Deliberate Out of Bounds

[Mr Magic]

I'm not whinging about any decisions.

BUT can somebody who knows the rule please explain what constitutes deliberate out of bounds?

I saw Gram tap the footy over the line in the last quarter -deliberately. And it was paid that.
I then subsequently saw a Carlton player run over the line with the ball - deliberately.
And it was paid as a throw-in.

Is there a difference and if so, why?

How does the rule differentiate between methods of deliberately putting the ball out of bounds?

Gieschen when explaining how the free kick against Joey was correct said the determination was if the Umpire considered the intent of the player was to put the football out of bounds.

How can the intent of a player who runs the footy over the line not be to put the ball out of bounds?

[CURLY]

What about when the umpire calls play on when youve got the ball over the boundry line? Duigan did it deep in our forward line was still allowed to take his kick. Joey did it on the wing throw in.

[Mr Magic]

What about when the umpire calls play on when youve got the ball over the boundry line? Duigan did it deep in our forward line was still allowed to take his kick. Joey did it on the wing throw in.

I'm sure Joey changed direction and therefore 'played on' whilst out of bounds.
I think that Duigan may have kicked over the mark after the umpire called 'play on'.

[plugger66]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

[maverick]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

You're probably right, but it was coming off a very low base

[plugger66]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

You're probably right, but it was coming off a very low base

Of course i will be abused as an AFL lover but I reckon considering the amount of players around the ball, the umpiring has been pretty solid all year.

[markp]

You just need to go through the facade, sadly... same with having the ball pinned under you and acting like you're trying to punch it out.

Gram was stiff, but he could have simply just picked it up and been forced over, and it would've been a throw-in.

It's bollocks and a bit farcical, but it's a hard game to umpire, and they are mostly a bunch of twats.

[Mr Magic]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

So please explain what the difference is.
Does it come down to the intent of the player or not?

Gram's intent was obvious - he tried to put the ball over the line.
The Carlton player's intent was jsut as obvious - he tried to put the ball over the line.

What about in a boundary throw in when a ruckmen just punches the ball towards the boundary line. What is his intent then and does that constitute deliberate out of bounds?

[saint66au]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

Dont you know the rule?? We lost = umpiring automatically appalling

The Gram one was pretty obvious from my seat but I reckon the umpire had a far worse view of it and took his cue from the Blues players waving their arms about

[SaintPav]

last nights game was the beast umpired

Freudian slip there Plugger?

[Mr Magic]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

Dont you know the rule?? We lost = umpiring automatically appalling

The Gram one was pretty obvious from my seat but I reckon the umpire had a far worse view of it and took his cue from the Blues players waving their arms about

I actually thought the decision against Gram was correct but agree that the Umpire involved could not possibly have had a clear view of it, and therefore made his deciosion based on what - a guess?

And this thread was in no way meant to complain about the umpiring last night.
I genuinely am trying to understand whay some decisions are paid as d.o.b. and others are not.

If it is supposed to be intent then what could be more intentional than taking posession of the footy and walking across the boundary line with it?

[sunsaint]

It's bollocks and a bit farcical, but it's a hard game to umpire, and they are mostly a bunch of twats.

true but most players arent blessed with a lot with a ton of brain so you have to make allowances.
he had three choices:
he could have picked the ball up and been carried over the line
he could have let the ball roll out
he could have tapped the ball the extra 3mt to hurry its path over the line

he choose the latter

[Solar]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

I thought so live but if you watch the replay he actually taps it away from judd, would have been a good play if the boundary line was not in the way. Thought it was there but then mr Magic makes the good point that it's not paid in every instance.

My only other problem was the milne no free and roo nearly losing his face in the forward pocket late in the game.

[dragit]

If you take possession of the ball right near the line and players are coming at you, you do not have much choice but to move away from the players putting pressure on.
If the ball is on the ground near the boundary line you are not allowed to tap it over the line. The exception to this is when you 'attempt' to take possession and 'fumble' it over.
Clearly Gram didn't fumble, he tapped it cleanly across the line.

