Deliberate out of bounds

[Jabso]

If a player is penalised for deliberate out of bounds if he aims to rush through for a point but misses or hits the behind post, then technically if a forward misses a shot at goal and it goes out of bounds (obviously not on full) then they should be penalised too. In both situations a player is attempting to put the ball "over the line" and stop the play, and inaccuracy is not an excuse for deliberate out of bounds.
What do you think?

 

[Zeke]

I think you're being silly.

 

[PAFC2004]

I think you are wrong. If they accidently put the ball out of bounds while trying to rush a behind, how is it deliberate? And missing a shot?
What are you on?

 

[Lonie_from_50]

Good point jabso.

On both occasions there is an attempt to get it through the posts. Yet, that is just a smartass call.

I think the rulebook is where you go, and it would clearly say if a defender, and there is no justification for the same as a forward. (obvious answer, ofcourse)

It is the risk you take.

 

[Jabso]

I don't think this would be the right thing to do but technically it is there.
It is accidental but so is putting it out when you try to rush a behind.
On each occasion they are deliberately trying to get the ball over the line.

 

[Jabso]

If they accidently put the ball out of bounds while trying to rush a behind, how is it deliberate?

This has been paid all the time in the last year or so of footy.

 

[PAFC2004]

This has been paid all the time in the last year or so of footy.

No, they pay it if they deem that the player is deliberatly trying to force the ball out of bounds rather than force a behind. If the player is clearly aiming for a rushed behind, but the ball goes out of bounds, it will not be called. Nor should it.

 

[donkster]

i have seen it called before, player aimed at rushing a behind, missed and over the boundary she goes only to be paid a free.

 

[Rozza44]

The Adelaide player missed it by a mile though, i think the umpire just didnt beleive his case

 

[Jabso]

No, they pay it if they deem that the player is deliberatly trying to force the ball out of bounds rather than force a behind. If the player is clearly aiming for a rushed behind, but the ball goes out of bounds, it will not be called. Nor should it.

I have seen this happen a few times, although players rarely miss rushing behinds with such a large target. On two or three occasions they paid it after it hit the behind post. They pay this and on the commentary tonight Dermie said "Inaccuracy is not a valid defence for deliberate out of bounds". So if umpires are going to pay it against defenders why not against forwards?

 

[tomatoes]

No, they pay it if they deem that the player is deliberatly trying to force the ball out of bounds rather than force a behind. If the player is clearly aiming for a rushed behind, but the ball goes out of bounds, it will not be called. Nor should it.

No you are wrong, it is a rule.

 

[LongBomb]

No, they pay it if they deem that the player is deliberatly trying to force the ball out of bounds rather than force a behind. If the player is clearly aiming for a rushed behind, but the ball goes out of bounds, it will not be called. Nor should it.

No. You are wrong.

It happens every other round. A player attempts to rush a behind and the ball goes OOB.
This is an instant deliberate OOB. I don't agree with it, but that is the rule.

 

[Jabso]

Then what do you guys think if a forward misses scoring and it goes out of bounds (not on full) should it be a free kick?
Technically yes, but sensibly no I think.

 

[Bob_vic]

Then what do you guys think if a forward misses scoring and it goes out of bounds (not on full) should it be a free kick?
Technically yes, but sensibly no I think.

There is no such rule... (apart from the gereral deliberate OOB rule)

If the umps are paying as deliberate, it's clearly wrong. If you're intentionally trying to rush a score, and miss, then you've ACCIDENTALLY put the ball out of bounds.

Explains itself.

Bob

 

[wballz]

yeah i agree it should not be paid but at the moment it seems like the umpires are told that is the interpretation of the rule and they will pay it. Someone needs to tell them not to interpret it that way as it is insane to penalise someone for deliberate out of bounds for something that was un-intentional.

 

[patsmith]

If the ump sees someone running straight back and knock the ball OOB, even if it's near the point post, then they can only think that it's deliberate. It's not the umpire's responsibility to decide whether it was supposed to be rushed.

 

[Rocket23]

There is no such rule... (apart from the gereral deliberate OOB rule)

If the umps are paying as deliberate, it's clearly wrong. If you're intentionally trying to rush a score, and miss, then you've ACCIDENTALLY put the ball out of bounds.

Agree Bob. It is the umpires call. I have had this happen to me and the umpire stated that he thought my intention was to put it through the points so it was not deliberate. I have also had it happens against me and the umpire gave me the free.

All depends on the umps interpretation

 

[sedders]

No, they pay it if they deem that the player is deliberatly trying to force the ball out of bounds rather than force a behind. If the player is clearly aiming for a rushed behind, but the ball goes out of bounds, it will not be called. Nor should it.

you are just plain wrong there buddy

 

[sedders]

everytime i've seen a player miss the rush behind its been called deliberate.

 

[scotty13]

I agree that if a defender aims for the points and puts it oob, then a free kick should be awarded, a clearly the defender had no other thought in his head but to get the ball out of play.
However i think the rule would state that if it is a defencive move then a free kick is awarded, not if it is an attacking move ie, shot at goal.

 

[Wojee]

I first noticed this years ago when Craig Bradley got pinged for deliberate OOB when he attempted to handball a rushed behind under pressure and missed by about a foot. I thought it was harsh then, and it's no less harsh now.

 

[D-N-R]

No, they pay it if they deem that the player is deliberatly trying to force the ball out of bounds rather than force a behind. If the player is clearly aiming for a rushed behind, but the ball goes out of bounds, it will not be called. Nor should it.

of course it should be deliberate oobs. umpires were spot-on last nite. if they don't call it then players will start 'accidentally' hitting the behind post or 'just missing'. (whoops!) the players already 'fumble' the ball over the line, or 'accidentally' step over the line to get it oobs. they picked a few players up last nite on that one as well and good on 'em. the maggots did a pretty good job last nite imo.

 

[PAFC2004]

Are you people on something? If the player is aiming for a rushed behind and it goes out of bounds, how is that deliberate OOB? Their intention was to rush a behind!

 

[Wojee]

Are you people on something? If the player is aiming for a rushed behind and it goes out of bounds, how is that deliberate OOB? Their intention was to rush a behind!

It's deliberate OOB because that's how the umpires pay it. I don't agree with their interpretation.

 

[D-N-R]

Are you people on something? If the player is aiming for a rushed behind and it goes out of bounds, how is that deliberate OOB? Their intention was to rush a behind!

player's are given way too much latitude for 'mistakes'. if they can't put a football between two posts nearly 5m apart then they should be penalised for being rubbish. it's time to take some of the grey areas out of football umpiring and stop giving highly skilled, professional players the 'benifit of the doubt' all the time for 'mistakes' deliberate or otherwise.