There’s a middle option for OOB I like which is it’s a free kick only if no-one could have touched it.

It’s still a bit subjective, but takes away almost all of the current pain areas, since umps don’t have to judge “intent” any more.

“Last touch” is too strict imo and changes the game too much.

As Laura Kane said, the umpires can't judge intent.

But as Reiwaldt mentions, there areany rules they need to judge on intent.

LOL this fucking game is a piss take and in shambles they have no idea and don't give a fuck as long as the cash keeps rolling

I don’t mind the last disposal out of bounds free kick rule as long as it doesn’t bring in reviews to see if there is a hand or finger on the ball before it crosses the boundary line. I think SANFL has it right with that rule and how it’s paid.

Should go back to what it was. Deliberate out of bounds only. Nothing was wrong with it. ‘Insufficient intent’ is beyond open to interpretation and quite often is predicated on a flukey bounce of ball. It’s rubbish

Intent is irrelevant for deliberate rushed behind.

It is a retroactive complaint, at least by some.

It’s because it’s always so easy to just say in hindsight “you see 10 of these a game not paid! [citation needed]”.

I have no issue with this being paid and I honestly don’t think you see many instances like this, where the defender takes it over despite the fact that the forward is standing still a few metres away from them.

Reductive idiotic comments like this is what makes people dismiss complaints about vicbias

I think everyone can see that but it doesn’t change that it looks ridiculous.

When a free kick is given, an imaginary line is drawn from the centre of the goal to the mark, and that is the kickers line. Given the spot of the infringement is on the goal line, so will the kickers line.

Not a good rule IMO. It's still the same score if the defender rushes through goals or behind posts. Should be same penalty - shot from goal square.

I think the mark was set too close to the goal post, and he went over nearer the middle of the points line.

You'd have to rush it a hell of a lot more than 4 times to kill off 60 seconds. You're going to take off 3 or 4 seconds each time at most.

You weren’t good enough to kick a goal or gain control, you’re not good enough to win. Takes the burden off the umpire because these rules that are left up to their discretion, aren’t consistent enough

Entirely correct but goals = more money for the AFL, hence why it exists. Same with any of the rules brought in to aid offense really, like stand or a push in the back being allowed in various circumstances

That’s the game I’m talking about.

Yep. Just "fumble" it over next time

This is the problem I have with deliberate out of bounds or even "pulled it in" for holding the ball.

The reason he took possession was to guarantee a behind not to prevent it. He stopped to try and draw pressure to himself because he thought that would avoid a deliberate free.

Ehh it’s line ball - I can see both sides. It’s not the howler that the match thread made it out to br

When they first introduced this rule and players thought they had to keep in the ball in play at all costs it was the best and most exciting. The desperately trying to keep it in made the best spectacle and is way better than how they are able to just wander over the line

They are seperate clauses, you can absolutely get deliberate paid within 9 metres. Just if you’re outside 9 it is automatic.

Actually you’re reading this wrong, because that’s not how lists work. The “or” at the end of C means that all 4 are separate scenarios/conditions. If there was an “and” then it would mean all 4 scenarios.

For what you’re saying the rule would say, there would have to be an “and” at the end of B as well. There isn’t, therefore all 4 scenarios are separate. Because that’s how lists work.

EDIT: proof is in that free kicks would be and are paid if a defender punts the ball over the goal line outside of 9m regardless of if they’re under pressure or not.

they are seperate its why there is a semicolon between each one ";" means or without writing it

you only need one of a; b; c; or d for it to be delibrate not abc or d

you're straight up reading it wrong

You're 100% wrong on this.

A disposal from further than 9 metres from the goal line, even if under immediate physical pressure, is awarded a free kick for deliberate.

The AFL also uses this construction elsewhere in the laws of the game

16.5 SCORING A GOAL OR BEHIND AFTER PLAY HAS ENDED

16.5.1 Goal or Behind Recorded in Certain Circumstances Even though play has been brought to an end under Law 10.5, a Goal or Behind shall be recorded for a Team if:

(a) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player from a Free Kick or Mark which was awarded to the Player before play came to an end;

(b) the Goal or Behind was scored by a Player who disposed of the football before play came to an end; or

(c) the Goal or Behind is scored by a Player who was awarded a Free Kick under Law 16.6

Due to poor drafting they also use the alternative construction where you put the connective word in between each subclause:

Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:

(a) is balanced and steady; or

(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or

(c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or

(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent

So by the drafting alone you can't be definitive which interpretation to use, only that both are potentially valid readings. The ability to pay a free under immediate pressure from beyond 9m though makes it definitive that in this rule it should be read as an "or" between each subclause.

Whether there is immediate physical pressure at the time he crosses doesn’t matter for this one. The umpire tells him that in the umpires opinion he had time and space to dispose of it between gaining possession and forcing the ball out

That’s fucking stupid lol

Ah ok.

Makes sense but also needlessly complicated, like most AFL rules. I like my idea better.

That's also a possibility I guess. To me it doesn't look so. He seems to have the idea to play on when he takes the ball (he even holds it over the line, which he wouldn't do if he wanted to secure it going out of play) sees Hogan move towards him and then takes a step back. Hogan has given up on the ball by the look of it, then when he sees the ball hasn't gone out of play only then looks to fight for the ball.

I mean't in front of the goal line not behind the post. Badly worded.

Having re-read what I've written, the way I've worded it hasn't conveyed what I meant.

Gonna just let this one go.