Well, der…
No it’s not inconceivable at all. It’s smart… I want smart play. I want the defenders to have a chance. I want players to take a chance that if they kick it to space their team mates just might run onto it.
3 Likes
Sure, but I don’t get the value of going back to a small error when you could just get rid of any error with a simple rule change.
Don’t disagree, but the answer isn’t tweaking interpretation, it’s scrapping the rule. I outlined above why I think the rule should be free kicks all the time instead of free kicks never. I’m not militant about my preference but I think going back to how it was is the least good change they could make.
What’s stopping them taking the chance?
They just have to be good enough to hit the kick, if they miskick they get punished with a turnover by umpire.
Boundary line footy is boring safe footy.
Remember Walla kicking it ahead of himself in round one (I think) so he could run on to it against two defenders… went out of bounds just and they paid it deliberate?
Boundary line footy is frustrating but that’s a totally different creature to this. Kicking it to masses of players down the line is what causes stoppage after stoppage.
1 Like
I think your suggestion would turn it into stupid footy, as it is with the deliberate point rule, for no good reason.
You can’t afford to abolish the rule completely. Just grt rid of this ridiculous interpretation. We’ve seen at least two shocking versions given against us this year…first one, Tippa was just trying to keep the ball moving forward in Rd 1, and Zaka just has no left foot and Jobe was in the area anyway.
The Kelly one last week - Simpson could just as easily have been penalised.
Most of the time though, you can just see what the player’s intention is, and you just know the horror that would ensue if the rule was abolished completely.
And I said from the word go the third-man-up rule would be exploited. Just allow the third man up to be blocked.
Are some here actually suggesting that players are capable of kicking the goal from 65m out but they are deciding to kick it to the boundary instead because somehow a throw in near goals is better than an actual goal? That’s effectively what the umpire adjudicated in the Freo game & I guess the umpire in our game decided that Zaka had the skills to kick it just enough so the crows guy could put in a half arsed effort & just miss it BUT Zaka either didn’t have the skills to get it to our player or possibly chose to kick it out of bounds because that was a better option?
There was another pearler yesterday where a Hawks bloke (I think it was Mitchel) burst out of the pack & kicked it forward obviously off his wrong foot. The ball went about 35 meters forward but went sideways & dribbled out. Now any functioning brain could see that kicking it out was not his best option nor his intent yet he was still pinged for deliberate. If they are going to continue with the rule then they at least have to change the name to “out of bounds free kick when we feel like it” because the concept of deliberate requires intent & umpires either cannot know that &/or are very very poor judges of it.
6 Likes
Got it in one.
VERY SIMPLE:
The rule is not “deliberate.” That’s why people hate it. If it was renamed to “negligent” it would make sense and people wouldn’t be so irate.
But I agree with everything said in this thread.
It is ill advised even as an idea
It is poorly thought out in execution
It is poorly adjudicated and inconsistently applied in application
There is no way in which it has been a success.
3 Likes
I reckon OOB would be a good insult. E.g. “YOU STUPID FARKING OOB”.
2 Likes
Also perhaps even worse than the rule is that idiots are suggesting we improve/fix it by moving FURTHER into obscurity by having a “last touch out of bounds rule.” Honestly. Do people not remember when that was trialled? It was a TERRIBLE rule and completely changed the sport
3 Likes
What? We had the rules like they were before for 100 years and never saw this
2 Likes
They put their hands up for Detroit.
The moment it becomes last player touched would be a disaster for the game. For example:
- Someone smothers a ball over the line - opposition gets a pressureless free kick.
- A player is tackled over the line - opposition gets a pressureless free kick.
- Forwards will look for opportunities to knock/kick/handball into a defender to get a set shot at goal.
- Players will shepherd more balls over (as happens in soccer and is a disgusting sight).
- Players spoil a marking contest over the line are penalised with a free kick.
It’s just a terrible idea.
6 Likes
The AFL has been using the SANFL as a guinea pig since last year on a new OOB law they are looking at implementing. They are sending guys from AFL house over regularly to attend games and see if it can be implemented in the AFL.
Over here now they pay a free kick against the last kick, handball or ruck tap that goes OOB.
1 Like
What didn’t help is everyone in the msm spending all of the preseason going…
‘Oooooh, good idea, good AFL, we’re good boys, it’s good idea by the AFL.’
4 Likes
I believe the AFL rules committee is bringing the game into disrepute by including new and ridiculous rules in every year.
We need fewer rules.
Personally l blame The Geisch.
It was written in black and white. Out on the full - free kick. Out any other way - boundary throw in. Not much interpretation required there.
8 Likes
Any idea how it’s being received?
Although the way the AFL umpires are interpreting it this year it’s probably not too much different