Talking Footy

DWH wrote:

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!