"did he touch the ball before it went over"

[master bate]

Here is a scenario.

Player from team A is under pressure in his defensive 50 - seconds remaining, less than a kick in it. To relieve the pressure he grubbers a hard, tumbling kick directly towards the boundary line where there is an opponent stationed.

The opponent has the choice to either try and take control of the ball - and possibly miscontrol the fast moving, tumbling ball - or let it go and win the free kick and a shot on goal to win the game.

The defensive player would win in this situation if the rule said that the opponent was obliged to try and keep the ball alive. Kicking the ball to the boundary would actually be an advantage to the defensive team if all the players had to do was make sure there was an opponent within touching distance of the ball. The pressure of keeping the ball alive would then go on to the opponent.

I just can't see it working. It is up to the person disposing of the ball to ensure that it stays in play, not the person closest to the ball.

If you kick the ball to where an opponent is then you haven't deliberately kicked the ball out have you? You've turned the ball over through poor skill. The reward is the ball back should the opponent be able to control it. Bad turnovers in your defensive half isn't going to be a recommended AFL tactic any time soon as far as I can tell.

Deliberate is a judgement call. If it's going to stay as a judgement call and not as a hard rule of 'last touch' then surely the umpires can make a judgement call on when the ball could've been kept in play and when it couldn't.

If there's no one in the area I'm not saying a player should hussle over to save the other team from a deliberate call, but if they are right there and shepherding the ball over they don't deserve a free kick. Toss in a boundary throw in.

 

[D-N-R]

If you kick the ball to where an opponent is then you haven't deliberately kicked the ball out have you? You've turned the ball over through poor skill. The reward is the ball back should the opponent be able to control it. Bad turnovers in your defensive half isn't going to be a recommended AFL tactic any time soon as far as I can tell.

Deliberate is a judgement call. If it's going to stay as a judgement call and not as a hard rule of 'last touch' then surely the umpires can make a judgement call on when the ball could've been kept in play and when it couldn't.

If there's no one in the area I'm not saying a player should hussle over to save the other team from a deliberate call, but if they are right there and shepherding the ball over they don't deserve a free kick. Toss in a boundary throw in.

It's just adding an extra layer of judgement calls and allowing players to deliberately aim for the boundary as long as there is a player of either team somewhere in the vicinity.

I think it is much clearer that the responsibility for keeping the ball alive is in the hands of the player disposing of the ball and his team-mates. I don't think he should be able to just transfer pressure from his team to another team by putting the ball over the boundary near an opponent.

If that opponent is under pressure himself, then he loses if he lets the ball go over (throw in, no free) and loses if he takes possession (tackled, possible HTB or ball-up). The player trying to kick the ball out of play has the advantage.

 

[Inferno]

Going to go against popular opinion here - I thought it was a good call.

He kicked it on the full minutes earlier in an attempt to clear it to the boundary line, he then tried to do the exact same thing from the same position again without a Carlton player within 30m of where he kicked the ball.

It was obvious his intent was to clear it to the boundary line even if he was under pressure. It was dumb that the umpire asked if the Richmond player touched it though since that should be irrelevant.

 

[D-N-R]

Going to go against popular opinion here - I thought it was a good call.

He kicked it on the full minutes earlier in an attempt to clear it to the boundary line, he then tried to do the exact same thing from the same position again without a Carlton player within 30m of where he kicked the ball.

It was obvious his intent was to clear it to the boundary line even if he was under pressure. It was dumb that the umpire asked if the Richmond player touched it though since that should be irrelevant.

Most on here are arguing that the Richmond player should have tried harder to keep it in, and as he didn't, it should have been a throw in.

Re the bolded;

15.6 FREE KICKS — RELATING TO OUT OF BOUNDS

15.6.1 When Awarded

A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line without the football being touched by another Player;

 

[JuddsABlue]

The most deliberate act of the play was from the Richmond player

Do we really want to see players shepherding a bouncing ball across the line because it will reward them with a free kick? It goes against the entire purpose of the rule

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

The deliberate OOB and 10m space rule, two rules that will ruin games this year.

Can't tell you how much I agree with this!¡!

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Just another example of the awful umpiring tonight. Ridiculous rule.

I honestly thought the 10m thing was just a NAB rule, then the umps use it to gift a goal to Richmond before never using it again, despite multiple identical situations.

 

[master bate]

It's just adding an extra layer of judgement calls and allowing players to deliberately aim for the boundary as long as there is a player of either team somewhere in the vicinity.

I think it is much clearer that the responsibility for keeping the ball alive is in the hands of the player disposing of the ball and his team-mates. I don't think he should be able to just transfer pressure from his team to another team by putting the ball over the boundary near an opponent.

