Rules & Interpretations
Home 1: Technical specifications 2: Time 3: Team 4: Match officials 5: Technical and event officials 6: Sanctions and actions 7: Advantage 8: Centre pass 9: Scoring a goal 10: Stoppages 11: Playing the ball 12: Passing distances 13: Footwork 14: Offside 15: Out of court 16: Obstruction 17: Contact 18: Game management 19: Foul play 20: Simultaneous and mutual infringements 21: Variations for other levels of play

Rule 19: Foul play

Rule 19 outlines the reasons for applying game management actions. While the how is explained in detail on our Game Management and Rule 18 Interpretation pages, this section helps you understand the why. Here's a summary of the categories and corresponding actions:

Game Management Categories

Category Game Management Action Infringements
Unfair Play Advance
  • Delaying Play
  • Intentional Infringing
  • Repeated Infringing
  • Disputed Ruling
  • Intimidation
Unsporting Behaviour Warning
  • Retaliation
  • Abusive Behaviour
  • Actions Contrary to Good Sporting Behaviour
Dangerous Play Suspension/Ordering Off
  • Dangerous Play

Unfair Play

Delaying Play

This occurs when a player wastes time unfairly, such as:

  • Refusing to release the ball or throwing it away.
  • Taking excessive time to set a centre pass, particularly late in a game when they were taking earlier centre passes much quicker.
  • Delays during tactical changes—try to manage proactively before applying a team advance.
Intentional Infringing

The term intentional can be difficult to apply, as it implies we must judge a player's mindset. A more practical approach is to reframe the concept using observable behaviours. Consider asking:

  • Was the contact avoidable, or could it have been less forceful?
  • Did the player attempt to take their distance before defending and have time to process whether they were at an appropriate distance?
    • For example, compare a player who instinctively reacts when already within three feet to one who has time to recognise they are too close or deliberately takes up a distance that is clearly insufficient.
  • Did the player have a realistic chance of staying onside when challenging for the ball?
Key Point: If the answer to any of these is yes, the player made a choice to infringe—and this supports applying intentional infringing.

At higher levels, players are expected to demonstrate greater awareness and control. What may be unintentional at a local league level could be deemed intentional at a national or performance level. Where intent is clear, this should result in an immediate advance—though in borderline cases, proactive advice may be more appropriate.

Common examples include:
  • Defenders obstructing on the circle edge when stood side-by-side with the attacker.
  • Centres or wing defences jumping to intercept a pass with no realistic prospect of staying onside.

Intentional contact can also be used to manage late hits that are not dangerous (see below).

Repeated Infringing

Rule 19.4 states a player or team must not persistently infringe the same or different rules. Indicators include:

  • One player consistently drawing your attention due to infringements.
  • A high proportion of infringements relative to their opportunities to infringe.
Process: Use proactive advice first, clearly stating which rule(s) are involved. Allow time for adjustment (at least another one or two plays). If behaviour continues, apply an advance.

If a player re-enters after a substitution, they should have a chance to adjust but do not get a clean slate.

An example where even a few infringements could be considered repeated is breaking on a centre pass by attacking players when it is not their team's centre pass. Unless they are actively marking an opponent, there is no justifiable reason for them to cross the line early. If this occurs three or four times in a quarter, consider issuing proactive advice, followed by an advance if the behaviour does not improve.

Team Repeated Infringing: If multiple players on the same team are infringing frequently (e.g. both circle defenders alternating obstruction), the team may be considered to be repeatedly infringing—even if no individual crosses the threshold alone.
Disputed Ruling

Rule 19.5 prohibits players from disputing an umpire's decision. However, this does not mean all expressions of frustration are dissent. Players may:

  • Ask for clarification if a call wasn't heard clearly.
  • Show frustration with themselves, teammates, or the game—this is not automatically dissent unless clearly directed at the umpire.
Important: It's important not to over-analyse these moments. Don't go looking for dissent—if you need to penalise a player, it should be clear that their behaviour is directed at you.

The same applies to comments from the bench. Phrases like "get four feet" or "defend for five seconds" may not be criticisms of your umpiring, but rather coaching instructions to help players avoid infringing.

Be mindful that for some players, swearing may be part of their everyday speech and not intended as rude or abusive. While swearing at an umpire should not be tolerated, general use of strong language does not automatically constitute dissent. However, if swearing is loud or frequent—particularly in environments with spectators or children—it may warrant a quiet word (not proactive advice) to maintain the tone and professionalism of the game.

