Should This Be Called "Play On" ??

[LordLucifer]

By running off the line, clearly Elliott has played on whilst still out of bounds of the playing area. If this wqs in the field of paly, the umpire would have ceertainly called "play on".

This is not the first time we have seen this happen but the question remains, whenever a player does this, why isn't it called "play on" and therefore the boundary umpire blows the whistle to signal "out of bounds" ??

 

[ibd77]

I have no issues with it as he is coming from an out of bounce position into the field of play. The same discretion that Alir Alir should have been afforded.

 

[00Stinger]

I have no issues with it as he is coming from an out of bounce position into the field of play. The same discretion that Alir Alir should have been afforded.

But the game and ball is effectively considered in play despite being out of bounds? If he gets tackled and drops the ball should it be a free kick or a throw in?

I've had an issue with this rule for ages now, its mostly evident further up the ground

 

[Stumpy Pete]

But the game and ball is effectively considered in play despite being out of bounds? If he gets tackled and drops the ball should it be a free kick or a throw in?

I've had an issue with this rule for ages now, its mostly evident further up the ground

Your question is a good one. I think there currently needs to be a flexible application of the rule here because players cannot necessarily go back directly in line with the mark because of the boundary fences.

One option is make the distance between the boundary line and the fence bigger (ie smaller playing surface) but I can’t see that happening as it will lead to greater congestion.

A more palatable option is to have the mark set 5-10 metres from the point of the mark or out of bounds on the full/deliberate free kick in a direct line to the middle of goals. Given they then have distance between the boundary line and the mark of a player chooses to play on while out of bounds it would be appropriate to call them out of bounds.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[00Stinger]

Your question is a good one. I think there currently needs to be a flexible application of the rule here because players cannot necessarily go back directly in line with the mark because of the boundary fences.

One option is make the distance between the boundary line and the fence bigger (ie smaller playing surface) but I can’t see that happening as it will lead to greater congestion.

A more palatable option is to have the mark set 5-10 metres from the point of the mark or out of bounds on the full/deliberate free lock in a direct line to the middle of goals. Given they then have distance between the boundary line and the mark of a player chooses to play on while out of bounds it would be appropriate to call them out of bounds.

Regards

S. Pete

I don't mind your options and my annoyance has nothing to do with Sat night.

 

[Grave Danger]

Razor Ray may have clarified/confused further this question on SEN this morning...

 

[Mitchell Madness]

By running off the line, clearly Elliott has played on whilst still out of bounds of the playing area. If this wqs in the field of paly, the umpire would have ceertainly called "play on".

This is not the first time we have seen this happen but the question remains, whenever a player does this, why isn't it called "play on" and therefore the boundary umpire blows the whistle to signal "out of bounds" ??

Technically it is, has been paid twice in North vs hawks Rd 1 last yr, then nothing

 

[hcd199]

How 'play on' works is different when coming from outside the boundary - unlike in normal play, you can deviate off the line "in one direction" without it becoming a throw in, and being directed to 'play on' (as the umpire does with Elliott) doesn't result in a throw in unless you also fail to "bring the football back into play":

This does create a few extra grey areas, which isn't ideal - but no question for me that what we saw was legitimate within the above laws of the game.

 

[deck]

I have no issues with it as he is coming from an out of bounce position into the field of play. The same discretion that Alir Alir should have been afforded.

Alir Alir went past where the mark was out of bounce. So once he crossed the point of where the ball went out he must be in the field of play or it is a throw in as was correctly called.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Alir Alir went past where the mark was out of bounce. So once he crossed the point of where the ball went out he must be in the field of play or it is a throw in as was correctly called.

Almost.
Once he crosses the line where the mark is and it is deemed play on, he can remain out of bounds, but must re-enter the field using the same line he was on when play on is called. If he deviates from that line, it is then out of bounds and a throw in. That's what happened with Aliir. There wasn't a lot in it, but he had gone forward of the mark (play on), then deviated to re-enter the field. If he had stayed on his existing line to re-enter the field (ironically that would've meant he was out of bounds for longer), he would've been fine.

The Elliott one confuses people because he also changes his line whilst outside the boundary, but his initial line is taking his kick over the man on the mark. He never crosses the mark, so it's not play on. It only becomes play on WHEN he changes direction, which he's allowed to do, but he MUST then maintain the same line that he's used to play on until he comes back into the field of play, which he does.

TL;DR
A change of direction outside the field of play IS allowed PRIOR to play on being called.
A change of direction outside the field of play is NOT allowed AFTER play on is called.