If that opponent is under pressure himself, then he loses if he lets the ball go over (throw in, no free) and loses if he takes possession (tackled, possible HTB or ball-up). The player trying to kick the ball out of play has the advantage.

We might have to agree to disagree.

But I agree on a harsher deliberate rule including for blind kicks designed primarily to clear a stoppage. I just think this was a very clear case of a player deliberately manipulating the game for a free kick and there was no need for it.

I doubt we are going to see a run of players timing kicks to dribble right along the boundary just to set opponents up for holding the balls or to stop deliberates. I don't see how players can reasonably do that to create an advantage. Surely the better advantage would be to kick the ball to a team mate!

I don't think it will be a difficult judgement call for umpires to make to see when it's clear a player is not attempting to keep the ball in. As a general rule if the player is so close to the ball the ump thinks they may have touched it, it's probably a situation where they could've kept it in.

Rewarding deliberately shepherding the ball over the line isn't a logical way to cut down on the ball deliberately going out.

 

[master bate]

The most deliberate act of the play was from the Richmond player

Do we really want to see players shepherding a bouncing ball across the line because it will reward them with a free kick? It goes against the entire purpose of the rule

Nailed it.

 

[jegsteam]

What if the ball stopped on the far edge of the line and a player from the opposing team bent down and with a deep breath blew the ball over the line.

Hasn't technically touched the ball.

Kicker is deliberate based on the laws of the game. Opponent deliberate based on the spirit of the game.

Criss cross!!

 

[crippton09]

In a pack of players, kicked out on his non preferred and sprayed it. Thought it was a little harsh to be honest. But then to hear the ump say that afterwards totally made what was a bit of a bad call a joke.

 

[SizeMatters]

If anything, the Richmond bloke should have been penalized for deliberately letting the ball go out of bounds when he had the chance to keep the ball alive

Was thinking this exact same thing when I saw it live. Surely the Tigers player is at fault more so than Kreuzer?

 

[Coach_Required]

Going to go against popular opinion here - I thought it was a good call.

He kicked it on the full minutes earlier in an attempt to clear it to the boundary line, he then tried to do the exact same thing from the same position again without a Carlton player within 30m of where he kicked the ball.

It was obvious his intent was to clear it to the boundary line even if he was under pressure.

I agree, same with Grimes, he wanted the ball out and I don't have an issue with those calls, I do have an issue if the umpires don't continue with this interpretation though like always by round 4 they will see it differently.

I did find it funny when Cotchin did the same thing twice and the ball failed to roll out of bounds, you could tell Blues fans at the game were going off

 

[D-N-R]

We might have to agree to disagree.

I think so, but before I do...

But I agree on a harsher deliberate rule including for blind kicks designed primarily to clear a stoppage. I just think this was a very clear case of a player deliberately manipulating the game for a free kick and there was no need for it.

I agree. Last year there were some decisions which were given when it was obvious the player was under pressure and was trying his best to keep the ball in. Having said that, Kreuzer did the same thing a few minutes before - took the ball out of a ruck and booted it to the boundary, that time on the full - so I think his intention was clear. Under the current interpretation, it was deliberate.

I doubt we are going to see a run of players timing kicks to dribble right along the boundary just to set opponents up for holding the balls or to stop deliberates. I don't see how players can reasonably do that to create an advantage. Surely the better advantage would be to kick the ball to a team mate!

Players kick the ball to the boundary to try and get it over the line and create a stoppage. Kreuzer kicked the ball to space and to the boundary - he didn't have anyone to kick it to - so he tried to disguise the kick and hope it went out and hope it wasn't called deliberate. As it was, the Richmond player probably could have taken possession, and being in space, played on. He let it go out, got the free, and got possession of the ball anyway. If the ump hadn't asked if he'd touched it, he would have had the free and possession immediately. The situation wouldn't really have been different either way.

But imagine in a similar situation the ball is heading towards the line, but has a Carlton player right behind him. The Carlton player won't get to the ball but the Richmond player doesn't want to take possession so he doesn't get tackled. However, under this new interpretation that you are proposing, if he lets the ball go over the line it will be a throw in. If he takes possession, he might get tackled and done for holding the ball. Under this new interpretation, the person trying to find the line for a throw in has the advantage.

It may have not been a deliberate tactic, but the responsibility for keeping the ball in play has switched from the person trying to put it out to the person who happens to be closest,

I don't think it will be a difficult judgement call for umpires to make to see when it's clear a player is not attempting to keep the ball in. As a general rule if the player is so close to the ball the ump thinks they may have touched it, it's probably a situation where they could've kept it in.

