Deliberate Out of Bounds

[SaintDippa]

Agreed - he grabbed it. Then ran it over the line. Could have tried to make play but chose to take it out of bounds. Deliberate.

[Bernard Shakey]

Agreed - he grabbed it. Then ran it over the line. Could have tried to make play but chose to take it out of bounds. Deliberate.

Obviously not or he would have given away a free kick.

[SaintDippa]

:) - you're trying to baffle me with logic. I'm suggesting that the umpire's incorrect interpretation differs from mine.

[Bernard Shakey]

:) - you're trying to baffle me with logic. I'm suggesting that the umpire's incorrect interpretation differs from mine.

Fair call SaintDippa.

[Mr Magic]

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.

But does the actual rule differentiate between, tapping, kicking, knocking, walking the ball deiberately over the line?

That's the question I originally asked.
Is there a difference in treatment depending on the method you use to put the ball over the line?

[matrix]

see what theyve done?
made it worse

idiots
now its so open to conjecture and interpretation no one knows what the rule is and its the umpires choice depending on mood and whether he has he's period this week

ruined

[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.

But does the actual rule differentiate between, tapping, kicking, knocking, walking the ball deiberately over the line?

That's the question I originally asked.
Is there a difference in treatment depending on the method you use to put the ball over the line?

You have put doubt in the mind of the umpire. Gram gave the ump no option. It's not about the rule, it's about what the umpire thinks the intention of the player is. Give them half a chance and they won't call it deliberate.

[Mr Magic]

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.

But does the actual rule differentiate between, tapping, kicking, knocking, walking the ball deiberately over the line?

That's the question I originally asked.
Is there a difference in treatment depending on the method you use to put the ball over the line?

You have put doubt in the mind of the umpire. Gram gave the ump no option. It's not about the rule, it's about what the umpire thinks the intention of the player is. Give them half a chance and they won't call it deliberate.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making.

Are you suggesting that the umpires doubt that a bloke who punches the ball over the line is not deliberately trying to put the ball out of bounds?

Are you also suggesting that the umpires doubt that a player who takes possesion of the ball and walks it across the boundary line (from a metre or 2 away) is not deliberately trying to put the footy out of bounds?

If the rule is supposed to be about the players' intent then how can anybody think that the player who deliberately knocks the ball, or walks it across the line is not deliberately trying to put teh footy out of bounds?

(and I agree the decision about Gram was correct).

And how do you then rationalize the 'correct' decision (according to Geischen) given against Montagna (vs Brisbane) in this context.

Geischen stated publicly that the decision against Montagna was correct. If that was deliberate, from 60-80 metres away, then how is walking the footy over the line not deliberate?

Unless it requires the football to be kicked or pushed?
But then that doesn't account for punching the football over the line, does it?

And what about if the player punches the footy over the line and accidentally hits the behind post - it's automatically paid as deliberate?

[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.

But does the actual rule differentiate between, tapping, kicking, knocking, walking the ball deiberately over the line?

That's the question I originally asked.
Is there a difference in treatment depending on the method you use to put the ball over the line?

You have put doubt in the mind of the umpire. Gram gave the ump no option. It's not about the rule, it's about what the umpire thinks the intention of the player is. Give them half a chance and they won't call it deliberate.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making.

Are you suggesting that the umpires doubt that a bloke who punches the ball over the line is not deliberately trying to put the ball out of bounds?

Are you also suggesting that the umpires doubt that a player who takes possesion of the ball and walks it across the boundary line (from a metre or 2 away) is not deliberately trying to put the footy out of bounds?

If the rule is supposed to be about the players' intent then how can anybody think that the player who deliberately knocks the ball, or walks it across the line is not deliberately trying to put teh footy out of bounds?

(and I agree the decision about Gram was correct).

And how do you then rationalize the 'correct' decision (according to Geischen) given against Montagna (vs Brisbane) in this context.

Geischen stated publicly that the decision against Montagna was correct. If that was deliberate, from 60-80 metres away, then how is walking the footy over the line not deliberate?

Unless it requires the football to be kicked or pushed?
But then that doesn't account for punching the football over the line, does it?

