D O O B

Deliberate Out Of Bounds to the anagram Acronym  ( thanks Demonstone..lol ) challenged.  I can't remember a more contentious rule affecting our game.

It's not only horribly considered and formulated but near on impossible really to decipher and the implementation is laughable bordering counter effective to its supposed reason.

Fortunately our old friend Titus has received some timely updates . It clarifies it all.

 

A memo from the National Umpiring Director Peter Schwab to all umpires regarding the Deliberate Out of Bounds Rule (DOOB) has been leaked. Here it is in full.

FROM: National Umpiring Director

To: ALL UMPIRES

In recent weeks, the deliberate out of bounds rule has been the source of significant criticism from key stakeholders in the Football Marketplace of Ideas.

As a result, and to make your job easier, we have clarified the rule and added even more interpretation, the solution to all umpiring problems.

Here is the updated rule, to be applied from this round:

Law 15.6.1(c) A free kick shall be awarded against a player who:

• Intentionally kicks, handballs or forces the football over the boundary line, without the football being touched by another player.

The primary consideration in determining DOOB is the player’s intent or what mood the closest umpire is in at the time.

A good rule of thumb is if you haven’t rewarded DOOB for a while, just decide that the next ball out will be deliberate, then pause a long time when it happens for the drama and award it.

The below indicators can assist your decision-making process:

• Do you like the player or are they on the secret protected list?
• Has the player made a genuine skill error? If they have, don’t worry give a free against them anyway.
• Is the player kicking the ball off the ground under pressure? If so, the player will not be penalised unless it’s a critical moment in the game and the resulting free kick will significantly affect the outcome of the game.
• Is the player kicking the ball up the field to teammates, or is he kicking the up the ground with the intention of finding the boundary line? The ability to read minds comes in handy here, if you can’t do that, just take a wild stab.
• Did the ball travel past several opponents who could have picked it up but didn’t in the hope you’d pay deliberate? Then reward this as DOOB. It’s a wonderful look for the sport.
• Did the player dispose of the ball in a clever ruse of fumbling and even though it’s obviously deliberate you appreciated the acting skills? Then don’t pay a free.
• At least once a quarter, don’t reward an obvious DOOB to keep things interesting.
• If DOOB is awarded up the other end, wait until an identical situation occurs up your end, then make the polar opposite decision.

As always, Razor can interpret this rule based on the camera being on him and the theatrical potential of the moment.

A reminder, with Mark Evans leaving, the Hawthorn Special Treatment Loading is no longer in place.

DOOB is less science, more art. As always, we are not looking for consistency or fairness, our aim is uncertainty and confusion, transitioning to anger.

I hope this makes things more difficult for you.

Yours in confusion

Peter

- See more at: https://titusoreily.com/afl/afl-memo-clarification-deliberate-out-bounds#sthash.7M7woJXJ.dpuf

I read it this morning - yet another absolute gem from Titus.  

Overall I feel for the umps, it is almost impossible to know what is deliberate and to guess a players intent or what is a skill error.

Having said that I like the rule overall as it makes players try to keep the ball in. games are more exciting as you cant just run it over the line or rush it through. the idea to have a 'last kick' rule is a good one. if you kick it and it goes OOB without anyone touching it it is a free kick.  takes the guess work out of it

but it is a DOOBious rule!

With the deliberate out of bounds rule, there should be one obvious change: If an opposition player could have gained possession of the ball but elected not to, then it’s not deliberate out of bounds.

The SANFL have it worked out. Should adopt there ideas.

Bit of a stretch for Gil i realise.

24 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The SANFL have it worked out. Should adopt there ideas.

Bit of a stretch for Gil i realise.

What do they do over there?

36 minutes ago, Chook said:

With the deliberate out of bounds rule, there should be one obvious change: If an opposition player could have gained possession of the ball but elected not to, then it’s not deliberate out of bounds.

Agree. One time I think in the 3rd quarter, there was a Melbourne player kicked it in the general direction of the boundary and instead of picking it up as he could, that ^*%#+ Goddard shepherded it out, then looked longingly at the umpire.

If the rule is that a player must make every effort to keep it in, then maybe that sort of action should result in a free against the shepherder. 

30 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The SANFL have it worked out. Should adopt there ideas.

Bit of a stretch for Gil i realise.

 

5 minutes ago, Chook said:

What do they do over there?

I think it is a "last touch" rule - was tried once if I recall correctly, in the Ansett / Wizzard / whatever Cup.  

Personaly it is a rule I don't like. 

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Agree. One time I think in the 3rd quarter, there was a Melbourne player kicked it in the general direction of the boundary and instead of picking it up as he could, that ^*%#+ Goddard shepherded it out, then looked longingly at the umpire.