Yeah but if that player trying not to keep the ball in is doing so because he is under pressure, I don't understand why he should be put at a disadvantage for it.

Rewarding deliberately shepherding the ball over the line isn't a logical way to cut down on the ball deliberately going out.

There are already loads of situations in a game when a player will let the ball run out of play because it is more advantageous to let it go out than to try and keep it in. There would have been a dozen cases in the game tonight where a player watched the ball go out or didn't try their hardest to keep it in because it was more advantageous to do so.

When an attacking player kicks the ball into the forward line and it is heading for the boundary line, players will let it go over because it is more of an advantage to have a throw in than try and do something with it. Same with a situation when the ball comes off hands. Players will watch the ball go over and make zero effort to keep it in because the percentages say that a throw in is a better opportunity to gain possession than collecting the ball with your back to the play.

Yet playing for the advantage for a throw in is somehow better that playing for the advantage for a free kick. Neither action cuts down on stoppages or keeps the ball alive.

Or we can agree to disagree.

 

[Tas]

AFL is trying hard to piss off the fans with this touch footy horse shit.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Will be interesting to see how they judge Hodge's kicks for touch into the forward 50 this year (he's not the only one to do it, but he's one of the most proficient).

 

[MF]

I normally find the AFL's rule changes knee jerk and unnecessary but I like the ones they've introduced this season. Including the interchange. I think we'll see more exciting football.

 

[LeverPuller]

Carey said it best post match - if you're going to kick it to the boundary deliberately, hoof it into the second tier - by the time the player gets the ball for the FK you have your zone set up. Cynical but it'll work.

 

[kneecapper]

Dumb decision and not a fan of this new rule that relies on umpires judgement of a player's intentions. Why not just go the whole hog and say that if the ball goes out of bounds off your team's boot under any circumstance it's a free kick to the opposition. Off hands and it's a regular throw in.

Would at least eliminate this ridiculous ad hoc approach based on an umpire's mood and mind reading abilities.

 

[d33my]

Carey said it best post match - if you're going to kick it to the boundary deliberately, hoof it into the second tier - by the time the player gets the ball for the FK you have your zone set up. Cynical but it'll work.

Love the sentiment but there's laws regarding time wasting - the umpire would most likely call a fifty.

 

[rog1995]

Going to go against popular opinion here - I thought it was a good call.

He kicked it on the full minutes earlier in an attempt to clear it to the boundary line, he then tried to do the exact same thing from the same position again without a Carlton player within 30m of where he kicked the ball.

It was obvious his intent was to clear it to the boundary line even if he was under pressure. It was dumb that the umpire asked if the Richmond player touched it though since that should be irrelevant.

That's the problem with the judication of the game. The rules are "interpretations" so every interpretation can and often is deemed differently with three umpires across 9 games. This is where the frustration and inconsistencies lie. If that was deliberate, expect to see allot of frustrated supporters. The umpire even asked if the Richmond player touched the ball? How does that affect the decision? Obviously the umpire is not clear on the rule.

 

[rog1995]

Dumb decision and not a fan of this new rule that relies on umpires judgement of a player's intentions. Why not just go the whole hog and say that if the ball goes out of bounds off your team's boot under any circumstance it's a free kick to the opposition. Off hands and it's a regular throw in.

Would at least eliminate this ridiculous ad hoc approach based on an umpire's mood and mind reading abilities.

AFL is the only game that keeps changing rules and interpretations constantly. Turning into basketball more and more.

 

[King Hansen]

If the AFL keeps this harsh interpretation of this silly rule, there will be vital moments in games dependant over on the bounce of the ball. I understand luck has a part in our game but missing finals for an unlucky bounce is something I do not want to see.

 

[doppleganger]

Massive over reaction.

Kreuzer was in a pack in the central coridoor, he blasted a clearing kick out to the boundary with no Carlton players anywhere near the ball....his desired outcome, the ball to bounce out of bounds and Carlton to re-group at a stoppage.

He WAS deliberately trying to put the ball out of bounds.

The what else could he do, he was under pressure, it was his non-preferred foot arguments are now irrelevant.

The point in asking whether it was touched, was that it is similar to the situation from a kick-in, if it rolls out without being touched it is a free if somebody touched it then they controbuted in sending it over the line...so cant penalise the original kick, in this case Kreuzer, as even though Kreuzer was kicking for touch...it never made it.

 

[doppleganger]

If the AFL keeps this harsh interpretation of this silly rule, there will be vital moments in games dependant over on the bounce of the ball. I understand luck has a part in our game but missing finals for an unlucky bounce is something I do not want to see.

LoL...St.Kilda "lost" a GF due to an "unlucky" bounce.

If you want consistent bounce from the ball, play basketball.