Deliberate out of bounds rule

[tonyh]

The deliberate rule comes under scrutiny again after the incident at the end of the Bulldogs/Richmond game. Ok we all recognise the umpires bias towards the Bulldogs (25-13 in favour last night, and contributed in some measure to their flag last year) but that aside, the deliberate rule should be scrapped. Footy lasted many years quite successfully without it. And while they're about it they could cut back the 50m penalty to 25m or even 15m.
.

[Bluthy]

I like the rule. You have to make an effort to keep it in not just go straight at the boundary like the tigers player did. Its giving the game more live-ball time which is exciting.

[perfectionist]

The decision was correct, just as the one on Friday night was correct. In both instances, the player was using the boundary as the get out. On Friday might, the GWS player kicked the ball in the direction of the boundary with no teammate between him and the boundary, so he was not kicking the ball to a teammate. If he was kicking the ball "to space" he had a lot more "space" either directly ahead of him or on the other side of the ground. If he was kicking the ball in the direction of the boundary, in the "hope" that it would stop a metre inside the boundary, then he needs to adjust his kicking strength. We all know he was looking for the boundary and trying to make it less obvious that it was. He failed.

Last night, for some inexplicable reason, the Richmond player handballed it straight to the boundary. I looked to see whether a WB player actually propelled the ball but he did not. There was a secondary action by a WB player which knocked the other hand of the Richmond player but the ball had well and truly gone on its way to the boundary. Once again, there was no other Richmond player between him and the boundary.

As with all rules, interpretation still plays a role. In the case of the deliberate rule, an errant "off the side of the boot" or poorly executed hand pass which dribbles off the hand might allow the umpire to give it the benefit of the doubt. We saw two of these on Friday night. But on that basis, some players, like Sam Gilbert (sorry Sam), will get more "benefit of the doubts" than others.

Should the rule exist? Well, it's actually existed since the game began, it's just that it wasn't enforced for about 100 years. In other codes, "last person to touch the ball" rules solve the issue. I wouldn't advocate that - it should stay in the kids game only.

On the ruck issue, I think there a case for a change. "Third man up" has been part of the game ever since I have watched it. Of course, the corollary of "third man up" is "they have more people around the ball". It's a calculated risk and it does take a skill to execute it properly. Lenny was very good at it, as Pendlebury is. It's not surprising that they both have height as midfielders.

More generally, the shepherding in the ruck rule was, in my view, incorrectly paid against Billy Longer on Friday night. This is how I think it is meant to apply. If the two ruckman are facing one another and the one runs in and stands there while looking at the ball, it's play on. If on the other hand, one player come in stands in front of his opponent with his back turned, then it is shepherding. You shepherd in the ruck with your back or by sticking out your knee or foot.

[meher baba]

I too quite like the new approach to deliberate out of bounds, although the umps sometimes take it too far.

As for last night's incident: it sure as hell looked deliberate to me.

[desertsaint]

didn't see it that way at all. i saw him initially attempt to handball it to the clear patch in front of him away from congestion. when he saw the boundary so close he tried to regain possession of the ball but fumbled it. Benefit of the doubt a no brainer in that situation.

[jackstevo]

didn't see it that way at all. i saw him initially attempt to handball it to the clear patch in front of him away from congestion. when he saw the boundary so close he tried to regain possession of the ball but fumbled it. Benefit of the doubt a no brainer in that situation.

That's exactly what happened when you slow mo it. I suppose the umpire doesn't get that benefit.

[meher baba]

Fair enough, I looked up the slo mo online (didn't catch the slo mo replay last night) and it was a fumble. But it truly looked deliberate in live action. That's bad luck, not bad umpiring or a bad interpretation.

[shrodes]

didn't see it that way at all. i saw him initially attempt to handball it to the clear patch in front of him away from congestion. when he saw the boundary so close he tried to regain possession of the ball but fumbled it. Benefit of the doubt a no brainer in that situation.

That's exactly what happened when you slow mo it. I suppose the umpire doesn't get that benefit.

Agree, in slow mo it looks like a fumble. Might be hard for umpires to tell though.

[Winmar]

I haven't seen the live vision, but in slow mo it shows it's definitely a fumble. It's either a horrible decision or a horrible rule if that's allowed to occur.

[skeptic]

The problem with the rule as it is, is it's too open to interpretation...

I think the one of Friday night was harsh considering the player kicked it under pressure on his non-preferred foot. I'd say it's highly likely that was a shanked kicked.
Regardless... the point is that in many of these cases, there does deny appear to be a clear right or wrong = guaranteed frustration

[stevie]

The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world

[jackstevo]

The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world

Surely they are able to defend.

[stevie]

The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world

Surely they are able to defend.

i agree But they still not trying to keep the ball in. Absolutley no different to the ones that do get pinged. Ludicrous

[jackstevo]

The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world

Surely they are able to defend.

i agree But they still not trying to keep the ball in. Absolutley no different to the ones that do get pinged. Ludicrous

Its different because they are just punching the ball from a marking contest. Surely we don't want them paid but we do want most of the others paid. The game is better for the rule. The less stoppages the better.

[Superboot]

'Deliberate out of bounds' implies intent on the part of the player and mind-reading capacity on the part of the umpire

[BigMart]

Ridiculous

[Superboot]

'Deliberate out of bounds' implies intent on the part of the player and mind-reading capacity on the part of the umpire

[minneapolis]

'Deliberate out of bounds' implies intent on the part of the player and mind-reading capacity on the part of the umpire

I knew you were ging to post that.