Deliberate out of bounds rule
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Deliberate out of bounds rule
The deliberate rule comes under scrutiny again after the incident at the end of the Bulldogs/Richmond game. Ok we all recognise the umpires bias towards the Bulldogs (25-13 in favour last night, and contributed in some measure to their flag last year) but that aside, the deliberate rule should be scrapped. Footy lasted many years quite successfully without it. And while they're about it they could cut back the 50m penalty to 25m or even 15m.
.
.
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
I like the rule. You have to make an effort to keep it in not just go straight at the boundary like the tigers player did. Its giving the game more live-ball time which is exciting.
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9022
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
The decision was correct, just as the one on Friday night was correct. In both instances, the player was using the boundary as the get out. On Friday might, the GWS player kicked the ball in the direction of the boundary with no teammate between him and the boundary, so he was not kicking the ball to a teammate. If he was kicking the ball "to space" he had a lot more "space" either directly ahead of him or on the other side of the ground. If he was kicking the ball in the direction of the boundary, in the "hope" that it would stop a metre inside the boundary, then he needs to adjust his kicking strength. We all know he was looking for the boundary and trying to make it less obvious that it was. He failed.
Last night, for some inexplicable reason, the Richmond player handballed it straight to the boundary. I looked to see whether a WB player actually propelled the ball but he did not. There was a secondary action by a WB player which knocked the other hand of the Richmond player but the ball had well and truly gone on its way to the boundary. Once again, there was no other Richmond player between him and the boundary.
As with all rules, interpretation still plays a role. In the case of the deliberate rule, an errant "off the side of the boot" or poorly executed hand pass which dribbles off the hand might allow the umpire to give it the benefit of the doubt. We saw two of these on Friday night. But on that basis, some players, like Sam Gilbert (sorry Sam), will get more "benefit of the doubts" than others.
Should the rule exist? Well, it's actually existed since the game began, it's just that it wasn't enforced for about 100 years. In other codes, "last person to touch the ball" rules solve the issue. I wouldn't advocate that - it should stay in the kids game only.
On the ruck issue, I think there a case for a change. "Third man up" has been part of the game ever since I have watched it. Of course, the corollary of "third man up" is "they have more people around the ball". It's a calculated risk and it does take a skill to execute it properly. Lenny was very good at it, as Pendlebury is. It's not surprising that they both have height as midfielders.
More generally, the shepherding in the ruck rule was, in my view, incorrectly paid against Billy Longer on Friday night. This is how I think it is meant to apply. If the two ruckman are facing one another and the one runs in and stands there while looking at the ball, it's play on. If on the other hand, one player come in stands in front of his opponent with his back turned, then it is shepherding. You shepherd in the ruck with your back or by sticking out your knee or foot.
Last night, for some inexplicable reason, the Richmond player handballed it straight to the boundary. I looked to see whether a WB player actually propelled the ball but he did not. There was a secondary action by a WB player which knocked the other hand of the Richmond player but the ball had well and truly gone on its way to the boundary. Once again, there was no other Richmond player between him and the boundary.
As with all rules, interpretation still plays a role. In the case of the deliberate rule, an errant "off the side of the boot" or poorly executed hand pass which dribbles off the hand might allow the umpire to give it the benefit of the doubt. We saw two of these on Friday night. But on that basis, some players, like Sam Gilbert (sorry Sam), will get more "benefit of the doubts" than others.
Should the rule exist? Well, it's actually existed since the game began, it's just that it wasn't enforced for about 100 years. In other codes, "last person to touch the ball" rules solve the issue. I wouldn't advocate that - it should stay in the kids game only.
On the ruck issue, I think there a case for a change. "Third man up" has been part of the game ever since I have watched it. Of course, the corollary of "third man up" is "they have more people around the ball". It's a calculated risk and it does take a skill to execute it properly. Lenny was very good at it, as Pendlebury is. It's not surprising that they both have height as midfielders.
