AFL could tinker with rushed behind rule

Initially I thought Kennedy's distance factor was incongruous. However on reflection, I thought if the Defender was a substantial distance away from the scoring line then it was more probable that hand balling the ball through the scoring line was deliberate or intentional. The reverse of that position would be that if the Defender was close to the scoring line then it would be unlikely that the Defender deliberately handballed the ball through the scoring line. To me that view seems untenable. I understand the policy is that if the Defender deliberately or intentionally handballs the ball over the scoring line then a free kick is awarded against the Defender. If the Defender is in the clear then the free kick must be awarded. If however the Defender is being tackled two possibilities apply. First the tackle is such that the Defender would be sufficiently free that he could handball the ball away from the scoring line. If in that case the Defender handballs over the scoring line then a free kick must be paid. In the second case the tackle would be such that the Defender could ONLY handball the ball over the scoring line. In that case no free kick would be paid. If in doubt the Umpire would not pay a free kick. Thus if a Defender disposes of the ball over the scoring line the umpire should consider the disposal to be deliberate or intentional and pay a free kick: 1. unless the umpire is satisfied the Defender was legitimately tackled and prevented from disposing of the ball other than over the scoring line; or 2. the umpire is in doubt so no free kick is paid The underlying policy in all this is to keep the ball in play.

Sorry I meant the video re Deliberate Rushed Behind. Further, all through the season we have seen many instances of a player deliberately rushing a behind whilst under pressure or being tackled. Why haven't they been awarded a free kick against them? Because the umpires have stated that rushing a behind is allowed if the player is under pressure or being tackled! That's the rule as everyone understood it, before last weekend in any case. Kennedy threw up the distance factor as an excuse to justify why one of his most experienced umpires stuffed it up. There is nothing written or has there been anything spoken about distance from the goal line with respect to deliberate behinds.

BigAl, I take your point about mind reading. But in the case of Firrito he handballed the ball very strongly 8-9 metres to the Goal Line and beyond by several metres. Thus he handballed the ball very strongly about 13-14 metres through between the Goal Posts and not between a Goal and Behind Post or elsewhere than the scoring zone. Hence In Firrito's case I think the Umpire reasonably concluded that his action was intentional or deliberate. Also in every case the Rule allows the Umpire to give the benefit of any doubt to the Defender. By contrast the deliberate out of bounds Rule does not include a benefit of the doubt element.

I say Rule 17.7.1 is quite clear as written. You suggest I look at the AFL video about a different Rule 15.6 (c) Deliberate Out Of Bonds and the explanation involving tackling. The two Rules are similar but have distinct differences. If, as I say, Rule 17.7.1 is clear as written then there is no need to go elsewhere for an explanation or clarification. If clarification is required it is not correct to seek that clarication from an AFL video about a different rule 15.6 (c). Furthermore if further words are required to produce the interpretation you rely on then you are really creating a different rule. If the Rule is intended to have the meaning you say then the Rule should be amended. My remarks are addressed to the rule as written.

Well it was the Umpires Coach, Hayden Kennedy who expressly said that the distance from the Goal Line was significant in determining that Firrito's handball action over the Goal Line was deliberate or intentional leading to awarding the free kick against Firrito. I say the rule is quite clear as written. If words from the AFL video are added you are creating a different rule. Even though Firrito was tackled he was quite capable of hand balling the football in any direction other than over the Goal Line and thus avoiding a free kick.

The rule is fine if they just rewrite it and include the wording from the AFL video used to explain the deliberate out of bounds rule. That is, except where the player is under pressure, ie about to be tackled or being tackled. Never has anyone mentioned anything about distance from the goal line in determining whether the act was deliberate. this factor is a furfy and was used by the umpires to justify this stupid decision.

I think it is you who doesn't understand the rule. Go and have a look at the AFL video for Deliberate Out Of Bounds and it clearly states unless the player is under pressure, ie about to be tackled or being tackled. this has always been the understanding of all the coaches and players in the league.

No no no no no no. NO MORE RULES! In the words of Kerry Packer "How about every time you create a new law you resind an old one". Start looking at rules that are unecassary before making new ones. We already have perhaps the most difficult sport in the world to explain and it's getting worse every year. This rule is the only new rule I've agreed with. It was used to stop teams rushing behinds as a strategy and it worked. The 1st few months when it was strict were terrible. The rule is perfect now and it's achieved what it was supposed to. Now it looks like we are gonna have more games decided by umpires as the punishment for the deliberate rushed behind is basically a goal. We don't want to see 15 of 25 goals a match payed from free kicks. It is not entertaining to watch nor enjoyable to play.

DJW, Think you are right if the Defender kicks or handballs the ball over the line but maybe not if the ball is forced over the line.

Essentially the end of the rush behind.

Rule 15.6 (c) provides: A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who: (c) intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line without the football being touched by another Player; Rule 17.7.1 provides: A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender. The differences in these Rules are strange. Why are they not consistent with each other ? The inconsistency adds to the difficulty in interpretation and adjudication.

Another example of the bizzare and ridiculous! - whereby the umps. are required to be able to read the mind of a player.

The Rules use the word "deliberate" in the heading and "intentional" in the Rule itself. I think most observers would agree that they thought Firrito deliberately and intentionally handpunched the football through between the Goal Posts over the Goal Line. It does not matter that he was 8-9 metres from the Goal Line or that he was being tackled. Neither of those factors prevented him from handpuching the football in any other direction away from the goals. I believe Firrito did not know and understand the Rule. I believe the Rule is clear. The intention of the Rule is to keep the ball in play. Firrito deliberately and intentionally sought the sanctuary of the Goal Line and was willing to trade that for one behind. That scenario is exactly what the Rule was designed to prevent after Hawthorns disgraceful abuse of that option in the 2008 Grand Final.