Rules that bug you

[Sanecow]

This bugs me: When Goodes was over the boundary and turned to kick sideways, was called to play on and therefore the ball was over the boundary.

That is such a technical interpretation of the rules that, if you are going to follow through, any player over the boundary who kicks the ball should be called for OOBOTF immediately as the ball leaves their boot.

Be consistent in your pedantry!

[floppinab]

Yep, remember that one. Umpie actually got it wrong.
The player has to firstly run off his line and then if he changes direction he is OOB. Goodes did not run off his line, he merely turned his body and changed direction without having taken the two or three steps to run off his line in the first place.

Screwed up again umpie.

[Dave]

Holding the ball.

The way it is interpreted is a joke. There is no reward for going in hard to get the ball.

[Thunder Shaker]

Re: Rules that bug you

Originally posted by Sanecow
This bugs me: When Goodes was over the boundary and turned to kick sideways, was called to play on and therefore the ball was over the boundary.

That is such a technical interpretation of the rules that, if you are going to follow through, any player over the boundary who kicks the ball should be called for OOBOTF immediately as the ball leaves their boot.

Be consistent in your pedantry!

I think it was Leo Barry, not Goodes.

It is in the rules, I have specifically seen it listed there when I was reading the rules last year. There are other things that also are in the rules that are rarely seen at the top level, like shaking the goalpost.

The rule you cited makes sense when you think about it. What happens here is that Barry played on *before* kicking the ball. He played on -> ball is in play. Ball is in play but out of bounds -> boundary throw in.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Dave
Holding the ball.

The way it is interpreted is a joke. There is no reward for going in hard to get the ball.

The interpretations that are particularly hard to fathom are those where there's one or more opposition players sitting on his back thus making it impossible to get the ball out. Why is this not interpreted as in the back? At the very least these two infringements cancel each other (or the ball interpreted as being pinned) and the umpire call for a bounce.

[Sanecow]

Re: Re: Rules that bug you

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
It is in the rules, I have specifically seen it listed there when I was reading the rules last year.

16.5 DISPOSAL ? FROM OUT OF BOUNDS

16.5.1 When Permitted

(a) A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the 
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that 
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking, 
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.

(b) If a Player taking his Kick from outside the Boundary Line
(i) fails to bring the football into play;
(ii) attempts to play on outside the boundary line; or
(iii) does not bring the ball into play in accordance with 16.5.1 (a)
then the ball shall be deemed to be Out of Bounds and the 
boundary Umpire shall throw the ball back into play at the spot 
where the original Mark or Free Kick took place.

16.5.2 Standing the Mark Adjacent to Behind Post

Where a Player is given or takes possession of the football 
beyond the Boundary Line within 2 metres of the behind post, 
the Player standing the mark must be positioned 5 metres away 
from the Boundary Line.

16.5.3 Football Back in Play

The football is deemed to be back in play when any portion of it is 
on or above the Boundary Line.

It's the rule that bugs me.

[Sanecow]

According to 16.5.3, the ball wasn't even in play, how could it have been out of bounds!

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Sanecow
According to 16.5.3, the ball wasn't even in play, how could it have been out of bounds!

(a) A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the 
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that 
the Player moves in [b]one[/b] direction whilst in the act of Kicking, 
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.

I think the fact that he moved one way, did not kick the ball, and then moved another meant he went in two directions whilst in the act of kicking.

[Rizzo]

I'm with Dave. Holding the Ball.

As a follow up to my post in the "Wrong side of the Ump's Ledger" thread, here's more from Tim Lane on the topic...

http://tinyurl.com/8g7cv

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by Rizzo
I'm with Dave. Holding the Ball.

As a follow up to my post in the "Wrong side of the Ump's Ledger" thread, here's more from Tim Lane on the topic...

http://tinyurl.com/8g7cv

On the same theme, why isn't there a rule to penalise players who deliberately hold the ball into the tackled player to take advantage of the new interpretation of the rule. Aren't they just as guilty of holding the ball?

[Thunder Shaker]

provided that the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking

If a player turns sideways when kicking, that's probably not "one direction".

We have been on the end of many incorrect or dubious umpiring decisions this year, but I think the umps must be given the benefit of the doubt on this one.

As for rules that annoy me, I think the big problem with umpires is not the umpires themselves (who mostly do a good job), but the rules of the game. There are many rules in the game that require the umpire to make a decision based on subjective criteria (opinion), rather than objective criteria (fact).

One example is deliberate out of bounds. This rule is always controversial, and needs to be replaced by a fact-based rule that is easier to adjudicate. An example of a fact-based rule is OOBOTF; this rule is rarely controversial. Such a fact-based rule will probably result in a lot of free kicks. To alleviate this, a simple solution is for the player bringing the ball back into play to do so by hand and not by foot. It will be impossible to kick a goal, but it opens up the possibility of set plays.

Another one is when a player runs too far without bouncing the ball. One umpire's 15 metres is another umpire's 20. If we adapted the travel rule from netball, we could make it that a player could run maybe 12 paces without bouncing the ball before being called for travel. Then the umpires' decision would be easy: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, WHISTLE. In practice, the umpire would probably count every second step like the way the Romans computed the mille passus (mile).

Holding the ball is also in need of revision.

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
If we adapted the travel rule from netball ...

Better still, why don't we take all the rules from netball? We'd inherit a whole new generation of players, promote the 'Women in AFL' program, and take on a whole new set of experienced umpires. Sounds ideal.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
Better still, why don't we take all the rules from netball? We'd inherit a whole new generation of players, promote the 'Women in AFL' program, and take on a whole new set of experienced umpires. Sounds ideal.

And the players could all wear skirts and a bib.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
On the same theme, why isn't there a rule to penalise players who deliberately hold the ball into the tackled player to take advantage of the new interpretation of the rule. Aren't they just as guilty of holding the ball?

Excellent point. I often hear the Umpire telling a player that is appealing for a free kick that he is holding the ball in - that should therefore be a free against him because he is holding the ball.

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by ScottH
And the players could all wear skirts and a bib.

I thought Lloydy already did.