Merritt got pinged for running the ball over the line last week, but it is very rare if there is any pressure…

[Mr Magic]

If you take possession of the ball right near the line and players are coming at you, you do not have much choice but to move away from the players putting pressure on.
If the ball is on the ground near the boundary line you are not allowed to tap it over the line. The exception to this is when you 'attempt' to take possession and 'fumble' it over.
Clearly Gram didn't fumble, he tapped it cleanly across the line.

Merritt got pinged for running the ball over the line last week, but it is very rare if there is any pressure…

Thanks, is that how the rule book defines it?
Actually differentiating between the various methods of taking the ball over the line?

[dragit]

If you take possession of the ball right near the line and players are coming at you, you do not have much choice but to move away from the players putting pressure on.
If the ball is on the ground near the boundary line you are not allowed to tap it over the line. The exception to this is when you 'attempt' to take possession and 'fumble' it over.
Clearly Gram didn't fumble, he tapped it cleanly across the line.

Merritt got pinged for running the ball over the line last week, but it is very rare if there is any pressure…

Thanks, is that how the rule book defines it?
Actually differentiating between the various methods of taking the ball over the line?

No it's not from the book sorry, just my interpretation…

[dragit]

I also think that Armfield should have been pinged for holding the ball last night when he took possession and proceeded to charge it through our goals for a try…
There was absolutely no attempt to dispose of the footy.

[kosifantutti23]

I also think that Armfield should have been pinged for holding the ball last night when he took possession and proceeded to charge it through our goals for a try…
There was absolutely no attempt to dispose of the footy.

I couldn't believe that, and the commentators were full of praise for him.

On the Gram deliberate out of bounds, if the same standards had been applied in the last 10 seconds of the Richmond game, we would have won.

[stinger]

my beef is....if a saints player is caught in possession and has the ball knocked or jolted from his hands it is a free to the opposition for incorrect disposal....but if the shoe is on the other foot ..it's play on...i could give you three or four examples...but it's been a hard day and i couldn't be bothered going through that match again.........

[SaintDippa]

Is it an offence to 'Tunnel'?

[desertsaint]

I also think that Armfield should have been pinged for holding the ball last night when he took possession and proceeded to charge it through our goals for a try…
There was absolutely no attempt to dispose of the footy.

but there was the intent to score, rather than just to protect the ball.
an interesting case.

[Bernard Shakey]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

Dont you know the rule?? We lost = umpiring automatically appalling 8-)

The Gram one was pretty obvious from my seat but I reckon the umpire had a far worse view of it and took his cue from the Blues players waving their arms about

I actually thought the decision against Gram was correct but agree that the Umpire involved could not possibly have had a clear view of it, and therefore made his deciosion based on what - a guess?

And this thread was in no way meant to complain about the umpiring last night.
I genuinely am trying to understand whay some decisions are paid as d.o.b. and others are not.

If it is supposed to be intent then what could be more intentional than taking posession of the footy and walking across the boundary line with it?

It comes down to the umpire's perception of intent. Tap it over while you're looking down at the line is pretty blatant. Pick it up and not be aware of where the line is, is less blatant. If you're going for the line make sure you fumble it over.

[maverick]

Grams was way to obvious. The Carlton wasnt anywhere near as obvious. Anyway i would say last nights game was the beast umpired in one of our games since last years GF.

You're probably right, but it was coming off a very low base

Of course i will be abused as an AFL lover but I reckon considering the amount of players around the ball, the umpiring has been pretty solid all year.

I think it's been poor myself, the holding the ball rule as farcical as I have seen it. Maybe its not their fault but they have to be part of the issue.

The difference in interpretation from the Tigers game to last night is laughable.

[SaintDippa]

How Setanta wasn't pinged in the last 30 seconds - shocker. Grabbed ball, turned and walked it straight over the line. Every bit as obvious as Gram.

[Bernard Shakey]

How Setanta wasn't pinged in the last 30 seconds - shocker. Grabbed ball, turned and walked it straight over the line. Every bit as obvious as Gram.

No it wasn't, he grabbed the ball, didn't tap it over the line.