Deliberate Out of Bounds - is it time?

[Ghost Like]

Watching the game tonight, this season and last year, is it time to make the rule that the last side to touch the ball turns it over to the other side?

We are having deliberate called on forwards inside their own forward lines.

We are having miscued kicks, kicks under pressure.

Let the boundary umpires adjudicate who touched it last or the third umpire. If it cannot be confirmed, then they throw it in.

Our rules are grey enough without umpires reading player's minds.

[CURLY]

Watch a Collingwood game rule doesn’t apply

[Enrico_Misso]

The kick off the ground by Gresh clearly wasn't deliberate.
He was under pressure and would have been tackled if he attempted to pick it up.
So he swung a boot at it hoping to create a chaos ball inside 50.
Instead it deviated left gaining 40 metres before crossing the line.
Making a clean contact in such circumstances is very difficult so to call it deliberate is farcical!!!!!

But don't change the rule to last side to touch gets penalised.
That would change our game significantly.
Every defender knows the boundary line is your friend.
Changing that means defending teams would no longer risk playing down the line.
It would also lead to "shenanigans" as players would try to deflect handballs off opponents to win soft frees.
That would be painful to watch.

Leave the rule as it is.
But umpire it consistently.

Perhaps umps could try kicking a bouncing ball off the ground at training to see how hard it is to direct it accurately!!!!

[Enrico_Misso]

Plus one of the great joys of watching the footy is to see a player running at full pace to spoil a "certain" mark by thumping it out of bounds.
Penalising that with a free would be a total travesty!

[bergsone]

No more rule changes

[bergsone]

No more rule changes

[bergsone]

No more rule changes

[Sainter_Dad]

Speak up Bergsone - please

[bergsone]

Speak up Bergsone - please

Yeah sorry about that keyboards and computers arent my strong point,as you can probally tell

[tonyh]

Two of the blights on footy are the deliberate o-o-b rule and the 50 metre penalty. Get rid of the first and cut the second to 25 metres.

[Ghost Like]

No more rule changes

Apologies Bergsone, I hope I'm replying to the right one but this is part of the problem & the confusion. It doesn't matter anymore, they have a "Rules Committee" charged with changing & altering rules.

My view, get rid of as much grey / interpretation and the game will be better for it.

[Vazelos]

We have been smashed with that rule last 2/3 years umpires nail us every time no matter if it’s 30 m or 50m we get nailed!!!
They make it up as they go along...

[Ghost Like]

Plus one of the great joys of watching the footy is to see a player running at full pace to spoil a "certain" mark by thumping it out of bounds.
Penalising that with a free would be a total travesty!

Hey EM, I agree, historically, with both your posts or at least understand where you're coming from but as soon as you say or plead for consistency in rule that requires a mind reader, regardless of conditions, the state of the game or position on the field, nothing will be consistent.

This will promote faster, less congested play. I think it is a must, just as I believe a fair, transparent year to year fixture is a must otherwise people will turn off a great game.

[Ghost Like]

We have been smashed with that rule last 2/3 years umpires nail us every time no matter if it’s 30 m or 50m we get nailed!!!
They make it up as they go along...

They do and again, a rule (distance) that should not be subjective.

[shadrock]

I think the rule needs to just be softened a bit. Im of the view that if you gain more than 40 metres then it cant really be classed as deliberate. Too many calls where there was no intention to have it go out, like Dans today...

[Ghost Like]

I think the rule needs to just be softened a bit. Im of the view that if you gain more than 40 metres then it cant really be classed as deliberate. Too many calls where there was no intention to have it go out, like Dans today...

I think it needs to be eradicated shadrock. We have humans trying to read other human minds & then we ask them to work out 40 metres when they struggle with 15 and 50 metres.

We all have enough understanding / feel for the game to know when it is deliberate or not but unfortunately some umpires believe in benefit of the doubt & they are umpiring games where other umpires have no such belief.

Players adapt, coaching adapt - umpires don't have that luxury. I truly believe our game will be better off with such a simple, logical change used to great effect in other ball sports.

Let's face it, we pinch enough rule changes & regulations from other sports to apparently make ours better. Let's pinch this.

[shadrock]

I think the rule needs to just be softened a bit. Im of the view that if you gain more than 40 metres then it cant really be classed as deliberate. Too many calls where there was no intention to have it go out, like Dans today...

I think it needs to be eradicated shadrock. We have humans trying to read other human minds & then we ask them to work out 40 metres when they struggle with 15 and 50 metres.

We all have enough understanding / feel for the game to know when it is deliberate or not but unfortunately some umpires believe in benefit of the doubt & they are umpiring games where other umpires have no such belief.

Players adapt, coaching adapt - umpires don't have that luxury. I truly believe our game will be better off with such a simple, logical change used to great effect in other ball sports.

Let's face it, we pinch enough rule changes & regulations from other sports to apparently make ours better. Let's pinch this.

