Rules of the game

[Thunder Shaker]

And if the ball hits the goal post but still goes in it's a goal. I can picture the howls of outrage but it would make the game simpler to officiate.

One thing I wish they would crack down on is incorrect disposal. This year players could do pretty much anything vaguely looking like a handball and get away with it.

That goal rule would be well worth considering. I have previously given this some consideration and this is what I found.

It would only change about 25% of scores involving a goal post. The ball can hit the goal post and bounce back into play, or the ball can hit the goal post and go through on either side. If it bounces back into play, that would still be counted as a behind. If it hits the post and goes through on the behind side, that's still a behind. Only in the quadrant where it hits the goal post and goes through the goals would that count as a goal.

[Thunder Shaker]

Actually there is no deliberate out of bounds rule.

The wording is:

18.9.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.9.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play;

Still the umpire’s opinion but not as contentious as ‘deliberate’.

While the wording of the rule is a little different to what I said, I still think this rule is contentious and is in need of review.

[dimelb]

If it hits the post and goes through on the behind side, that's still a behind. Only in the quadrant where it hits the goal post and goes through the goals would that count as a goal.

I thought that if the ball hits the goal post on going through it would be ruled as a behind, same as a kick hitting the post before going through. Have I got this wrong?

[bloodspirit]

I thought that if the ball hits the goal post on going through it would be ruled as a behind, same as a kick hitting the post before going through. Have I got this wrong?

That's the rule as it currently stands. The proposal is that it be changed so that if the footy touches the post but goes through it henceforth be counted as a goal.

[dimelb]

That's the rule as it currently stands. The proposal is that it be changed so that if the footy touches the post but goes through it henceforth be counted as a goal.

Ah, thanks for that. For what it's worth, I'd approve!

[stevoswan]

A last-touch rule would be better than the farcical deliberate out of bounds rule. Rules that are based on an umpire's opinion and not what happened are always problematic.

How would you fix the deliberate out of bounds rule?

Get umpires who understand the game.....but seriously, I just think that any game, including of course finals and the big one, could be decided by a goal to a last touch decision within kicking distance of the goals.....and that would be very sad.

[Thunder Shaker]

Get umpires who understand the game.....but seriously, I just think that any game, including of course finals and the big one, could be decided by a goal to a last touch decision within kicking distance of the goals.....and that would be very sad.

That would not be as sad as a game decided by a "deliberate" out of bounds inside forward 50. I find that particular rule to be quite unsatisfactory.

[bloodspirit]

That would not be as sad as a game decided by a "deliberate" out of bounds inside forward 50. I find that particular rule to be quite unsatisfactory.

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.

[stevoswan]

That would not be as sad as a game decided by a "deliberate" out of bounds inside forward 50. I find that particular rule to be quite unsatisfactory.

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.

[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.

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....