More generally, the shepherding in the ruck rule was, in my view, incorrectly paid against Billy Longer on Friday night. This is how I think it is meant to apply. If the two ruckman are facing one another and the one runs in and stands there while looking at the ball, it's play on. If on the other hand, one player come in stands in front of his opponent with his back turned, then it is shepherding. You shepherd in the ruck with your back or by sticking out your knee or foot.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
I too quite like the new approach to deliberate out of bounds, although the umps sometimes take it too far.
As for last night's incident: it sure as hell looked deliberate to me.
As for last night's incident: it sure as hell looked deliberate to me.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10404
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 701 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
didn't see it that way at all. i saw him initially attempt to handball it to the clear patch in front of him away from congestion. when he saw the boundary so close he tried to regain possession of the ball but fumbled it. Benefit of the doubt a no brainer in that situation.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
desertsaint wrote:didn't see it that way at all. i saw him initially attempt to handball it to the clear patch in front of him away from congestion. when he saw the boundary so close he tried to regain possession of the ball but fumbled it. Benefit of the doubt a no brainer in that situation.
That's exactly what happened when you slow mo it. I suppose the umpire doesn't get that benefit.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
Fair enough, I looked up the slo mo online (didn't catch the slo mo replay last night) and it was a fumble. But it truly looked deliberate in live action. That's bad luck, not bad umpiring or a bad interpretation.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- shrodes
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3061
- Joined: Tue 12 Aug 2014 2:34pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 781 times
- Been thanked: 420 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
Agree, in slow mo it looks like a fumble. Might be hard for umpires to tell though.jackstevo wrote:desertsaint wrote:didn't see it that way at all. i saw him initially attempt to handball it to the clear patch in front of him away from congestion. when he saw the boundary so close he tried to regain possession of the ball but fumbled it. Benefit of the doubt a no brainer in that situation.
That's exactly what happened when you slow mo it. I suppose the umpire doesn't get that benefit.
- Winmar
- Club Player
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Tue 23 Mar 2004 11:52pm
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
I haven't seen the live vision, but in slow mo it shows it's definitely a fumble. It's either a horrible decision or a horrible rule if that's allowed to occur.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
The problem with the rule as it is, is it's too open to interpretation...
I think the one of Friday night was harsh considering the player kicked it under pressure on his non-preferred foot. I'd say it's highly likely that was a shanked kicked.
Regardless... the point is that in many of these cases, there does deny appear to be a clear right or wrong = guaranteed frustration
I think the one of Friday night was harsh considering the player kicked it under pressure on his non-preferred foot. I'd say it's highly likely that was a shanked kicked.
Regardless... the point is that in many of these cases, there does deny appear to be a clear right or wrong = guaranteed frustration
- stevie
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2010 9:09am
- Location: Gold Coast
- Has thanked: 194 times
- Been thanked: 144 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
stevie wrote:The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world
Surely they are able to defend.
- stevie
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2010 9:09am
- Location: Gold Coast
- Has thanked: 194 times
- Been thanked: 144 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
i agree But they still not trying to keep the ball in. Absolutley no different to the ones that do get pinged. Ludicrousjackstevo wrote:stevie wrote:The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world
Surely they are able to defend.
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
stevie wrote:i agree But they still not trying to keep the ball in. Absolutley no different to the ones that do get pinged. Ludicrousjackstevo wrote:stevie wrote:The only way I will accept is when they start pinging defenders and ruckmen who are continually allowed to punch the ball out without penalty. One of the stupidest rules in any sport in the world
Surely they are able to defend.
Its different because they are just punching the ball from a marking contest. Surely we don't want them paid but we do want most of the others paid. The game is better for the rule. The less stoppages the better.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
'Deliberate out of bounds' implies intent on the part of the player and mind-reading capacity on the part of the umpire
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
'Deliberate out of bounds' implies intent on the part of the player and mind-reading capacity on the part of the umpire
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: Thu 22 Apr 2004 5:35am
- Location: Done with MN. Happily retired in Vic.
- Has thanked: 1310 times
- Been thanked: 239 times
Re: Deliberate out of bounds rule
I knew you were ging to post that.Superboot wrote:'Deliberate out of bounds' implies intent on the part of the player and mind-reading capacity on the part of the umpire
Nothing better than a good Dad Joke.