Stricter interpretation of deliberate? (When player + ball is within 5m of boundary)

[Hundred_Thousand_Tigers]

It seems obvious that all AFL players deliberately fumble the ball over the line, charge at the ball and take it over the line, or paddle it away from the field of play and whoops! Ran out of space.

We all know these are intentional acts.

What do you think about tightening up the interpretation of deliberate out of bounds when the ball + player are both within 5m of the boundary?

The consequence would be everyone fights tooth and nail to keep the ball in.

Talented players would not be beaten by lesser talented players as often in these situations.

The result would be more frequent fast rebounds in open space.

Why not?

Seems like it would reduce the number of transitions from open play to congested stoppage.

 

[ManInWhite]

Disagree. More and more free kicks based on interpretation is what starts all the arguments between people as everyone has a different take on what they think happened. You don't want a sport where officials are paying free kicks based on what they think players are thinking. Whilst not ideal, better option is for free kick against last touched before going OOB. That will ensure players magically find a way to keep the ball in play all of a sudden.

 

[flyinghi64]

The one that annoys me is when a player tracks the ball as it rolls/bounces over the line. He has had 4 or 5 metres to pick it up but elects to let it go, beacause opposition kicked it, then turns around appealing for deliberate.
That player should be done for not trying to keep the ball in play.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Can be tricky. I actually wonder what would happen if they introduced an out of bounds rule like that in basketball or soccer, where the opposition team gets the ball if you're the last one to touch it before going over the boundary line, deliberate or not. Basically eliminating the throw in. I'm not saying I'd want it, but would be interesting. It would certainly make players pretty desperate not to let it get out, but interrupt the flow of the game. Just watched a couple of games from the 90s, it was ridiculous how often they did it (I mean I remember them doing it a fair bit, but not THAT much haha).

 

[Admiral Byng]

I hate the rule as it is now.

I think any kick that goes over say 25m should always be throw-in, unless it is on the full. I don't mind defenders getting a hacked kick out of the pack that gains territory - nothing wrong with it in the first place. Players paddle the ball over the line because they risk being pinged for stupid HTB decisions if they pick it up and get tackled near the line. It is not the OOB rule that was caused the initial problem, it is the HTB rule and what is and what is not prior opportunity that caused a flow-on effect when the ball was near the line, paddling it over is the sfaer way of killing the ball.

 

[Wallaby]

I hate the rule full stop.

When I were a wee lad (1970s) it was basically NEVER paid (very occasionally, the umps would pluck one out in the last 5 minutes of a close game, just to make things interesting - umps, huh?), but really, a defender could kick for the line whenever he wanted. It was so blatant, they brought in the Out on the Full rule.
I think a defender should be able to use the boundary line as an aid, if he wants. I'm happy to still have OOF - apply it to kicks, handpasses and boundary throw-ins. If they go over on the full, then you can pay a free kick.

 

[Hoops]

What i want to see changed is that any player with prior that carrys the ball out of bounds whether that's tackled bumped or run out then its a free for deliberate

 

[ManInWhite]

What i want to see changed is that any player with prior that carrys the ball out of bounds whether that's tackled bumped or run out then its a free for deliberate

It already is...

 

[Hoops]

It already is...

It's rarely paid.