Why are deliberate hit-outs/spoils out of bounds allowed?

[PerthBoy86]

One thing I'm wondering about: kicking it out of bounds (not out on the full), handballing, or running out deliberately is considered deliberate or insufficient intent in keeping it in, but why are players allowed to punch it out? Isn't that the exact same intent/result? What's the reason for this? Makes zero sense to me.

 

[Underarm]

Because then the forwards would just lead to the pocket and allow the defender to spoil it instead of marking it.

 

[Breretonisahood]

The “lack of intent” rule is a shambles and a joke. Your question just highlights this. Answer: NFI.

 

[Purple Suit]

Defenders and umpires have a hard enough time as it is. Imagine having to decide if the defender was trying to punch it out or if it just came off their fist wrong?

 

[Ralll]

Spoils occur while not in possession, the ball arriving from a long way away, and usually in a contested situation meaning the players don't have enough control on the ball for a deliberate call.
Hit-outs get penalised.

 

[JackFlash]

I find the whole deliberate out of bounds issue poorly adjudicated and not a lot of common sense is shown by Umpires.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Spoils occur while not in possession, the ball arriving from a long way away, and usually in a contested situation meaning the players don't have enough control on the ball for a deliberate call.
Hit-outs get penalised.

I think this about sums it up - a spoil isn't from a possession, so can't really be called deliberate or insufficient intent. If you're jumping up in a pack to make a spoil, you have a general idea where the boundary might be, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are aiming for it, merely it makes more sense to try and get the ball away from the corridor where if the opposition do end up regaining possession, it's far less of a chance of it being damaging as if it were say, 50-60m out from goal and dead in front

 

[Roobs321]

I’ve got no issue with it. Traditionally used to feel a more common feature of the game, with some like Archer very identifiable with it. Saw an Eagle do a good one on the weekend. As mentioned, they don’t take possession of it and it by nature implies a desperate defensive action that saves the day (gotta give the defenders their hero moments too). It also generally doesn’t metre gain like an intent oob kick, nor is it a throw-in hitout situation which understandably we don’t want to groundhog repeatedly. I’m sure if it became a trending exploited tactic under the microscope like the rushed behind was then some mitigation might step in, but as is an oob spoil to kill the immediate contest is fine. Punching a ball is also more likely to be ill-directed.

 

[And_ROOS]

One thing I'm wondering about: kicking it out of bounds (not out on the full), handballing, or running out deliberately is considered deliberate or insufficient intent in keeping it in, but why are players allowed to punch it out? Isn't that the exact same intent/result? What's the reason for this? Makes zero sense to me.

Because a player running it out, kicking it out or handballing it out has possession of the ball. In a marking contest or ruck contest they don't. But even then when there is a ruck throw in if they hit it back over the line on the full I am pretty sure thats a free kick.

 

[Walshawk]

You are allowed to deliberately run it over, handball it over of fumble it over, but if you kick it forward it is a free kick. Weird rule.

 

[windyhill]

BGQ.
Bloody good question.

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

Cause deliberate out of bounds rule is currently stuffed. "insufficient intent" as a term itself is nonsensical as the rule it's named after. Intent is a binary concept , you either intended to do an action or you didn't. There are no degrees of intentional, you can't show a little bit of intent , which is what sufficiency of intent implies. Whoever came up with "insufficient intent " is probably some moron ex footballer that never went to school . Just call it what is is , negligently or recklessly out of bounds.

 

[Thrawn]

Just get rid of the deliberate rule.

 

[PerthBoy86]

You are allowed to deliberately run it over, handball it over of fumble it over, but if you kick it forward it is a free kick. Weird rule.

I noticed it's usually overlooked but recently they have pinged players for deliberately taking it over the boundary. Seems pretty inconsistent.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Cause deliberate out of bounds rule is currently stuffed. "insufficient intent" as a term itself is nonsensical as the rule it's named after. Intent is a binary concept , you either intended to do an action or you didn't. There are no degrees of intentional, you can't show a little bit of intent , which is what sufficiency of intent implies. Whoever came up with "insufficient intent " is probably some moron ex footballer that never went to school . Just call it what is is , negligently or recklessly out of bounds.

Yeah umps aren't mind readers, but hopefully they can gauge whether the kick looked accidental or it was deliberate. Ultimately you'd think the goal of the rule would be to discourage players from even trying it - unless they can disguise it well enough.

Maybe a basketball like rule where any out of bounds means a free to the opposition might be good, whether accidental or not. Feel it'd just simply things. Our game already has so many subjectivity with the rules.

Personally I also favour umps being more lenient about holding the ball. Might be interesting to see players attempt to break tackles more rugby style...but than there'd be more holdings in/tugging for the ball etc.

 

[Danw0w]

Because its an acceptable stoppage. Players kicking down the line to no contest or disposing of the ball to avoid pressure are exactly the stoppages that the afl wanted to eliminate. A stoppage from a marking contest is fine.