Rules of the game

[Meg]

I don't like the way the deliberate oob rule is adjudicated.....this is the problem with that rule, not the rule itself. I agree that it would ruin a GF if what you say happened but explain to me why a team should be penalised for simply being the last to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds and how this is in the spirit of the game.

I don't like the way the deliberate oob rule is adjudicated.....this is the problem with that rule, not the rule itself. I agree that it would ruin a GF if what you say happened but explain to me why a team should be penalised for simply being the last to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds and how this is in the spirit of the game.

Given it is a ‘didn’t make sufficient attempt’ rule not a ‘deliberate’ rule I think the umps do a pretty good job of officiating it. What is the interpretation you don’t like?

I agree with the implication of your second point. Imagine RWO reaction to the following scenario:

Grand final, Swans v Hawks, Swans up by four points. With ten seconds on clock Hawks snap for goal and Rampe does a desperate, brilliant dive which knocks the ball, which was heading straight through for a goal, out of bounds.

Siren sounds but ump has awarded a free kick to Hawks under last touch rule. Hawks player kicks after siren, goal, Hawks win by two points.

Stuff that as a good rule!

[Meg]

Re my post above - even worse scenario, multiple replays show the Hawks player’s snap for goal would have missed so Swans would have won anyway. Rampe could not know that when he lunged for the ball. And because of the last-touch rule Hawks get a set shot after siren.

[emoji107][emoji107] for that rule.

[jono2707]

What's wrong with the ball going out of bounds anyway? It's part of the game. Just chuck the thing back in a lot quicker that what umpires are currently doing....

[Thunder Shaker]

I don't like the way the deliberate oob rule is adjudicated.....this is the problem with that rule, not the rule itself. I agree that it would ruin a GF if what you say happened but explain to me why a team should be penalised for simply being the last to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds and how this is in the spirit of the game.

The boundary rule needs revision. As I have previously shown, it's a patchwork of rules that cover very specific situations.
* A kick goes out of bounds on the full? That's a free.
* A kick in after a behind goes out of bounds without being touched? That's a free.
* A ruckman punches the ball out of bounds after a ruck contest? That's a free.
* A player doesn't make sufficient effort to keep the ball in play? That's a free, sometimes.

Most of these rules have been introduced in the last 60 years.

I have suggested a last touch rule. That would be problematic for its own reasons, but it depends on the implementation. Let's look at a possible implementation.
* A player has the last possession and the ball goes out of play from that possession, including a ruck contest. That's a free.

That would replace all four of the existing rules.

Now let's take a look at a possible refinement.

* It's a free, but not a free kick unless the ball was kicked out of bounds. Otherwise, the player must handpass the ball back into play. If a player's handpassing the ball back into play, a goal from such a free would not be possible, but set plays would be possible.

[bloodspirit]

The boundary rule needs revision. As I have previously shown, it's a patchwork of rules that cover very specific situations.
* A kick goes out of bounds on the full? That's a free.
* A kick in after a behind goes out of bounds without being touched? That's a free.
* A ruckman punches the ball out of bounds after a ruck contest? That's a free.
* A player doesn't make sufficient effort to keep the ball in play? That's a free, sometimes.

Most of these rules have been introduced in the last 60 years.

I have suggested a last touch rule. That would be problematic for its own reasons, but it depends on the implementation. Let's look at a possible implementation.
* A player has the last possession and the ball goes out of play from that possession, including a ruck contest. That's a free.

That would replace all four of the existing rules.

Now let's take a look at a possible refinement.

* It's a free, but not a free kick unless the ball was kicked out of bounds. Otherwise, the player must handpass the ball back into play. If a player's handpassing the ball back into play, a goal from such a free would not be possible, but set plays would be possible.

Creative thinking TS. I like it.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, problems are going to arise with any rule you have. If we have a last touch it is not hard to envisage all kinds of scenarios where players try to send the ball over the edge via a touch on their opponents. Or else situations where two opponents are chasing the ball towards the line and scrapping with each other and it's exceedingly difficult to get the right call about who touched it last. Etc.

[stevoswan]

What's wrong with the ball going out of bounds anyway? It's part of the game. Just chuck the thing back in a lot quicker that what umpires are currently doing....

....and throw it in properly! How many times do we see the ruckmen sprinting forward at the ruck contest just to get to the pathetically weak throw in by a supposedly well trained official? Multiple times in nearly every game. It's deplorable!

[Bloods05]

....and throw it in properly! How many times do we see the ruckmen sprinting forward at the ruck contest just to get to the pathetically weak throw in by a supposedly well trained official? Multiple times in nearly every game. It's deplorable!

I cannot believe how frequently this happens.

