Inconsistency of the deliberate out of bounds rule

[Beaussie]

Interesting article submitted by DWH in relation to recent rule changes from the AFL with regards to the deliberate out of bounds rule.

There appears to be an inconsistency the application of the deliberate out of bounds rule as per the following. Firstly, may I suggest that I understand the purpose of the rule is to penalise what is currently perceived as bad sportsmanship, of denying the opposition the ability to gain a competitive advantage, with a view towards scoring against the opposing team. Arguably, deliberate out of bounds also slows down the game and makes the game less of a spectacle. If we accept these premise to be true then the problem with this rules application is as follows;

1. If you deliberately take the ball out of bounds without opposition score, it is a penalty against you.

2. If you deliberately take the ball out of bounds through the goal / points poles and concede a point is it OK.

The problem with this rule in point 2, in that it rewards the player to make the risk assessment to their advantage, by them deliberately conceding a minor score, i.e. 1 point. In both instances the opportunity for the opposition to score a goal is denied by deliberate out of bounds. The rule as it stands seems inconsistent in it's application and in light of its fundamental premise and thus is in my view is inconsistent and applied hypocritically.

On the one hand it punishes the player for supposedly bad sportsman ship, yet on the other hand it doesn't in the sense that it allows the player to determine the punishment with absolute certainty. i.e. 1 point, potentially denying the opposing team the opportunity to score a goal.

Furthermore, it punishes the player for supposedly wasting time and reducing the spectacular dynamic nature of the game and yet on the other hand it doesn't.

In my view this is a typical example of a poorly applied and executed rule. The rule and its application is inconsistent. The greater the inconsistency, the greater the uncertainty and the lesser the understanding of underlying premises behind the rules that make up the game. This serves to make the game more confusing rather than less confusing and thus creates more a dichotomy of subterfuge, when in particular, yet not exclusively, an uninitiated on onlooker, is trying to comprehend and appreciate the game.

I think in any event this rule is just another burden of subjective interpretation to bear for the umpires. As if they don't already have their hands full with decission making. If you look and English Football or Soccer, the penalty for taking the ball out of bounds (deliberately or otherwise) is the opposition gets the ball for a thow in. This type of rules is much simpler to police and apply in practical terms, as the umpire does not have to read the mind of the player as to his intent. It's clear cut no nonsense type of rule and I think this is the way we should be moulding our own football rules. Simpler more consistent rules could make the game more appealing to the world market, which surely can't be under valued by the AFL.

Clear cut, no nonsense, minimal reading of players intent. We need to stear away from that type of relatively subjective rule, before it damages the integrity of the game further. Simplifying the rules could improve the quality and simplicty of the game, whilst still maintaining and potentially enhancing its entertainment value, with a game that is easier to follow and understand by more people.

The KISS principal could be of value here. I think the AFL needs to rantionalise its rule sets and get back to basics, so more of us sideline spectators can also be talking footy!

Thoughts???

[The Portonian]

There is no doubt in my mind (and many others I hope), that there is an inconsistency with this rule, no ifs, buts or maybes. Pure and simple, what has happened with today's football and it's laws, especially with this one, is that the games administrators are striving to fix a problem(s) that is simply not there, i.e. bad sportsmanship and game delay.

It used to be in football, that seeking the boundary line was a finely honed skill that any defender worth his salt, had to learn...it was, in essence, a key part of defensive play in order to help his team win the game. The boundary line was a part of the game that was usable by the players, it was patrolled by the boundary umpires whose only task was to see the ball returned to play via a throw in and thus allow the opposing ruckmen to engage in a contest. As long as the ball was being propelled forward in the field of play before it crossed over the boundary, all was fine and dandy, you were making attacking yards. Nowadays you can't even kick the ball thirty meters forward with a clear intent of seeking the open spaces and boundary line without being pinged for intentional out of bounds...I kid you not, I see it every week in at least one game. In a game where frenetic pace is ever in demand by the powers that be (let's not kid ourselves, the fans are not the ones demanding that the speed of the game be increased by warp factors), we are being strangled by rules that do increasingly rely on "interpretation and intuition". It is, quite frankly, ridiculous and is killing the true essence of the game.

While there are points in the above article I do not agree with, in essence, the author has it right that the rule is inconsistent and applied wrongly in many cases. As with many modern rules in our game these days, the goal seems to be convolution rather than progression. The need for change doesn't justify itself without fair and valid reason, aka, there has to be something seriously wrong with how it was before in order to change it. Me, personally, I miss the days when I could watch a sublime defender caress and coerce a ball fifteen meters along the ground while he "struggles" to shake a pursuing opponent, all the meanwhile, inching closer to the boundary for a respite and breather for his team....it was, an art form and one to be appreciated by the so called lesser skilled footballer, aka the backman. Football doesn't have to be about how fast it can be played, nor should it be about catering to television requirements and desires in order to maximise broadcasting, it should remain true to the essence of the game and most of all, it should never be about trusting umpires to be interpretive and intuitive, that is just asking for trouble.