More boring footy from Roos

[barry]

There was an article in one of the Sunday papers about what rules you'd change in AFL (obviously written from a Sydney perspective cause some were very stupid), but Paul Roos got to voice a couple of his prefered changes.

Roo's one was to remove "Deliberate out of bounds". I guess so we can play even closer to the boundary, and even more throw ins.

[Damien]

I haven't read today's papers but surely he gave a reasoning? and an alternative?

Be pretty ugly if you could just handball out of bounds every time you were in trouble. Can not see Roos wanting that.

[barry]

It was a fluff article, but he did say the reasoning was because it was too difficult to judge what was deliberate or not.
Perhaps still steaming from J.Balls effort against north.

[Damien]

Originally posted by barry
It was a fluff article, but he did say the reasoning was because it was too difficult to judge what was deliberate or not.
Perhaps still steaming from J.Balls effort against north.

Pretty silly for him to comment on that rule - sometimes they will get it right and sometimes wrong, but the rule has to be in place.

[desredandwhite]

Perhaps the reasoning was that if they can't police it effectively and consistently, why bother having it at all?

[Doctor J.]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
Perhaps the reasoning was that if they can't police it effectively and consistently, why bother having it at all?

Exactly Des. A rule that is more abitrary and open to more interpretation than the holding the ball rule is a stupid rule, get rid of it!!!

[OldE]

It really is a little silly to have a rule on intentions. Far too abstract for footy. How can anyone know what someone else intended???? Certainly, there are cases where it's pretty obvious, but it's a dangerously ambiguous rule.

[Charlie]

I don't think that the deliberate out of bounds rule should apply if a defender's only option to avoid giving away a free is to handball out of bounds. If they go to the boundary rather than to an available teammate, fine... but when they have no other alternative, they should be able to do SOMETHING to avoid giving the opposition a scoring opportunity.

[Thunder Shaker]

Deliberate out of bounds is flawed because it is a rule based on an umpire's opinion. We need to change this to a fact-based rule like what happens when you kick the ball out on the full.

If a player puts the ball out of bounds with a clean possession that is not out on the full, and it is not touched before going out of bounds, I think there should be a free paid. However, the player receiving the free would not be allowed to kick the ball; the player must dispose of the ball with a handball, and they must do it from outside the field of play. This is similar to the equivalent rule in soccer.

This would make it harder to put the ball out of bounds without penalty, but it would also make it impossible to kick a goal from an out of bounds decision inside F50. It does make set plays possible, but you can counter set plays with good defense.

Another idea is to do the same as above, but only if the player is within 15 metres of the boundary. To help the umpire and players make the decision, draw a line around the boundary that is 15 metres in from the boundary to delineate the zone inside which you cannot put the ball out of bounds without conceding the free possession.

[ROK Lobster]

I agree with Roos. It is a dumb rule. AFL is so good because there are (or at least were) so few rules. Keep it that way. Out of bounds should be a throw in, simple. Then there is no deciding whether it was deliberate or not, whether it was a clean possession or not, where the player was, who the player was etc etc. If it goes out just chuck it back in and get on with it. We all give the umpires **** each week for what a crap job they do - why make it harder for them?

[j s]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
However, the player receiving the free would not be allowed to kick the ball; the player must dispose of the ball with a handball, and they must do it from outside the field of play. This is similar to the equivalent rule in soccer.

I don't like the idea of forcing a handball but inroducing the concept of an "indirect free" (ie no score can be made directly) could be worthwhile thinking about. "Indirect" would need some definition though like: Is "play on" indirect? Is "touched" indirect? "touched by opponent"? "touched by teammate"? I would say that "play on" is still "direct" as is "touched by opposition" but "touched by teammate" (like punched through) would be indirect.

The "deliberate" rule was introduced to prevent time-wasting tactics. I think it is quite legitimate to seek the boundary if the alternative is giving the ball to the opposition.

Like others here I would like to see a clearer definition.

If the ball is in contested possession then "deliberate" should NEVER be paid. The intention there must always be assumed to be keeping the ball from the opponent. This criteria would be easy for the umps to assess.

If the possession is uncontested then the angle of disposal relative to the boundary should be less then a defined amount (say 45 deg but this is open to discussion). Like OOF the players "intention" then becomes irrelevant. Sure, this requires the umps to assess angles but that is a lot easier than assessing intent. I picked 45 deg as the angle as this would be the easiest for the umps to visualise and assess

[Damien]

It is a team game - if a team can't get themselves into position to help a team mate out and his only option is the boundary line, then they should be punished.

Footy is a free flowing, contested sport, why should a player be able to get out of trouble by handballing to the boundary line? Clarify the rule, yes, but the rule must stay.

From time to time, it will be judged incorrectly. Just like holding the ball can be or kicking in danger for instance.

It would help the stoppage creating style of game that the Swans have adopted if the rule was removed though, so I understand why Roos has brought it up. Surprised he hasnt suggested holding the ball be scrapped also.

[sharp9]

I have thought for quite some time that there should be a handbald awarded for EVERY occasion when a possession goes to the boundary. This also gives the umpire the option of calling "paddling" a possession, which it so often is, especially when a player is deliberately paddling or fumbling the ball over the line, yet the penalty is not as bad as a free.

Also it would mean that a player would not let a ball roll over the boundary if it has been kicked upfield by a team mate.

[NMWBloods]

Frequent stoppages are what makes a game boring, so anything to prevent these is a good thing IMHO.

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Frequent stoppages are what makes a game boring, so anything to prevent these is a good thing IMHO.

That hits the nail on the head.

Don't make any changes unless it makes the game more entertaining.

It would be good to see some variations on the OOB rules trialled in the pre-season comp. I must admit that I've always found the boundary throw-in to be a bit anachronistic. It seems logical to me that in a sport with boundaries, the team putting the ball OOB should automatically lose possession as a consequence (and as a disincentive).