[Thunder Shaker]

Creative thinking TS. I like it.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, problems are going to arise with any rule you have. If we have a last touch it is not hard to envisage all kinds of scenarios where players try to send the ball over the edge via a touch on their opponents. Or else situations where two opponents are chasing the ball towards the line and scrapping with each other and it's exceedingly difficult to get the right call about who touched it last. Etc.

Yes, it is quite true that no rule can be perfect.

A lot of the out of bounds rules I listed were implemented after the previous lack of a rule was exploited, often as a way of wasting time. This patchwork of rules still has a lot of loopholes and inconsistencies: a kick in after a behind that goes out of bounds without being touched gives away a free kick, but not a free kick or a mark from the goal square that goes out of bounds without being touched.

In your list:

The first situation could be resolved by considering who had effective control of the ball last. Handpassing a ball out of bounds off an opponent's leg is theoretically a problem with the current rules. Although rare, it can happen.

The second situation is not difficult. In case of doubt, the boundary umpire throws the ball back into play. In such a circumstance, it can be argued that if nobody had effective control of the ball and it goes out of bounds, nobody was responsible for sending it out of bounds.

[Thunder Shaker]

....and throw it in properly! How many times do we see the ruckmen sprinting forward at the ruck contest just to get to the pathetically weak throw in by a supposedly well trained official? Multiple times in nearly every game. It's deplorable!

There's no need for the boundary umpire to hurl the ball as far as possible, only to fall short sometimes. If the ruckman taps the ball out of play, that gives away a free kick, so they have an incentive not to do this.

The inconsistency with the throw-in distance can be fixed by strengthening this rule (removing the out on the full limitation) and having the boundary umpires throwing the ball back into play 15 metres, a distance they can manage far more consistently. Not only would this make the boundary throw-in more consistent, it would put less strain on the bodies of boundary umpires.

[stevoswan]

There's no need for the boundary umpire to hurl the ball as far as possible, only to fall short sometimes. If the ruckman taps the ball out of play, that gives away a free kick, so they have an incentive not to do this.

The inconsistency with the throw-in distance can be fixed by strengthening this rule (removing the out on the full limitation) and having the boundary umpires throwing the ball back into play 15 metres, a distance they can manage far more consistently. Not only would this make the boundary throw-in more consistent, it would put less strain on the bodies of boundary umpires.

They used to have just two boundary umpires, running the full length of the ground all game long and throwing the ball in properly.....every time, all game long. Where are they recruiting these current day flowers from? It's mind boggling....

[Nico]

They used to have just two boundary umpires, running the full length of the ground all game long and throwing the ball in properly.....every time, all game long. Where are they recruiting these current day flowers from? It's mind boggling....

Agreed, this throw in issue is nonsense. I've watched this game for 60 years and recent times is the first time anyone has questioned the throw ins. Poor throw ins don't happen too often.

[mcs]

Agreed, this throw in issue is nonsense. I've watched this game for 60 years and recent times is the first time anyone has questioned the throw ins. Poor throw ins don't happen too often.

If its really such a huge concern (I don't think it is), just let them move in 5 metres from boundary before they throw it in. Happens in lots of the lower tiers to no noticeable difference. But I don't think its really an issue at all to be honest.

[MattW]

20 minutes quarters confirmed to return. Woohoo. Full-time footy is back: Quarters return to 20 mins in 2021

[Nico]

Heard Mark "Choc" Williams on SEN earlier in the week trying to explain the experimental rules happening in the VFL in 2021. Sounded like a hot potch of rules cobbled together by people that don't have a clue. Supposedly trying to cut down conjestion. Something like when the ball is thrown in a player has to sprint back to inside the 50 zone otherwise a free kick is paid. I don't think Choco understood. I sure had no idea what he was talking about. Players have got so much already they have to know when on the ground, and now some lain brained think tank inside AFL come up with these hair brained ideas to befuddle them.

[Bloody Hell]

I'm with you, Thunder Shaker. The last touch rule would also see the ball stay in play more and might speed and even open the game up too.

I've thought about this rule abit, particularly when they brought in the deliberate (ridiculous to see adjudications on this), and would like to see the following implemented so that "deliberate" did not need to be adjudicated:

1. If the ball goes out of bounds from a contested marking situation - it's a throw in
2. If the ball is kicked out >15m - it's a throw in
3. If the ball is kicked out <15m - a free kick to the opposite team
4. If the ball is fisted/handballed out, last touch is - a free kick to the opposite team
5. If you run the ball over - it's a free kick to the opposite team.

The thinking being - if you are under pressure, you can kick the ball out, with a chance that you will kick the ball OOBOTF if you are close to the line. In marking contests you can punch to the boundary. DEFENDERS have to have an option.

All other instances are a free kick.

I'd use the same rules for rushed behinds + you can run the ball over the line.

No longer necessary for umpires to have a psychology degree to umpire a game of football.