Deliberate interpretation becoming 'ridiculous'

[bornadog]

Link

THE DELIBERATE out of bounds interpretation is bordering on "ridiculous" and it should be reviewed immediately, experienced Melbourne midfielder Jordan Lewis says.

The ruling, which the AFL tightened at the beginning of the season, has caused plenty of conjecture as players are being penalised more harshly than ever before.

The four-time premiership Hawk said the stricter ruling had created more problems than solutions.
"I personally think it's become a little bit ridiculous to be honest," Lewis said on Wednesday.

"It needs to be looked at because sometimes players don't have any other options."

Both Jake Stringer and Tom Boyd were penalised for deliberate out of bounds in the Greater Western Sydney-Western Bulldogs game at Manuka Oval on Friday night.

Boyd's kick out of defence bounced at an unusual angle across the boundary line, while fellow Bulldog Stringer was pushed as he kicked the ball towards the wing from the centre square.

Lewis said the ruling had become too unpredictable.

"You look at the Jake Stringer one, you look at the Tom Boyd one," he said.
"The ball has literally bounced at right angles and we're playing with an oval ball that can bounce wherever – it's not predictable.

"So I think it certainly needs to be looked at.
"I sit at home as a viewer of the game and I get frustrated.

"I'm sure there's others out there like that and I don't support the last touch out of bounds is a free kick either."
The deliberate out of bounds rule is expected to discussed when the AFL's Laws of the Game Committee meets on Thursday.

AFL football operations manager Simon Lethlean said on AFL Exchange last week ahead of round six he thought understanding of the new rules, which also includes the tightening of the deliberate rushed behind rule and a new interpretation of head-high tackles, was improving each week.

"The holding the ball (call) is the hardest. I think the deliberate out of bounds and rushed behinds are starting to take shape. Everyone realises it is going to be harshly interpreted and it is having the right effect keeping the ball in," Lethlean told AFL.com.au.

[bornadog]

The Boyd one cost us a goal, in such a tight game. The Greene real deliberate OOB, would have given us the ball with minutes to go.

[jeemak]

Simon Lethlean has said it's getting better so I guess we'll just take his word for it.

[bornadog]

Simon Lethlean has said it's getting better so I guess we'll just take his word for it.

All I have heard all week is the fans want to see the ball keep moving and not get rushed through goals or kicked OOB.

I say BS, the fans want to see the game they love and not meddled with.

[ledge]

It's got lost in the interpretation "deliberate ", easy fix Is was it intentional ?? I thought that was the rule . Was it the intention of the player ?

If it was the intention it's a free . Obviously the two examples are it wasn't intentional . The GWS one I saw where the player did a little kick was intentional.
Change the rule to " intentional" and get rid of deliberate. That covers both and also doesn't give frees to pressure kicks with an oval ball.
Also If a player kicks a ball 40 metres and it bounces twice it should automatically not be intentional as it's an oval ball.

[chef]

They are just preparing us for the inevitable. Who ever touched it last gives away the free.

Which goes against their banning third man up to save rucks, this will kill them off.

[ratsmac]

Obviously we weren't looking at those shit deliberates with one eye bulldog glasses. All though I think everyone wears 'I hate GWS' glasses so its hard to tell if they were a fair call or not.

[Go_Dogs]

They are just preparing us for the inevitable. Who ever touched it last gives away the free.

Which goes against their banning third man up to save rucks, this will kill them off.

Any clear handball or kick, or intentionally not taking possession when you have the opportunity to - outside of that I think you'd still have spoils and spills that create boundary throw ins.

[hujsh]

They are just preparing us for the inevitable. Who ever touched it last gives away the free.

Which goes against their banning third man up to save rucks, this will kill them off.

That'll sure be shit.

Any clear handball or kick, or intentionally not taking possession when you have the opportunity to - outside of that I think you'd still have spoils and spills that create boundary throw ins.

So would that.

[Go_Dogs]

That'll sure be shit.


So would that.

Not saying I like it, but I can see it heading that way and it would have consistency (maybe) over what we have at the moment.

[jeemak]

All I have heard all week is the fans want to see the ball keep moving and not get rushed through goals or kicked OOB.

I say BS, the fans want to see the game they love and not meddled with.

I liken it to supermarket chains telling us that consumers continually tell them they want cheap groceries, so their entire strategy and the way they treat stakeholders is geared towards delivering that at the expense of other values. The end result is a commoditised experience, that is overall poorer than the original one.

Of course consumers want cheap groceries. But they don't want them at the expense to quality and choice to the extent we see now.

This is what is happening with the AFL. Do supporters want to see the players who play for their teams have to hand the ball directly to opposition players rather than clear space and regroup, just so they can continuously see the ball kept in play?

Of course they don't, that's just stupid. But that's what the AFL with its simplistic approach to taking on feedback is gunning for. Their narrow minded nonsensical agenda driven rubbish is only going to create problems for them, just like many of their changes to date have.

What does the AFL think will happen to congestion when the team within its defensive 50m arc knows that a clearing kick will just see the ball pumped into the 50m arc from repeated free kicks for out of bounds? Can they really see this clearing things up?

[jeemak]

While I'm on my soap box, moving the ball in quick transition requires teams to take risks, run to where the space is, kick it hard, long and flat because players are unbelievably good at closing down space.

Where is the space generally? That's right, around the flanks, on the wings - close to the boundary. Sure you can find it in the corridor, but as a rule this is the area most defended and generally opens up less throughout the course of a game.

What will teams do if they're punished for taking a risk? That's right, they'll stop taking them. What will that mean? That's right, slower play and more congestion.

Brilliant.

[hujsh]

Not saying I like it, but I can see it heading that way and it would have consistency (maybe) over what we have at the moment.

Didn't mean to imply you would like it. Just seems like an even worse addition that will see players forced to either concede a free or give it straight to the opposition if they're first to the ball but outnumbered on the boundary

While I'm on my soap box, moving the ball in quick transition requires teams to take risks, run to where the space is, kick it hard, long and flat because players are unbelievably good at closing down space.

Where is the space generally? That's right, around the flanks, on the wings - close to the boundary. Sure you can find it in the corridor, but as a rule this is the area most defended and generally opens up less throughout the course of a game.

What will teams do if they're punished for taking a risk? That's right, they'll stop taking them. What will that mean? That's right, slower play and more congestion.

Brilliant.

All this time I thought the AFL wanted to take football back to the 80s but it turns out they actually want the 1950's style of kicking it from pack to pack turning it back into a game of markers up

[bornadog]

While I'm on my soap box, moving the ball in quick transition requires teams to take risks, run to where the space is, kick it hard, long and flat because players are unbelievably good at closing down space.

Where is the space generally? That's right, around the flanks, on the wings - close to the boundary. Sure you can find it in the corridor, but as a rule this is the area most defended and generally opens up less throughout the course of a game.

What will teams do if they're punished for taking a risk? That's right, they'll stop taking them. What will that mean? That's right, slower play and more congestion.

Brilliant.

As I have said many times, the consequences of rule changes is never thought out by or friends in the ivory tower.

[Topdog]

AFL are now asking fans via an online survey if they want the last touch as a rule.......my goodness

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-0...ast-touch-rule