer has it's criticisms, sure - and most of them are the diving/simulation which is totally down to interpretation and often the pace which is down to the players on the field, not the sport itself. What it does have, however, is hard and fast rules for last touch for corners, goal kicks and thrown ins, off-side & handball (well, mostly) and lots of rules that are yes and no in terms of officiating. The rules that always cause angst are the interpreations ones (penalties, VAR, yellow/red card calls etc.)
Players would just kick along the ground and aim for the boundary under that interpretation
 

Dazzler9

Actually...
Apr 30, 2015
10,723
20,388
AFL Club
West Coast
Instead of a freekick, what about awarding a free handball? Would have a similar impact to a throw-in in soccer. ie. it's not the end of the world to concede it if you have to.

Just a thought bubble.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dazzler9

Actually...
Apr 30, 2015
10,723
20,388
AFL Club
West Coast
Instead of a freekick, what about awarding a free handball? Would have a similar impact to a throw-in in soccer. ie. it's not the end of the world to concede it if you have to.

Just a thought bubble.
You'd probably end up with a specialist/designated handballer, and all manner of set plays along the boundary.

Edit: and probably more congestion TBH
 

Vindicater

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 16, 2013
10,264
12,959
AFL Club
Essendon
Instead of a freekick, what about awarding a free handball? Would have a similar impact to a throw-in in soccer. ie. it's not the end of the world to concede it if you have to.

Just a thought bubble.

Yeah can't wait to see 18 players all within 15 metres of the person with the ball.
 

Tackle Bag

Club Legend
Dec 5, 2017
1,496
3,399
AFL Club
Richmond
So they will once again completely ignore the vast majority of fans pleading for them to leave the game alone for a while.

And they wonder why fans are turning away
 

terrybull

All Australian
Feb 1, 2004
999
1,248
Sweden
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Helsingborg Australian FC
Clear majority seems against it.

If the AFL sees this, it be a new rule 2023.
 

footyfan1978

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2014
34,999
37,811
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
How about the AFL stop adding rules every year, and start removing all the garbage ones they've bought in instead?
Correct in terms of removing garbage rules or correcting many mistakes.
I have no idea why we have to have last touch rule.
Out of bounce on full has been adjusted to... a free kick against a player who does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the ball within the playing area.. is well and truly clear enough for most football fans to understand. It one of the few "adjustments" the AFL have made that is not a dogs breakfast.

I'd like other corrections to rules they brought in. I could find the stand rule less silly if it was only applied between when not in the 50 metre forward arc of a team.

The 6, 6 ,6 rule has been done to extreme when all you needed to do was make sure half forwards and half backs had to start from half forward and half back positions, which to me is not forcing them to start within 50 metre arc. They should be able to start up to the line of the centre square which would actually allow even more room for the full forwards and forward pockets to run into space on the lead or for quick ground ball gets. They actually congest the forward line more but having them all have to start within the 50 metre arc.

I have no idea why when they introduce a rule that too extreme but had good intent behind it, they do not adjust to more in line with the intent of why it brought in. Similarly when they went from 15 metre penalty to 50 metre, it really should have been have 30 metre and 50 metre penalty and the 50 metre penalty apply for blatantly infringement by players and 30 metre for minor discretions. Nope, everything even minor can be 50 metres and create cheap goals the devalue the match itself for viewers.
 

ManInWhite

Ex ManInWhite
Apr 6, 2009
761
234
AFL Club
Richmond
Are there examples of players shepherding opponents off the ball, because one of the opponent's teammates has kicked the ball, and it's going to dribble out of bounds?

In our local junior footy a free kick is paid against any player that shepherds an opponent who is trying to save a teammates kick form going OOB.
 

ManInWhite

Ex ManInWhite
Apr 6, 2009
761
234
AFL Club
Richmond
They have this in junior footy too because of no boundary umpires. It works fine, I think it will remove the more frustrating, insufficient intent rule interpretation when you’re on the receiving end of a bad one.

I’d like to say this one won’t cost a grand final but even the black & white rules could eg. Wayne Harmes.

From personal experience it works horribly. Without having boundary umpires in our local junior footy, the field umpire is trying to determine whether the ball is in or out and our natural position inside the field is the worst place to judge. Not uncommon to have parents on the boundary line getting antsy because an umpire couldn't tell. Especially on grounds where the grass is longer or the lines are fainter and you just can't tell. We also find that the umpire is more intent on watching the ball to see if it stays in and misses high tackles and other frees just off the ball because the focus isn't there.

Hasn't been mentioned but you would still want boundary umpires to at least judge the contest. Also - who brings the ball back after a goal???
 

ManInWhite

Ex ManInWhite
Apr 6, 2009
761
234
AFL Club
Richmond
And secondly, every rule change should be able to clearly and succinctly answer 2 questions:

What issue is this rule change intended to fix/improve in the game?

How does this rule change improve/fix the issue in the game?


If there is not a clear, logical, succinct and simple answer to those questions, the rule change should not be implemented.

