Having to read a players mind is already in play.
“Genuine attempt to dispose the ball”.
1 Like
I didn’t say last touched. I said same rule as for kick ins.
Because for the last 100 years there has been a deliberate out of bounds rule. My point there wasn’t that the current interpretation is the best/only option but rather that having no possible penalty would be a different situation to what we’ve seen in the past. And having no possible penalty is what scrapping the rule entirely would do.
it like several other new rules is all about controlling the game that is why you cant work out why it is paid sometimes & let go at other times …it is also a great way to even up the free kick tally. As we saw on the weekend in several games it actually had a negative impact on the team it was given against & honestly if they were put out of bounds deliberately then those umpires must have been mind readers …
because the deliberate out of bounds rule used to be for deliberate out of bounds actions not just trying to hack the ball out of a pack towards your goals
Taking a rule that is clear and changing it to something that is not clear is idiocy imho. Rushed behind a case in point.
1 Like
As I said in another thread, everyone at the ground is extracting the urine from the umps and the current interpretation. That’s your biggest clue this is broken.
If they were serious about the interpretation they’d ping all twenty guys a game rather than the three arbitrary ones as now… and then behaviour would change.
My rule suggestionis the best you’re all ■■■■■■.
no more throw ins, free-handpasses awarded to the opposite team of the last touched player.
Free handpasses? That’s unfootball
sorry, adjust it for geelong/hawks/adelaide.
free throw.
2 Likes
But you can’t mark a handball. So teams will allow themselves to be pinged for deliberate, knowing they can flood the area and grab the target of the handball as soon as he receives it.
1 Like
Are you being a smart ■■■ or was my post misleading (it may well have been). My post meant the rules pertaining to the deliberate OOB was that same for a long time prior to 12 mths ago and there weren’t any “designated kickers introduced to gain yardage by kicking the ball OOB”
The original post more or less stated that by returning the rule to what it was would break the game. That’s just wrong.
Agreed - is that being suggested though? I assumed you meant undoing this recent change not completely scrapping the DOOB rule
Agree with this entirely.
And that’s the problem for me. The reason this has been implemented is nothing to do with enriching the game or fixing problems - it’s so “the product” of the AFL is more “exciting” and “concentrated” by ensuring there is “more football.” As someone said above - the echo chamber of idiots like Brown/Healy/King were applauding it in pre-season because “it made people keep the ball in and keep the game alive” which I guuueeesss makes the play more interesting because there is more football and less stoppages but do we really need that? Was footy REALLY not interesting enough to the point where we had to implement an arbitrary, seemingly random rule that condenses more “footy” into a game of footy? Was an occasional boundary throw in wrecking the game and turning people off?
The exact same thing applies to the deliberate rushed rule. I put it to you that enlarging ground sizes and reducing the game to 12-a-side would increase goals and create a more “free flowing” “high scoring” “entertaining” sport but is the sport really about just totally maximising the spectacle of “the product”? Or should we change rules only to fix flaws which have been uncovered and are exploited?
Furthermore, the worst part about this rule is that I trust the AFL to fix it by adding more rules, layers and in general moving further in the wrong direction lest they have to admit fault and simply reverse something they shouldn’t have ever done (see the super SUPER arbitrary substitute rule which hung around like a bad smell for far too long).
8 Likes
I reckon it’s so cool how the modern day umpires can read minds. Intention is a thought process, so that is one hell of a party trick
1 Like
Superb post and I agree 150%.
1 Like
Altogether possible that I was misreading what people were saying as meaning the rule not the rule interpretation. Probably because the old interpretation still had the issues of subjectivity and determining player intent and all that, which is why people were focused on.
First of all you assume, without the slightest basis for doing so, that coaches etc working to do the best that can be done within the laws of the game produces tactics that are “against the spirit of the game”. Says who? The coaches are trying to work out ways that their team can score more than the opposition. So exactly why is that a bad thing?
And then you say that the AFL and its Rules Committee are trying to have the game played “in its true spirit”. As a matter of fact, what they say they are doing is introducing changes that will a) protect the players from serious injury, particularly to the head, and b) make the game a more attractive, faster and higher scoring spectacle. And exactly what is its “true spirit” anyway?
Nobody has any quarrel with the changes that have hugely reduced the targeting of the head that we used to see. Watching a game from the sixties or seventies makes you wonder how paople weren’t killed.
It’s the changes designed to speed up the game and make it a better spectacle that have done the damage. The hands in the back rule has produced ridiculous free after ridiculous free, rewarding the player who’s been out-positioned by an opponent with better judgement. The changes regerding holding the ball have produced the rolling maul that we see continuously in every game, broken only by the occasional free plucked out of the air by an umpire who’s seen something that nobody else has. The deliberate out of bounds and deliberate rushed behind rules produce decision after decision that baffle and either delight or infuriate fans and players with their arbitrariness.
The rule that it was a free only if it was out of bounds on the full worked fine for decades. There was no need to change it.
2 Likes
I’d disagree fairly strenuously on hands-in-the-back and deliberate-OOB. Until the likes of Ablett, Dunstall and Lockett made a career of pushing their opponents out, you just weren’t allowed to put your hands in your opponent’s back. And then Clement made an artform of it. They just reverted it to what the rule used to be.
And I reckon there’s been a deliberate OOB rule pretty well forever. They’ve just tightened it to a stupid level. You just can’t let defenders knock it out of bounds. We just want consistency. And hey should be an exemption if the ball’s kicked 30 metres or so upfield.
It always used to be illegal to shepherd the man on the mark too. But Collingwood and Hawthorn brought it back, and we know the AFL won’t rain on their parade. I don’t see how that has improved the game.
2 Likes
the biggest change for me is the 10 fold increase in words that I shouldn’t being saying (yelling) around women and children
2 Likes