PJ wrote:If it's the correct interpretation does that mean you can't kick it forward unless it's going to a team mate?
Look out elephant in the room. We are talking about a fundamental change to the game of football if that interpretation is correct. Maguanes decision was pretty bad and made on the spur of the moment, the way most umpiring decisions are made.
This decision was made after about 5 seconds of deliberation, the ball being kicked 50 metres, bouncing at right angles and then rolling end over end for another 20 metres.
As four time premiership coach Leigh Matthews said in commentary - if the ball had of bounced the other way and it went out next to the behind post would the umpire have called?
As the quote says, this interpretation basically say you cant kick it forward if you have nobody forward of the ball. After all the oval is just that, and oval so the ball is ALWAYS heading toward the boundary
PJ wrote: what part of the rule makes it correct? If a player has the ball and can't see a team mate forward is he not allowed to go forward because it may go out.
It means Montagna just had to stand there and let the Lions players tackle him, or turn back towards his own goal and kick it or handball it backwards - then that player, if nobody was forward of him would have to pass it backwards. It is encouraging backward play.
PJ wrote:Deliberate out of bounds means there was no intension to keep it in. I don't believe that could be construed from what happened. Surely if the ball travels over 80 metres in a very forward direction it could go anywhere.
Regardless of any logic you write some will try to cloud it by saying all umpiring mistakes are exactly the same and you are only one eyed.
It isn't about St.Kilda, but the way a fundamental rule of the game is interpreted and the repercussions on the game of football generally.