To me, the idea that the ball could pinball off several players and then go out of bounds off of you and then be awarded to the other team for a shot at goal kind of makes this not work for me. Players would just not play the wings and would avoid attacking the ball close to the boundaries. I think the boundary throw ins are fine and the deliberate rule is fine, but just the last 24 months its been a bit too stiff.

[Munga]

This rule has lost the plot this year in particular. Marshall boots it off the ground 40 metres, free to Sydney. Sydney player under no pressure kicks it to no one and out of bounds, no free Saints. The double standards are atrocious, no wonder the umps get booed.

[carn_sainter]

It's terrible.

But the suggestion to have a free kick whenever the ball goes out would be awful.

Contests are the heart of our game. Truly the differentiating point of our sport compared to soccer, basketball, even rugby - the stoppage contest.

So much of the craft and skill would be lost if this aspect of the game (from throw ins) was diminished

[Ghost Like]

I think the rule needs to just be softened a bit. Im of the view that if you gain more than 40 metres then it cant really be classed as deliberate. Too many calls where there was no intention to have it go out, like Dans today...

I think it needs to be eradicated shadrock. We have humans trying to read other human minds & then we ask them to work out 40 metres when they struggle with 15 and 50 metres.

We all have enough understanding / feel for the game to know when it is deliberate or not but unfortunately some umpires believe in benefit of the doubt & they are umpiring games where other umpires have no such belief.

Players adapt, coaching adapt - umpires don't have that luxury. I truly believe our game will be better off with such a simple, logical change used to great effect in other ball sports.

Let's face it, we pinch enough rule changes & regulations from other sports to apparently make ours better. Let's pinch this.

To me, the idea that the ball could pinball off several players and then go out of bounds off of you and then be awarded to the other team for a shot at goal kind of makes this not work for me. Players would just not play the wings and would avoid attacking the ball close to the boundaries. I think the boundary throw ins are fine and the deliberate rule is fine, but just the last 24 months its been a bit too stiff.

I totally get where you are coming from and appreciate the optics as you describe it but I'd rather a B&W rule that everyone knows than an interpretation only one of the 3 officials might make.

Players adapt, as they did with "hands in the back", "ducking the head", "taking the legs" (a bullsh!t knee jerk rule brought in because Thomas & Goodes would slide in feet first, a.k.a. studs up), "being within 5 metres" etc etc.

[Ghost Like]

It's terrible.

But the suggestion to have a free kick whenever the ball goes out would be awful.

Contests are the heart of our game. Truly the differentiating point of our sport compared to soccer, basketball, even rugby - the stoppage contest.

So much of the craft and skill would be lost if this aspect of the game (from throw ins) was diminished

Appreciate the sentiment but I'd argue that the ball being kept inside the field of play would promote more fierce contests and ultimately better skills than giving the player an out, being the boundary line.

[carn_sainter]

It's terrible.

But the suggestion to have a free kick whenever the ball goes out would be awful.

Contests are the heart of our game. Truly the differentiating point of our sport compared to soccer, basketball, even rugby - the stoppage contest.

So much of the craft and skill would be lost if this aspect of the game (from throw ins) was diminished

Appreciate the sentiment but I'd argue that the ball being kept inside the field of play would promote more fierce contests and ultimately better skills than giving the player an out, being the boundary line.

But ths problem ia you'd be paying free kicks for when the ball goes out of bounds incidentally rather than by intent

Players get pinged trying to move the ball forward towards a team-mate and the ball is a little errant

To me it's the equivalent of paying holding the ball every time a player is tackled and the ball stops (around the ground stoppage)

[Ghost Like]

It's terrible.

But the suggestion to have a free kick whenever the ball goes out would be awful.

Contests are the heart of our game. Truly the differentiating point of our sport compared to soccer, basketball, even rugby - the stoppage contest.

So much of the craft and skill would be lost if this aspect of the game (from throw ins) was diminished

Appreciate the sentiment but I'd argue that the ball being kept inside the field of play would promote more fierce contests and ultimately better skills than giving the player an out, being the boundary line.

But ths problem ia you'd be paying free kicks for when the ball goes out of bounds incidentally rather than by intent

Players get pinged trying to move the ball forward towards a team-mate and the ball is a little errant

To me it's the equivalent of paying holding the ball every time a player is tackled and the ball stops (around the ground stoppage)

If you can tell the intent of every single player then it's easy, if you can find two others who think exactly the same, fantastic. There's the Grand Final umpires. But if just one of the other two think differently and that thought costs a goal, possibly the GF, is it still a good rule?

To be perfectly honest I kind of believe in how you described the holding the ball. I know the rule says prior opportunity but some get more prior than others. An easy B&W decision, an easy rule that players would adapt to & no they would not sweat on a player. That becomes a skill to keep the ball moving. The game becomes less congested and easier to umpire and understand.

[skeptic]

I liked the rule the way it was before.

Not paid unless you more or less made a v-line for the boundary

Got it right most of the time

[Jacks Back]

Deliberate has to be, as the name implies, deliberate. It is not deliberate out of bounds if it accidentally goes out of bounds. A beeline for the boundary line should be paid every day.