Rules

[dimelb]

I didn't play AFL when younger, so I'm looking for information.
What do the rules say about throwing opposition players to the ground before you mark?
I couldn't tell from watching Sunday's match - or a few others.
Don't laugh, I'm curious.

[anniswan]

If you are talking about Wancary throwing Saddo down, I too was wondering about this, it wasn't a push or shove.

If it had have been BBBH, I reckon that I could guarantee that he would have been pinged.

AS

[robbieando]

I would of paid the mark. Saddo had hold of Carey and Carey outbodyed him fairly

[Dpw]

Originally posted by robbieando
I would of paid the mark. Saddo had hold of Carey and Carey outbodyed him fairly

Agree with you Robbie my advice to Saddo don't body a player who is Taller,stronger,wieghs more and has been doing it longer.

Its what good KPP do

[sharp9]

Don't know what the rules actually say, but if you are looking at the ball you can can grab and push (and throw) a player as long as you don't touch the head, or back (with your hands) or put your arms AROUND the opponent. Actually I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to grab, only to push, but if both players have a hold of each other's arms then there won't be a free.

You can't hold the jumper either.


Forwards like Lynch and Lloyd, however, are allowed to put two soft hands in the middle of a defender's back and push gently (just hard enough to unbalance him) without being pinged.

Forwards like Scott Stevens and Barry Hall can be pulled to the ground from behind...away from a boucing ball...(meaning that the defender is not trying to mark) but they will not receive free kicks.

It'a simple system after a while.

O' Loughlin is usually treating fairly for some strange reason.

One thing that could have come into Sunday's decisions was how early you can throw someone. there was a case for saying that Saddo was thrown to the ground before the contest. Also note how O'Keefe was thumped to the ground miles before the ball arrived, (in the back) and his opponent did not go near to marking the ball....no free kick.

This is because of a little known sub clause about Sydney players being able to look after themselves etc. etc. etc....

Also I watched the Freo game on tape and wished I had digital video to snap some freeze frames and post them.

I stopped the video in the most amazing position, Barry Hall is coming to meet a bouncing ball, it has just entered the frame ( about 2 metres from him) his eyes are wide and focussed on gathering the ball. At this moment his opponent has his right arm around Bazza touching his stomach and his left arm over Bazza's shoulder touching his chest...

We all know what happened, Bazza was pulled off line before the ball arrived whereon it bounced onto his knee/thigh and the freo player received a free.

The other one I freezed which is equally clear is a ruck contest where Goodes gets punched in the head waaaaay before the contest. No free.

The only possible reason, by the way, that Schauble was punished in front of goal on Sunday was that he turned around (away from the ball) for a second while still arm to arm with Perrie. This must have been interpreted as not being in a marking contest. (same against Croad in the goal square the week before).

[SXP]

I'm not sure if I 100% agree with Robbie on this one. There's also a rule you must not pushed or force a player out of the marking contest and I would say that was defenitely a marking contest.
Of course you can argue now whether or not Saddo did the right thing, but I clearly remember that some players got pinned for throwing players out of the marking contest.
The only reason I can come up with why Carey wasn't pinned is that umps thought the Saddo can't contest the mark against Carey anyway so allowed the play to go on.

[Nico]

Originally posted by robbieando
I would of paid the mark. Saddo had hold of Carey and Carey outbodyed him fairly

You may be correct Robbo, however the reverse was done to Carey in the last quarter and he was paid a free.

The issue is consistencey by the umpires. I believe it is to do with if the ball is within 5 metres when the offence occurs. How the heck that can be judged accurately every time when an umpire is 20-50 metres from a contest is beyond me. If an umpire is close and side on then perhaps it can be judged.

It is a fairly common occurence this throwing away of opposition players, particularly by full forwards. I have seen Lynch pinged and not pinged on a number of occasions.

For mine it is the attempt of a player to take the easy way out of a one on one contest, and should be penalised on all occasions.
If a player is clearly being held in the contest and throws his opponent off, then the free should be for holding, be we know as Swans supporters this rarely happens in front of our goal.

