Tarkyn's "deliberate out of bounds" free kick

[WhyPhilWhy?]

Just emailed the following to the AFL. The reply should be interesting (if I get one......)

Hello,

I am interested in an interpretation of the rules applied during last Friday's Collingwood v Carlton game at the MCG.

Just before half time, Tarkyn Lockyer was in a situation where he could not afford to take possession of the ball, and as such attempted to hit the ball through for a rushed behind.

However, the ball did not roll between the goal and point posts as intended, but rather rolled over the boundary line.

The responsible field umpire then paid a free kick to Carlton indicating that the ball had been intentionally hit over the boundary.

This is an "interesting" interpretation of the rule. The Laws of the Game on your website contain two pertinent lines:

15.6.1. c) [A free kick shall be awarded when a player] intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line without the football being
touched by another Player;

3.2 b) A white line shall be marked on the ground to identify the Playing Surface. This white line shall be drawn in the shape of an arc from the behind post at one
end of the Playing Surface to the behind post at the other end of the Playing Surface. The white lines which are drawn are called the Boundary Line.

Quite evidently, Lockyer was trying to hit the ball out of play. However, equally evidently he was not trying to hit it over the boundary line, but rather through for a
behind.

The resultant free kick and goal was quite important in the context of the game, and I'd be interested on the AFL's interpretation of the event.

It would appear that there are three possible outcomes:
1) All deliberately rushed behinds should result in a free kick.
2) A deliberate attempt to rush a behind that instead crosses the boundary line should not result in a free kick.
3) If a player attempts a rushed behind, but the umpire is not sure that this was his actual intent, the player should not be given the benefit of the doubt, but instead a
free kick should be paid.

Any year we beat Carlton is a good year

[This message has been edited by WhyPhilWhy? (edited 16 April 2002).]

[shannon]

Your right you know.
I was in disbeleaf when i say Tarkyn hit the ball over then hearing the umpires whisle and seeing the umpire give a free kick to carlton. I was so pissed off cause as the rules that state abouve explain, tarkyn did not deliberatly hit the ball over for a throw but tried to hit it through for a point.
That umpire Number 5 who called this mistake should be sacked

[magpie joffa]

I couldnt thucken believe it, i mean you see it being done all the time and they let it go and please consider that it was pissing down with rain..i thought the decision STANK, about 200 collingwood people were ready to jump the fence and give that umpire a smack accross the thucken earhole.

1892 _ 2002... THE PROUDEST JOURNEY IN FOOTBALL CONTINUES, WITH ARMS LOCKED TOGETHER,WHILST MARCHING SIDE BY SIDE, WE WILL FOREVER STAND AS ONE TO SUPPORT OUR BELOVED COLLINGWOOD FOOTBALL CLUB, it's more than just a club it's a way of life !

[Sly]

My brother heard on radio that the interpretation is if you attempt to rush it through for a behind, but miss, it's deliberate - as the intention of a rushed behind is obvious.

It'll be interesting to see if they maintain the interpretation throughout the season.

Personally, I thought that decision was the game-killer; after they kicked it, all the Carlton players huddled and patted one another and all that crappy - it was their first sign of real unity, and the impetus to drive the scum on.


S.
The Last Remaining Bad Guy.
The Incandescent One.

The Collingwood Rant.
RANT!
The AFL Ranting Board.
Don’t believe the Facts until you’ve read the Rants!

[Northern Pie]

I for one thought it was a definate "game turner" fro the scum and it was absolutly pathetic decisions by thte maggots the only other one that was as bad as that last year when I think it was Tyson Lane who punched the ball from about 35 meters from the boundry and was pinged for deliberate, and form memory was a game breaking call from the maggots for the opposition, it is pathetic and a joke...

Cheers

[Greg J]

I think you are right Sly, if you are deemed to have been intentionally going for a rushed behind, and miss, then you are deemed to have intentionally put the ball out of bounds, and so a free kick has to be awarded).

Logic sounds a bit wonky / fuzzy to me.

I reckon the opposite could also be argued, if you intentionally went for out of bounds, and missed, then obviously you have unintentionally gone out of bounds, so no free kick can be awarded.

Rule 1. Barrack for Collingwood
Rule 2. See rule 1.
Rule 3. There is no rule 3.

CARN DE PIES!
Greg J

[The Zapper]

Interesting question this one. On friday as soon as I saw Tarks miss the behind line I knew the umpire would award it.

I don't dispute any of the points raised in this thread but they have been paying those for at least a year now and had it been a Carlton player who had done that I would have been screaming for a free...

We kicked 5 goals in the second quarter last friday...unfortunately 3 were for them.

[Brown26]

The goal line is considered part of the boundry line, so therefore he WAS trying to his it out of bounds. The fact he missed the goals simply meant he got peanilised for it.

Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[WhyPhilWhy?]

I thought that might be the case Brownie, and that's why I checked the laws of the game, as quoted above.

It says that the boundary line extends from behind post to behind post, but no where does it say that the lines between the posts are boundary lines.

Therefore, Tarks did not try to deliberately knock the ball over the "boundary line".

Very bush lawyer I know, but the bastards need to ammend the rules or interpret them correctly.

(I'm still hurtin')


Any year we beat Carlton is a good year

[Jars458]

In my view regardless of whether he was going for the goal line or the boundary line that was a terrible decision.

Given the fact that it was so wet and windy, and not one other kick was paid for that offence for the entire game - that one decision sticks out like a sore thumb.

The clincher for me was that if he had not punched the ball away, a Carlton player coming through in very close vicinity would have taken possession.

It was clearly not his sole intention to make the boundary line as his intention was also to deny the Carlton player possession of the ball.

An absolute stinker

The Umpires have never been able to enforce that rule consistently.

Either they pay it every time - or not at all

Not just once a game.

That decision together with the two very bad turnovers in the back half cost Collingwood any chance of winning, what IMHO was a very poor game, even despite the conidtions.