Low-level dissent is often best handled with tone, eye contact, or a brief comment (e.g. "Goal defence, enough."). Take action when:

  • Dissent is persistent or visible to others.
  • A player challenges your authority with raised voice, gestures, or confrontational behaviour.
Serious Dissent: Serious or abusive dissent (e.g. foul language, physical intimidation) can be managed under Rule 19.9 (Abusive Behaviour) or escalated to a suspension or ordering off under Rule 18.28 and 18.37.
Intimidation

Rule 19.6 includes actions such as:

  • Covering an opponent's eyes.
  • Swiping the ball directly at an opponent's face.
  • Making unnecessary loud or sudden noises.
  • Stomping the ground.
  • A player waving their arms erratically.
  • Sledging an opponent.

This is most common when defending shots. Situations to watch for include:

  • A defender covering the shooter's eyes or making excessive arm movements. Consider whether the defender is genuinely responding to the shooter repositioning the ball, or simply trying to distract.
  • A defender jumping to defend a shot and then stomping as they land. While some sound is natural, it's usually clear when the noise is exaggerated or intended to distract.
  • A defender or circle-edge player making loud noises just as the shooter prepares to release the ball. These are often difficult to attribute initially, but once heard, stay alert for further occurrences.
Proactive Management: In many cases, players—especially younger or less experienced ones—may not realise this behaviour breaches the rules. Proactive management is key.

You have several options depending on the context:

  • If the behaviour is clear and persistent, give formal proactive advice during play.
  • If the incident is borderline or hasn't yet had a significant impact, consider speaking to the team captain during a break (e.g. quarter time). Ask them to have a quiet word with the player to address the behaviour. This discreet approach is particularly effective early in a match, before the actions begin to affect the shooter or require a formal game management response.

Unsporting Behaviour

Retaliation

Rule 19.8 is clear: a player must not retaliate—even if they have been infringed. This often occurs when a player receives a heavy or unfair contact and, instead of leaving it to the umpires to manage, chooses to respond by pushing or contacting the opponent in return.

Sanction: The sanction for retaliation is a warning. This is considered more serious than an advance due to the increased potential for conflict. Umpires must take firm action to prevent the situation from escalating.
Play Restart: As the retaliation occurs after the original infringement, play restarts with a penalty pass against the player who retaliated, irrespective of the sanction applied for the original infringement (even if this resulted in a suspension).
Abusive Behaviour

Rule 19.9 prohibits offensive, insulting, or abusive language or gestures toward anyone in the playing enclosure. This includes comments directed at opposing players or team officials as well as the umpires.

Important: If comments are reported by players but not heard by the umpire, no sanction can be applied. However:
  • Speak to the captain(s) to de-escalate.
  • Stay alert for further comments from the same player.
Actions Contrary to Good Sporting Behaviour

This rule serves as a general catch-all for unsporting behaviour not specifically addressed elsewhere in Rule 19. It allows umpires to take action when a player's conduct clearly goes against the spirit of the game, even if it doesn't fall neatly under another category.

Example: If a player's shoe comes off during play and an opponent picks it up and throws it off-court, this would be penalised under this heading.

Dangerous Play

Rule 19.11 defines dangerous play as any action that is unnecessarily forceful, reckless, careless, or otherwise endangering to another player.

Head/Neck Contact: A specific example given is contact resulting in direct impact to the head or neck, or contact that causes a player's head or neck to hit the court or goalpost. While incidental or trivial contact—such as a hand lightly brushing an opponent's hair or face—should not be treated as dangerous play, any contact with force must be treated as dangerous play.

Rule 17.9 provides further examples of dangerous play, particularly involving airborne players:

  • Knocking into an airborne opponent in a manner that puts safe landing at risk.
  • Moving into the landing place of an opponent who has jumped into the air
  • Failing to yield the landing place of an opponent after an unsuccessful attempt to catch/touch the ball.

Players who jump into the air must be allowed to land safely, unless their opponent was already stationary in that position before the movement began. Identifying this correctly requires wide vision from the umpire to assess whether the defending player established position first.