[sharpie]

The problem with all of this is - and it'll be one of the few times you'll hear me defending the umpires - the situations where one player is holding another are very rarely clear. Therefore a certain amount of discretion is always necessary for the umpires to make a decision. Not an easy thing to do all the time. If every decision was clear, we wouldn't need umpires (ahh, if only that were true).

[robbieando]

With the one in the third quarter Carey and Saddo had hold of each other so it canceled each other out, Carey slinging him really was a result of fair contact. The one in the last wasn't.

[chammond]

The issue is consistencey by the umpires. I believe it is to do with if the ball is within 5 metres when the offence occurs.

Yeah, I can remember Russo discussing this issue on TV a few years back.

He said that the umpires had been told to look for two distinct actions. If the pushing to the ground action and the marking action are clearly separate, then it can't be legal because it isn't part of the marking contest and the ball is to far away to call it "shepherding".

Which makes the Carey mark look very suspect.

[sydnophile]

I'm glad I learnt the game at a time when it was clear what the rules were, and games were umpired that way.

These days more than ever watching the umpiring decisions is eternal frustration and confusion. I pity those just starting to follow the game trying to work out what the hell the rules are.

The principles behind the game were just so simple and obvious (growing up in SA) that you never actually formally "learnt" the rules, you just felt you grew up knowing them.

One overriding principle was that you should always go for the ball, not the man. Out of this principle came infringements we called "interference" and "holding the man".
Interference was preventing an opponent from taking a mark by doing any type of holding onto them, or using arms to push them away. Jostling using the body is naturally ok.

Unfortunately umpires have now totally lost the plot and confused themselves with a toolbag of ticky-touchwood technicalities. They need to get back to basics of umpiring in the spirit of the game, instead of trying to act like a team of lawyers.

Of course Saddo should've gotten a free and Carey should have been penalised for not fairly contesting the mark.

[JayTee]

These days more than ever watching the umpiring decisions is eternal frustration and confusion. I pity those just starting to follow the game trying to work out what the hell the rules are.

Agree with you totally Sydnophile.Similar thoughts have been running through my mind lately too.

It seems as if the umpires have forgotten what the intentions of the fathers of the game were. In other words, what are the objectives behind the rules.

Instead of consistent rule interpretation we get anything from the tiggy tuchwood free kick to the forgiveness of greivous bodily harm.

I find it amzing as well that the "interpretation" can be changed from week to week without any need to warn the public. In other words, the rules are being changed and the outcome of games influenced, and there is huge potential for the corruptioon of the game with this approach.

In horse racing if the operating conditions are being changed in the slightest they are fully published, anything from the gear of the horse, condition of the track or interpretation of the rules.

This is done for obvious reasons, because people are putting their hard erned money on horses and now they are doing it on football.

The status quo is highly sus.

[Accipiter]

Rules

Ok, everyone really has an issue. You see something you don't like and blame it on the umpires, where's the fairness in that???
In regards to the rule, it depends on the situation. If one player was holding another player and prevented them from getting the ball, then it's a free kick against that player who was doing the holding or pushing, if they're both doing it then it's play on, if one player gets thrown to the ground preventing him from catching the football, then it depends on if he was INTENTIONALLY thrown TO THE GROUND, or if he was pushed or shoved out of the way, and got caught up in his own feet, or someone else's feet, without the other person INTENTIONALLY trying to trip them. Another influential factor is where the players eyes are, if they're on the player, or on the footy. The spirit of the laws indicates that "the player whose sole objective is to gain possession of the football shall be given every opportunity to do so" so basically, if someone's eyes are on the player when they shove them out of the way for a mark then, they are a gonner, they'llk be penalised, but if both players eyes are on the footy then, it's anyones game.
Really, I mean, you people are all thinking along the wrong lines, does anyone here have a rulebook??? If you see a decision against the swans then you yell abuse at the umpire, where's the logic in that? The umpire knows all the rules, the can only call what they see, and it's what they think happened. Seriously people go out and read the rule book, know it off by heart like the level 3 umpires do, then make your stupid outrageous claims that they don't know what their doing, I'll bet you're opinion will change.

[ROK Lobster]

You really shouldn't stew on things for 17 months before you reply to a post Accipter. People tend to lose interest.

[Accipiter]

meh, oh well, i had some steam to let loose