Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 25, 2005
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
It's the worst rule in the sport.One of the best rules in the game. Players are forced to keep the ball in play. The harsh rule interpretation makes it tougher for players to take the easy way out and kill the play dead. Fewer stoppages... More flow to the game...
Like many rules, it works well as a deterrent (but this doesn't stop the numbnuts like BT from complaining whenever it's paid)
FMD... Imagine we went back to the old days of 100 boundary throw-ins per game. How exciting would that be?
Once or twice per game, people whinge about a harsh deliberate OOB decision, but is the penalty really that bad?
How often do you see a goal result from one of these free kicks? Almost never...
A player will see he has no decent options further afield so he'll deliberately kick it 40-50 metres downfield towards the line, knowing he'll be penalised.
A player from the other team will get the free kick, usually about 80 or 90 metres from goal, and he'll be staring at 18 opposition players camped inside their defensive fifty.
It's just a handover of possession a long way from goal due to having no options. Football justice.
It's hilarious the way everyone loses their shiit whenever one of these free kicks are paid. They need to get a grip.
They need to open their eyes and see the "penalty" isn't so bad.
Not the intent of the rule, but the interpretation of it. And the adjudication of it.
It's borderline idiotic.
A bloke can be hemmed in on the boundary line and instead of deliberately taking it out of bounds, throws it on his boot to keep the ball alive - and gets pinged because the ball rolls out of bounds 40m away!!
Or, a bloke gets pinged for roosting it 60m forward and it eventually goes out of bounds - whilst players literally deliberately walk it over the boundary 10 times every week! And then there's defenders intentionally punching it out of bounds. Ruckmen forcing it out on purpose.
Then there's miskicks being penalised. Just perplexing.
Then there's a guy deliberately forcing a behind which is legal, but if it accidentally hits the post - the exact same action is called Deliberate!
Bizarre. Nonsensical. Poorly thought out. Without logic. Largely impossible to adjudicate.
I have no problem with the concept of a 'Deliberate' rule. And I don't really even have an issue with a 'Insifficient Attempt to Keep it in' rule (which is what the rule really is). I have an issue with how illogical the interpretation of it is.