More boring footy from Roos

[Nico]

Remember when under Rodney Eade we were by far the highest in out of bounds stats. It was as boring as hell and the least creative game plan one could imagine.

I agree with Damien and NMW. Leave it how it is. The more variations to the rule you introduce as some have suggested, would only complicate the rule even further.

It was brought in to prevent the blatant deliberates, and even still they do it and get away with it on occasions. In 2003 Sam Mitchell was crucified for deliberate out of bounds when the footy went 40 metres and did a leg break. In 2004 they softened the interpretation somewhat.

[BAZooka Woman]

I have to say I don't mind the OOB rule - it makes playing on the boundary that little bit more dangerous, and that makes for exciting footy.

What I love about AFL is the way the game can turn around so quickly, and much as I get the 'ump when the maggots get it wrong I quite like the unpredictability of the calls.

But I do like the idea of giving an indirect free .. a bit like 'free pass only' in netball - ie have to hand off to someone else before the team's allowed to score ..

[Nico]

That is why our game is unique. We don't follow other sports' rules to a large extent. Netball rules. No thanks.

[floppinab]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread.

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker

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.

Don't mind this one at all, you would think this would lead to more run on play as the team awarded the free HB would get try to get hold of the footy quickly once it went over the line and move it on quickly.
Could possibly be a problem with in overly defensive scenarios where players are "blasting" it on the ground over the line and the game slows down while the footy is retreived.
Also the possibility of the opposing team crowding the area of the incoming handball. Given most players can handball 20 or 30 m these days that shouldn't be much of a problem though.

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.

Also not bad. A non-scoring free kick paid against the last touch out of bounds.

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.

Not sure about this one, just shifting one difficult definition (deliberate) to another (contested possession).

[BAZooka Woman]

Originally posted by Nico
That is why our game is unique. We don't follow other sports' rules to a large extent. Netball rules. No thanks.

Does this mean kicking the ball is a soccer rule? Or tackling is a rugby league rule?

Get over yourself. AFL has rules in common with other games .. it doesn't mean those rules are wrong.

[caj23]

this post wouldn't exist if the quality of the umpiring in the afl wasn't so poor.

as long as it is umpired sensibly it is a good rule

[swansrule100]

the biggest problem with delibrate out of bounds is the inconsistency! if they fix that ill be happy

[dread and might]

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

Maybe we need to go backwards one step before we can move forward..... get the umps, not for one week but consistently, to crack down hard on deliberate, and HTB. If it is clear that they won't let up, players will make a bigger effort not to have frees paid against them for these things.

On the footy show earlier in the year three players from three different teams said that they had been pretty much instructed to hold on to the ball and if it got paid against you, bad luck....

[footyhead]

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

You could make a good argument that most of the Rules in AFL are like this.
Thats why I favour the inclusion of the biff. It takes the focus of the game back to the play and away from the umpire (or interpretation of the play.)
The biff is the great equaliser to skill, but excelence and determination can beat biff alone.
However excelence determination and biff are unbeatable.
Unless youv'e got soft c ock rules like "undue" rough play !!!
Aussie rules has been made redundant really.
The rules of the game don't really make sense to anyone. Except for whoever is enforcing them at the time.
Taking the Biff out only exposes it weakness- Its nebulous rules.
I would say that is a major draw back to the development of the game in NSW.
Who the @@@@ can understand the rules ?
Plus they change em each year !

[Nico]

Originally posted by BAZooka Woman
Does this mean kicking the ball is a soccer rule? Or tackling is a rugby league rule?

Get over yourself. AFL has rules in common with other games .. it doesn't mean those rules are wrong.

Can anyone explain "get over yourself". Is this part of the local language of backstreet Alexandria NSW?

[Nolie]

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

Totally disagree. Sometimes frequent stoppages can be enthralling. Have another look at the 2003 final against Port Adelaide. There is a five to seven minute period in the last quarter where all Sydney did , especially with Barry Hall taking on the rucking on the wing, was to knock the ball over the boundary. It always depends on the context.
The sanctuary of the boundary should be a legitimate tactic.
I don't see anyone on this post complaining about the time wasting tactic of kicking the ball backwards and sideways . That is just as big a time watser, stoppage of free flowing football as a deliberate out of bounds.

[Nolie]

Originally posted by footyhead
You could make a good argument that most of the Rules in AFL are like this.
Thats why I favour the inclusion of the biff. It takes the focus of the game back to the play and away from the umpire (or interpretation of the play.)
The biff is the great equaliser to skill, but excelence and determination can beat biff alone.
However excelence determination and biff are unbeatable.
Unless youv'e got soft c ock rules like "undue" rough play !!!
Aussie rules has been made redundant really.
The rules of the game don't really make sense to anyone. Except for whoever is enforcing them at the time.
Taking the Biff out only exposes it weakness- Its nebulous rules.
I would say that is a major draw back to the development of the game in NSW.
Who the @@@@ can understand the rules ?
Plus they change em each year !

Good post. Totally agree.

[dread and might]

Originally posted by Nolie

I don't see anyone on this post complaining about the time wasting tactic of kicking the ball backwards and sideways . That is just as big a time watser, stoppage of free flowing football as a deliberate out of bounds.

there's a difference between kicking out on the full and chipping the ball around. One results in a definite free kick, the other is just boring and frustrating, though we all accept it when our team is in front. It would be very difficult to have rules in place to stop teams kicking sideways or backwards, whereas there are rules in place to stop deliberately seeking the boundary line or sitting on the ball to try and force a ball up. The problem with these, as stated before, is the inconsistency with which they are applied.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Nolie
Totally disagree. Sometimes frequent stoppages can be enthralling. Have another look at the 2003 final against Port Adelaide. There is a five to seven minute period in the last quarter where all Sydney did , especially with Barry Hall taking on the rucking on the wing, was to knock the ball over the boundary. It always depends on the context.

Sure, but that's because we were winning and it was a final and it was close. These types of things don't happen together that often, and in most cases stoppages are boring.

The sanctuary of the boundary should be a legitimate tactic.
I don't see anyone on this post complaining about the time wasting tactic of kicking the ball backwards and sideways . That is just as big a time watser, stoppage of free flowing football as a deliberate out of bounds.

I'm quite happy to complain about this. Another Wiz rule I liked was that you could not makr from a backwards kick.

[Nico]

Nolie I agree on the backwards kick. Many times it takes everything away from an enthralling close finish and makes it a dull uninteresting final 5 minutes. I hate it no matter which team is doing it at the time. A team that is 3 goals down with 5 minutes to go in a game has virtually no hope of getting a spectacular, last gasp win.

As far I am concerned it should be banned from final quarters.