If the rule is that a player must make every effort to keep it in, then maybe that sort of action should result in a free against the shepherder. 

there a number of times the ball was shepherded over...just made a mockery of it all.

As one wag next to me commented the only actual obvious  "deliberate" outs weren't penalised, as they're legal.. Just a joke

 Can we now call the umpires The Doobie Brothers?   And wouldn't DOOB be an acronym, not an anagram?

2 minutes ago, monoccular said:

 

I think it is a "last touch" rule - was tried once if I recall correctly, in the Ansett / Wizzard / whatever Cup.  

Personaly it is a rule I don't like. 

SA Rules:  Kick or handpass and it goes over the line without a player touching it and it goes to the opposition, fumbled or tapped over the line it is a throw in

1 minute ago, demonstone said:

 Can we now call the umpires The Doobie Brothers?   And wouldn't DOOB be an acronym, not an anagram?

dead right...  meh 

I love it. I totally agree that at least once a quarter the obvious one should/shouldn't be paid. No-one knows whats going on and everyone laughs. Watching the umpire come charging across and then at the last second as he weighs up the old will I won't I aspects of the DOOB rule then the under-arm bowling action as he pays it. Classic theatre. Adds to the chaotic nature of the game and reminds everyone that the umpiring of the game is in the most part a joke.

a terrible rule as implemented. same for deliberate rushed behind.

if they can't come up with a simple fair rule then drop it

and last touch - forget it

too much grandstanding and difficult rules for umpires to interpret

45 minutes ago, demonstone said:

 Can we now call the umpires The Doobie Brothers?   And wouldn't DOOB be an acronym, not an anagram?

My favourite group of all time, heresy.

There should never be a rule that requires an umpire to divine what a player's intent was. It's a ridiculous ask.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

SA Rules:  Kick or handpass and it goes over the line without a player touching it and it goes to the opposition, fumbled or tapped over the line it is a throw in

Sounds a bit too straightforward for the big league. Can't we put some kind of ... interpretation on it?

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

SA Rules:  Kick or handpass and it goes over the line without a player touching it and it goes to the opposition, fumbled or tapped over the line it is a throw in

Makes perfect sense, too much sense for Team Gill

I think if the ball goes out of bounds, the umpires should toss a coin. If it's heads, they throw it in. If it's tails, all 3 umpires fight to the death. 

You can never speak for another persons intent till they have done something.

It's now soccer.

Can I introduce a note of common sense to this DOOB situation ?? To achieve the correct decision on every occasion, we should be able to incentivise the umpire to get it right. I suggest that electrodes be attached to a sensitive part of the umpires anatomy. When they get the DOOB decision wrong, a member of the crowd ( preferably someone in the cheer squad) presses a button to deliver 500 volts to said sensitive part of umpire. On each successive occasion where they get it wrong, double the voltage. After the fifth or sixth error, they will be reluctant to get it wrong anymore. May be extreme, but would quickly get the rule interpreted in a proper manner.

29 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

Can I introduce a note of common sense to this DOOB situation ?? To achieve the correct decision on every occasion, we should be able to incentivise the umpire to get it right. I suggest that electrodes be attached to a sensitive part of the umpires anatomy. When they get the DOOB decision wrong, a member of the crowd ( preferably someone in the cheer squad) presses a button to deliver 500 volts to said sensitive part of umpire. On each successive occasion where they get it wrong, double the voltage. After the fifth or sixth error, they will be reluctant to get it wrong anymore. May be extreme, but would quickly get the rule interpreted in a proper manner.

I imagine most people in the crowd would simply lean on the button permanently to extract many years' worth of revenge.

5 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

I think if the ball goes out of bounds, the umpires should toss a coin. If it's heads, they throw it in. If it's tails, all 3 umpires fight to the death. 

Please God, let it always land tails

22 hours ago, demonstone said:

 Can we now call the umpires The Doobie Brothers?   And wouldn't DOOB be an acronym, not an anagram?

Apparently in the late 60's LA, a "doobie" was marijuana cigarette. Thank the Lord, there is a rational but yet irrational explanation.

The simplest solution is for the Umpires not to read minds but instead to apply a simple criterion such as whether the ball crossed the line less than 15 metres from the the last contact by the player.  If a player can kick for touch, they deserve our admiration and an offer by the Rabbitohs.

PS my late father blamed Brian Dixon who would kick the ball into the crowd so that the Melbourne rucks could palm it out.

PPS the anagram of "anagram" is "a ragman".  

 

10 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

I think if the ball goes out of bounds, the umpires should toss a coin. If it's heads, they throw it in. If it's tails, all 3 umpires fight to the death. 

Now i'd like to see that. Maybe throw Gil an e-mail.