Priority Rule: When two players contest the ball, the player who gains possession has priority, and their opponent must yield, allowing the player with possession to land safely.
Assessing Severity

Once an action has been identified as dangerous play, Rule 19.12 provides key considerations to help determine whether the appropriate sanction is a suspension or an ordering off. Ask yourself the following:

  • Was the action intentional, reckless or avoidable?
  • Did the action have a low or high impact on player safety?
  • Was the action at low or high speed, on the ground or in the air?
  • Was the action low or high force?
  • Did the action occur while stationary or moving?
The Contact Spectrum

In practice, it can be helpful to view dangerous play as existing on a spectrum, alongside intentional contact (which is usually an advance but can be a warning as per Rule 18.28).

To judge where an incident falls on this spectrum, we can use the following approach:

  1. Confirm the Contact
    Determine whether the player's action constitutes contact under Rule 17. If yes, proceed to step two.
  2. Assess for Dangerous Play Criteria
    Evaluate whether the action meets any criteria defined under Rule 17.9 (see above) for dangerous play/endangering player safety—particularly movement into the landing space of an airborne opponent. If so, it should be treated as high force contact, regardless of the outcome.
  3. Evaluate the Outcome and Force
    Consider the result of the contact, focusing on two aspects:
    • The initial impact between the players
    • Any secondary contact of the player with the court or goalpost
    This step is outcome-based: similar actions can have very different consequences. Once a player has infringed the contact rule, they bear responsibility for the resulting impact.
Important: Any contact that results in forceful impact to the head or neck, whether direct or indirect, should be categorised as high force and sanctioned accordingly.
Decision Guide: Sanction by Force and Avoidability
Level of Force If Contact Was Not Avoidable If Contact Was Avoidable
Normal Contact No Game Management Action Proactive Advice / Advance1
Low Force (above normal contact) Proactive Advice Advance
Medium Force Advance / Warning2 Warning
High Force – Dangerous Play3
(endangering player safety)		 Suspension Suspension/Ordering Off4

Notes:

  1. Proactive Advice vs Advance: Use proactive advice if the contact was simply avoidable. If the contact was clearly intentional (e.g. deliberately ripping a ball held by an opponent), an advance is more appropriate.
  2. Medium Force Escalation: The higher the force, the more likely this is to be a warning rather than an advance.
  3. Head/Neck Contact: This includes any contact resulting in forceful impact to the head or neck, whether direct or indirect.
  4. Suspension/Ordering Off: If the contact was intentional or highly reckless, the player should be ordered off. Otherwise a suspension is likely still the correct sanction even if the contact was avoidable.

Example Scenarios for Each Sanction

No Game Management Action

GD jumps to defend a shot and makes contact with GS's arm, causing loss of possession.

Proactive Advice
  • The GK jumps to defend a shot and lands on the GA, causing the GA to lose balance and stumble slightly. The contact is clearly not intentional and the level of force is low.
  • While attempting to intercept a pass over the circle, the WD runs around the edge and makes contact with the back of the WA. Both players were focused on the ball, and although they fall to the ground together, the force is low.
Intentional Contact (Advance)
  • The WD and C are both chasing the ball. WD reaches it first and gains possession, but C, a few steps behind, runs into her back, causing her to stumble. C had the opportunity to adjust her line or pull out of the challenge, which would have reduced or avoided the contact.
  • This would also apply to the previous interception scenario if the contact from WD had been more forceful.
Intentional Contact (Warning)
  • Taking the first scenario from above, the C bumps into WD with greater force, causing a fall forward, but does not endanger her safety.
  • WA jumps to catch a pass, and WD is positioned very close—though not in the landing space. As WA lands, her momentum carries her into WD, resulting in a forceful collision that does not endanger safety. This is considered inevitable contact by WD.
Dangerous Play (Suspension)
  • GD and GA both contest a high ball. GA gains possession first, but GD reaches in afterwards and places her hands on the ball, causing GA to rotate mid-air and land heavily on her back.
  • C jumps to catch a pass, and GD steps into her landing space. C lands on top of GD and falls awkwardly.
  • WA jumps to receive a high pass near head height. As WD attempts to intercept, she misjudges the ball and instead strikes WA in the face with a swinging arm. The contact is forceful, though not highly reckless or deliberate.
Dangerous Play (Ordering Off)
  • WA sprints down the sideline to recover a loose ball. C forcefully pushes her with both hands, sending WA crashing into the official table.
  • GS jumps to catch a high feed into the circle. GD, running in from a distance, collides with GS's legs mid-air, causing a heavy and awkward landing. GD made no attempt to play the ball and acted in a highly reckless manner.

Related Resources

Game Management Guide Rule 18: Game Management