The Deliberate Out of Bounds Rule

[Sainternist]

IMO, the AFL needs to change the rule back to how it was a few years ago. There are too many grey areas in the interpretation. I actually miss the days of when a defender had the option to "hit the boundary line!" (as Teddy Whitten exclaimed in the dying minutes of the greatest day of our club's history). This new interoperation of the rule has become an absolute farce since about 5 or so years ago when Joey advanced the ball about 80 metres up field into no-man's territory and then it rolled out of bounds, only to be harshly penalised. Sure, I'm for penalising the player when it's obvious they wanted only for the safety of the boundary, but kicking the ball into touch is something I miss in today's game. It actually took some skill and poise to do that. I just hate seeing cheap free kicks given for something the umpire is only half sure about. Yesterday when Dylan Roberton simply wanted to soccer the ball forward to his own advantage and then only to have the ball unintentionally roll out of bounds in Richmond's forward pocket position was a good example of this. Also, I'm tired of hearing fans screaming "deliberate!" every time the ball goes out of bounds.

Why the heck the rules committee tampered with it to this extent is beyond me.

Thoughts?

[dragit]

I'm probably the opposite… I reckon the sydney rolling maul stoppage style game was ruining the game.

These guys have enough skill to keep the ball in play so they should try to keep the game flowing.

[older saint]

The issue is those in charge who think they speak for everyone wants the game to flow and not stop at all. the interpretation of not doing everything possible to keep the ball in has made the "3 blind mice's" job even harder.

go back to what the rule is written - Deliberate out of bounds. did the player deliberately put the ball out of bounds/ Was this his intention, if so punish, if it goes out as a result of another intention ( make ground, must dispose of the ball as tackled , clear a stoppage ) then throw it in ( straight away) not after waiting for everyone to get there.

Perhaps it came about because of the clear lack of strength off boundary umpires. One thing which takes physical strength to do ( not including running) and fail dismally at it

[Proph3t of egan]

either dont penalise players for putting it out of bounds, or do a last touch rule, that will encourgae players to keep it in if they dont wanna get penalised.

make it simple for the umpires, that way the can be more consistent

[stevie]

Either punish ALL out of bounds including deliberate punches by ruckmen and defenders that are making no attempt at keeping the ball or get rid of the rubbish anyway. I'm sick of seeing 'cheating' players look around to the umps every time there's a sniff of a DOB

[To the top]

They have the Last Touch rule in the SANFL

The decision against Roberton was an AFL and crowd noise decision and reflects very poorly on the AFL

[Trixilver]

Ever since it was introduced I have hated it with a passion. The rule itself is contradictory since if you were a player, why would you ever deliberately take the ball to the line if there is a rule saying you can't do that. So most of the time it's paid it's because it 'looked' deliberate to the umpire, despite the fact that there are a million other reasons it might have gone out.

You only have to attempt to play the AFL Live video game for 5 minutes to realise that this rule is the most laughable aspect of the sport right now. In the video game what possible reason would you or the CPU have for wanting to put the ball out of play? Yet almost every time it rolls out of play it is called deliberate. I guess they couldn't program random decisions.

If someone could make an official petition to the AFL I will gadly sign it.

[perfectionist]

The harsher interpretation of the rule is good for the game as it keeps the ball in play for longer periods. The criticism echos that when the "out of bounds on the full" rule was introduced almost 50 years ago, because it penalised players who didn't "mean to do it". As with all interpretative rules, there will be umpire errors - the decision involving Dillon on Sunday was correct. As I understand it, the umpire's instruction is if there is no teammate between the player who kicks and the boundary and the ball goes over the line then it is deemed deliberate. The main mistakes I have seen have been where the umps haven't paid it because the ball has 'gone off the side of the boot". For consistency, that should be irrelevant.

[satchmo]

The ball is repeatedly taken over the line deliberately. The penalty is based on the way it looks. Club needs to employ an acting coach.

[one point]

The harsher interpretation of the rule is good for the game as it keeps the ball in play for longer periods. The criticism echos that when the "out of bounds on the full" rule was introduced almost 50 years ago, because it penalised players who didn't "mean to do it". As with all interpretative rules, there will be umpire errors - the decision involving Dillon on Sunday was correct. As I understand it, the umpire's instruction is if there is no teammate between the player who kicks and the boundary and the ball goes over the line then it is deemed deliberate. The main mistakes I have seen have been where the umps haven't paid it because the ball has 'gone off the side of the boot". For consistency, that should be irrelevant.

When something is 'deemed' it is merely a presumption that can be rebutted by the the facts. Common sense is a wonderful aid to good umpiring