And what about if the player punches the footy over the line and accidentally hits the behind post - it's automatically paid as deliberate?

If the ump thinks it's deliberate he pays a free. Has nothing to do with being tapped, kicked, punched, knocked or walked over the line.
If it's punched over in a marking contest it's a throw in.
If it's punched or knocked over on the full in a ruck contest it's a free. If not on the full it's a throw in.
Don't know where you got the accidentally hitting the behind post being automatic deliberate.

You're making it harder than it is. It's quite simple, make the ump think you didn't mean to take it out and you're fine.

[stinger]

no...depends on who he has his money on ...and the margins... ...well...that's my opinion....

[Mr Magic]

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.

But does the actual rule differentiate between, tapping, kicking, knocking, walking the ball deiberately over the line?

That's the question I originally asked.
Is there a difference in treatment depending on the method you use to put the ball over the line?

You have put doubt in the mind of the umpire. Gram gave the ump no option. It's not about the rule, it's about what the umpire thinks the intention of the player is. Give them half a chance and they won't call it deliberate.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making.

Are you suggesting that the umpires doubt that a bloke who punches the ball over the line is not deliberately trying to put the ball out of bounds?

Are you also suggesting that the umpires doubt that a player who takes possesion of the ball and walks it across the boundary line (from a metre or 2 away) is not deliberately trying to put the footy out of bounds?

If the rule is supposed to be about the players' intent then how can anybody think that the player who deliberately knocks the ball, or walks it across the line is not deliberately trying to put teh footy out of bounds?

(and I agree the decision about Gram was correct).

And how do you then rationalize the 'correct' decision (according to Geischen) given against Montagna (vs Brisbane) in this context.

Geischen stated publicly that the decision against Montagna was correct. If that was deliberate, from 60-80 metres away, then how is walking the footy over the line not deliberate?

Unless it requires the football to be kicked or pushed?
But then that doesn't account for punching the football over the line, does it?

And what about if the player punches the footy over the line and accidentally hits the behind post - it's automatically paid as deliberate?

If the ump thinks it's deliberate he pays a free. Has nothing to do with being tapped, kicked, punched, knocked or walked over the line.
If it's punched over in a marking contest it's a throw in.
If it's punched or knocked over on the full in a ruck contest it's a free. If not on the full it's a throw in.
Don't know where you got the accidentally hitting the behind post being automatic deliberate.

You're making it harder than it is. It's quite simple, make the ump think you didn't mean to take it out and you're fine.

So what would the umpire have thought the Carlton player was trying to do when he walked the footy over in the dying stages of the game on Monday night?

I'd like to hear a credible alternative to deliberately putting the footy out of bounds?

Was he walking towards one of his team-mates?
Did he think he could just run along the boundary line unimpeded?
How did he make the umpire think he wasn't intentionally putting the footy out of bounds?

Maybe the umpire was unsighted and didn't see him do it?
No, that cannot be the explanantion because he couldn't have seen Gram tap the ball out deliberately. So actually seeing the offense apparently doesn't come into the decision making process.

So what was it exactly that influenced this decision?

[Ice Wolf]

So what would the umpire have thought the Carlton player was trying to do when he walked the footy over in the dying stages of the game on Monday night?

I'd like to hear a credible alternative to deliberately putting the footy out of bounds?

Was he walking towards one of his team-mates?
Did he think he could just run along the boundary line unimpeded?
How did he make the umpire think he wasn't intentionally putting the footy out of bounds?

Maybe the umpire was unsighted and didn't see him do it?
No, that cannot be the explanantion because he couldn't have seen Gram tap the ball out deliberately. So actually seeing the offense apparently doesn't come into the decision making process.

So what was it exactly that influenced this decision?

Carlton player ran directly to the line (from at least a meter or more away) made no attempt to get rid of the ball or punch it up the line etc, only intent was to get it over the line should have been deliberate, but then Milne should also have gotten a free earlier when he was flattened.

[Johnny Member]

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.

But does the actual rule differentiate between, tapping, kicking, knocking, walking the ball deiberately over the line?

That's the question I originally asked.
Is there a difference in treatment depending on the method you use to put the ball over the line?