You forgot:

3. What other issue would be negatively impacted by introducing this rule change.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Purple Suit

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 30, 2011
11,194
18,208
Freo
AFL Club
Fremantle
From personal experience it works horribly. Without having boundary umpires in our local junior footy, the field umpire is trying to determine whether the ball is in or out and our natural position inside the field is the worst place to judge. Not uncommon to have parents on the boundary line getting antsy because an umpire couldn't tell. Especially on grounds where the grass is longer or the lines are fainter and you just can't tell. We also find that the umpire is more intent on watching the ball to see if it stays in and misses high tackles and other frees just off the ball because the focus isn't there.

Hasn't been mentioned but you would still want boundary umpires to at least judge the contest. Also - who brings the ball back after a goal???
Seems like the frustration is more to do with no boundary umpires. The AFL would definitely need to keep them to call it and set the mark.
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,655
19,856
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
I think you would need to retain "insufficient intent" as well for other methods of trying to get the ball out of bounds where possession is not taken (spoils, tapping it on, etc) but "last disposal" makes much more sense than "last touch". I'm still concerned that teams may decide not to risk going wide, making it easier to defend and adding congestion by effectively narrowing the ground.

Whatever it is (if anything, nothing is always an option), trial it in practice matches first for a couple of pre-seasons - don't just throw it into league games as they almost always do with rule changes.

Could try in practice matches but it’s also been in the SANFL for years.
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,655
19,856
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
Instead of a freekick, what about awarding a free handball? Would have a similar impact to a throw-in in soccer. ie. it's not the end of the world to concede it if you have to.

Just a thought bubble.

How about a drop kick?
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,655
19,856
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
So they will once again completely ignore the vast majority of fans pleading for them to leave the game alone for a while.

And they wonder why fans are turning away

Thing is there is no clear consensus.

Many are part of the “leave the game alone” crowd, others thing the game is worse and want higher scoring/less congestion.

I think everything should be on a case by case basis.

I think 6-6-6 has been a massive winner.

Stand rule neither here nor there on it.

50 metre penalties, gone OTT and will settle down like all other rules. Bizarrely umpires are more lenient on players being taken down after a mark than they used to be.
 

Antzzz

Club Legend
Sep 26, 2018
1,301
3,390
AFL Club
Richmond
Last touch rule … if this comes in I think l’ll be done …. It’s not needed in the game the same as most of the other stupid rules the AFL have introduced …. This madness needs to stop !!!!
 

simmo97

Club Legend
Aug 15, 2013
1,925
2,036
AFL Club
Adelaide


The SANFL has released an educational video to interpret the Out of Bounds – Last Possession Rule.

A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:


  • Kicks or Handballs the football over the Boundary Line without the football being touched by another Player;
  • For the purposes of defining a kick, a kick shall be an intentional action, not accidental. When the ball comes off the foot or lower leg of a player without the intent of the player being to kick the ball, it will be deemed accidental contact and will not be determined as a kick by the umpire and therefore will result in a boundary throw in.
  • Where a Player who does not have possession stops the football being touched by an Opposition Player by Shepherding the ball across the Boundary Line where the ball could have otherwise been touched by the player being blocked, then the umpire will not award a free kick but will instead order a boundary throw in.
 

MrKK

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 11, 2012
5,822
12,843
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
If it's last disposal, it probably wouldn't happen all that often anyway, right? Most kicks that dribble OOB are pinged for deliberate these days, and when was the last time you saw a handball go OOB?

I could be wrong about that, but I don't think it'll happen too much.

What it might do is encourage less kicking down the line out of defence, in case you miss your target. So that might be a positive.
In the SANFL it usually happens when a player is kicking long to a team mate either down the line or in the forward pocket, and they miss the target. It works well because it's much easier to take a quick free kick than wait for the boundary umpire and rucks to get into position.

It's a good rule, easily judged, and rarely results in a direct shot on goal.
 

twosheds

Team Captain
Oct 8, 2004
331
25
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Central District F.C.
In the SANFL it usually happens when a player is kicking long to a team mate either down the line or in the forward pocket, and they miss the target. It works well because it's much easier to take a quick free kick than wait for the boundary umpire and rucks to get into position.

It's a good rule, easily judged, and rarely results in a direct shot on goal.
Be very careful what you wish for. I see it every week in the SANFL and it can be too big a penalty due to the odd shape of the ball. Also if a player sheperds it out it is supposed to be a throw in (as per earlier explanation) but the umps just pay a "last kick" free kick.
Terrible rule.
 

simmo97

Club Legend
Aug 15, 2013
1,925
2,036
AFL Club
Adelaide
Be very careful what you wish for. I see it every week in the SANFL and it can be too big a penalty due to the odd shape of the ball. Also if a player sheperds it out it is supposed to be a throw in (as per earlier explanation) but the umps just pay a "last kick" free kick.
Terrible rule.

it is far better than the current insufficient intent rule.
 

Wallaby

Brownlow Medallist
May 8, 2007
10,184
13,917
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Has someone actually defined how much intent needs to be 'sufficient'? How is it measured? Can I kick the ball along the boundary lion and 'intend' it to take several right-angle bounces and wind up in the goalsquare? I may fail at the necessary skill to do that, but that's what I 'intend'.
 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
9,663
8,582
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, McLaren F1
They have to do something about the intentional handball onto the boot trick to get an "out on the full" that appears to have developed? Just leave the rules alone for a while. Reduce the interchange so they can do something, but stop all the mad rule changes?