"deliberate out of bounds"?

[Dry Rot]

The game is now on replay here on Sydney, and I just saw Bateman trying to force a behind and hit the behind post = free to the Cats.

That is bullshit, IMO. How often is this rule stupidly invoked by umps?

[G-Mo77]

I don't think it was BS at all he is try to rush a deliberate behind, unfortunately he hit the post and it was out of bounds. It was just unfortunate it wasn’t the wrong call.

I've actually been called for it while playing quite a few years ago.

[Dry Rot]

I don't think it was BS at all he is try to rush a deliberate behind, unfortunately he hit the post and it was out of bounds. It was just unfortunate it wasn’t the wrong call.

If he was "deliberately" trying to rush a behind ie intent but failed, then how can he be pinged for "deliberately out of bounds"?

[The Coon Dog]

The game is now on replay here on Sydney, and I just saw Bateman trying to force a behind and hit the behind post = free to the Cats.

That is bullshit, IMO. How often is this rule stupidly invoked by umps?

Every time this scenario occurs.

Players know that if they attempt to concede a behind & get it wrong, the consequences are severe.

In attempting to concede a behind, the umpires are instructed to interpret the defenders actions as deliberate, consequently, if the ball goes out of bounds, the umpires must pay a free kick for a deliberate action that has caused the ball to go out of bounds.

I think it's a silly interpretation, but one well known, just seems very harsh.

No good blaming the umpires either, they just enforce the rules that are determined by the rules committee.

[G-Mo77]

If he was "deliberately" trying to rush a behind ie intent but failed, then how can he be pinged for "deliberately out of bounds"?

I know where your coming from. You could look at it this way too. He had no intention of trying to keep that ball in. It wasn't the wrong call.

[Topdog]

It was one of the things they implemented to try and stop people rushing behinds.

Get it wrong and you are in a lot of trouble.

[Bulldog4life]

The game is now on replay here on Sydney, and I just saw Bateman trying to force a behind and hit the behind post = free to the Cats.

That is bullshit, IMO. How often is this rule stupidly invoked by umps?

It has been happening for years. I remember a game at Carlton, not sure of the year, when Peter Foster got pinged when he tried to handball through the oppositions goals and hit the behind post on the full.

[LostDoggy]

I know where your coming from. You could look at it this way too. He had no intention of trying to keep that ball in. It wasn't the wrong call.

Totally agree. By trying to rush a behind you are deliberately trying to put the put the ball out of play. If you get it wrong you should be penalised.

[bornadog]

It has been happening for years. I remember a game at Carlton, not sure of the year, when Peter Foster got pinged when he tried to handball through the oppositions goals and hit the behind post on the full.

Hey, I remember that game too, the umpire got banished to the country as those days there was no such interpretation. Was it umpire Vasilou or something similiar?

[bornadog]

Totally agree. By trying to rush a behind you are deliberately trying to put the put the ball out of play. If you get it wrong you should be penalised.

Otherwise the player could put it out of bounds and say they were trying to push it through the points.

[SonofScray]

Totally agree. By trying to rush a behind you are deliberately trying to put the put the ball out of play. If you get it wrong you should be penalised.

That has always been my understanding of the ruling, I've been called for it playing as well.

I actually think its fair enough, by rushing a behind you are putting the ball out of bounds in order to regain possession. It adds the element of risk to that decision I suppose. then again, conceding the behind might be considered risk enough in itself. That's how I thought of it until in recent years where its become more and more common.

[Bulldog4life]

Otherwise the player could put it out of bounds and say they were trying to push it through the points.

Unfortunately I am having trouble remembering the exact year let alone the umpire.:)

Good memory if you are correct.

[bornadog]

Unfortunately I am having trouble remembering the exact year let alone the umpire.:)

Good memory if you are correct.

I remember the game, Carlton kicked 11 straight goals before they had a behind. I think we only had a couple of goals on the board to that stage.

We ended up getting flogged:(

[LostDoggy]

Totally agree. By trying to rush a behind you are deliberately trying to put the put the ball out of play. If you get it wrong you should be penalised.

I agree, we've been pinged for it before in the last couple of years- I vaguely remember Minson or Harris doing it a year or two ago. It's a good rule, they are trying to take it out of play and stuffed it up...big punishment, but they shouldn't make the mistake.

[craigsahibee]

It was only Hawthorn and in particular Chance Bateman so who really cares.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It has been happening for years. I remember a game at Carlton, not sure of the year, when Peter Foster got pinged when he tried to handball through the oppositions goals and hit the behind post on the full.

I reckon it was Tits.

It was in front of the hill (where the Legends stand is now) in the southern pocket. Ken Hunter got the free (what was he doing in the forward line?) and dobbed it with a banana.

[Pembleton]

The rule's name doesn't have to be 100% explanatory of the way it is ajudicated does it?

It is a well established part of the rule that a deliberate attempt to rush a behind, that instead results in the ball going out of bounds will be penalised with a free kick. It is common sense, otherwise you would have a rule, already murky with 'grey area', even harder to implement anytime a defender was near the opposition's goal.

[Throughandthrough]

I've started a one man campaign at the footy.

Instead of yelling out "deliberate" i yell out "On purpose"


Makes me laugh every time.

[NoseBleed]

Oh how I've tried to purge the memory of that day.

Later that same day someone (Chocco?) got pinged for the same offense, except he'd punched it backwards over his head in a marking contest , 20 yards straight into the behind post 5 feet up.

Whistle, Deliberate out of bounds.

Only time Dad and I have ever considered leaving early. Eventually we decided to get a giggle out of what more the maggots could dish up.

NoseBleed

[bornadog]

There was an appalling one in yesterdays game, which favoured us, but the ball had travelled some 40 metres up the ground and Carlton got pinged. This is just rubbish interpretation by the umpires.

[craigsahibee]

There was an appalling one in yesterdays game, which favoured us, but the ball had travelled some 40 metres up the ground and Carlton got pinged. This is just rubbish interpretation by the umpires.

But Scotland had no intention of keeping the ball in play on that occasion. His sole intent was to kill the ball and create a stoppage via a boundary throw in.

[Sockeye Salmon]

But Scotland had no intention of keeping the ball in play on that occasion. His sole intent was to kill the ball and create a stoppage via a boundary throw in.

I don't care what Scotland's intention was, it was still a bullshit decision.

If he meant o do what he did he deserved to be rewarded for his skill in pulling it off; if he didn't mean it, it wasn't deliberate.

I saw Scott West v St. Kilda a few years back with the ball inside D50 with nowhere to go but straight back to about 3 St. Kilda players. He kicked a torp on the run 55 metres, then it landed on it's point and run 30 metres further before stopping 6 inches over the boundary - the most perfect and skillful kick you could imagine - and he got pinged for it

[Pembleton]

I don't care what Scotland's intention was, it was still a bullshit decision.

If he meant o do what he did he deserved to be rewarded for his skill in pulling it off; if he didn't mean it, it wasn't deliberate.


The decision was spot on. I can understand that people don't like the rule, but it was made very clear a couple of years ago that instances like that would now get pinged. So the umpire definitely got it right, although i do agree that the rule is crap.

[LostDoggy]

I agree with Sockeye. Terrible decision. We play with an odd shaped ball and the bounce as we all know is unpredictable. Unless you are actually facing the boundary line and gain no ground forward you should not be pinged.