"deliberate out of bounds"?

[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.