You have put doubt in the mind of the umpire. Gram gave the ump no option. It's not about the rule, it's about what the umpire thinks the intention of the player is. Give them half a chance and they won't call it deliberate.

I think at the moment, the umpires are trying to make their boss happy by 'cracking down on it'.

What this means, is that the rule has changed - or at least been stretched. The rule says that you can't intentional take the ball out (by foot, hand, whatever).
It doesn't say anywhere that you need to try to keep the ball in play. You just cannot intentional take it out. There is absolutely no responsibility on the player to keep the ball in play.


What seems to be happening now though, since 'cracking down on it' is that they're pinging blokes for not trying to keep the ball in.


And that is a change to the rule. Which it seems, no one except the umpires know about.

[Sobraz]

The reason the Setanta obvious deliberate wasn't paid was due to where it occured... 20m out from our goal, with us 3 points down, in the final minute...

Too much of a risk for the ump to pay it...

We get the goal, siren, we win due to a free kick that isn't even understood by the rule makers clearly...

Too much controversy... Grams would've been a throw in had it been in the forward pocket of the Blues also...

I agree, Gram was poor in his attemp to get it over the line; could have been disguised so much easier, but the reality is the ump made the easy/safe decision in this case, and has kept his job this week...

Imagine the uproar from the blues fans had they lost like that!!...

[saintbrat]

Out of Bounds: means the football passes completely over the
Boundary Line or touches a behind post or touches padding or any
other attachment to the behind post but before doing so, touches the
ground or is touched by a Player. If any portion of the football is on or
above the Boundary Line, the football is not Out of Bounds.
Out of Bounds on the Full: means the football, having been Kicked,
passes completely over the Boundary Line without touching the
ground within the Playing Surface or being touched by a Player, or the
football has touched the behind post or passed over the behind post
without touching the ground or being touched by a Player

.

\http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/La ... l_2011.pdf

15.6 F ree Ki cks — Relating to Out of Bounds
15.6.1 W hen Awarded
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds on the Full;
(b) in the act of bringing the football back into play after
a Behind has been scored, Kicks the football over the
Boundary Line without the football first being touched
by another Player;
(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;
(d) having taken the football over the Boundary Line, fails to
immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or
drop the football directly to the ground;
(e) touches the football after the boundary Umpire has
signalled that the football is Out of Bounds, except for a
Player who has carried the football over the Boundary
Line under this Law 15.6.1 or a Player awarded a Free
Kick under these Laws; or
(f) hits the football Out of Bounds on the Full from a
boundary throw or a field bounce or throw by a
field Umpire.

[dragit]

(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over
the Boundary Line without the football being touched by
another Player;

So this is the bit that requires an assessment of intent…
intentionally forces the ball over…
there is obviously some leniency given where a player in possession is confronted by opponents, thereby giving him no alternative to running over the line…

[Bernard Shakey]

So what was it exactly that influenced this decision?

The umpire didn't think he deliberately took it over the line.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The umpire makes a judgement on a player's intent and you want to know what goes through an umpire's head. Nothing much at all. They do what they're told.

[ace]

It is all rather simple.

It is deliberate out of bounds if it is beneficial to a team that the AFL has directed the umpires to assist.

[Bernard Shakey]

It is all rather simple.

It is deliberate out of bounds if it is beneficial to a team that the AFL has directed the umpires to assist.

Who would those teams be?

[gringo]

It is quite clear the umpires have the right to guess your intention. They also have the right to place you on report if you had no intention, but overstepped the boundaries. That boundary is quite different from the boundary line though. Society also needs protecting from incidents that may shock them sometimes more so than the head which is sacrosanct on all occasions except where the match review panel deems that a player used a non deliberate force with the elbow to the head of the opposition, which means that that rule is in line for next season where any one displaying their elbows will receive 12 week suspensions, making long sleeves compulsory.

[saintspremiers]

Part of the problem was that they had more supporters than us, so it was like an away game.

Umps play to the crowd sometimes.

[saintspremiers]

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 hope you're still bit aplauding ALL 300 game umpires including the maggot that retired about a year ago? Can't remember his name but a Mc something.

Just a question, does the best umpire of the year win the "Hellen Keller Award"???