Umpires - forwards v backs

[Alison]

I am not sure what you all think but I believe there seems to be a set of rules out there for forwards (maybe not Barry Hall) and backs. Backs cannot chop arms, hold, etc etc against a forward but forwards can do this to backs and not get picked up by umpires.

It was so evident in the game against Essendon with Matthew Lloyd. At one time he pushed Leo in the face, illegally fending him off, chopped his arms once and a free kick is never paid to a defender. Also, how about Peverill's illegal block on Leo when Lloyd was leading - you cannot do that.

It really seems there is a set of rules for forwards and another for defenders

[Sid]

Its just umpires favouring lloyd.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Umpires - forwards v backs

Originally posted by Alison
I am not sure what you all think but I believe there seems to be a set of rules out there for forwards (maybe not Barry Hall) and backs. Backs cannot chop arms, hold, etc etc against a forward but forwards can do this to backs and not get picked up by umpires.

It was so evident in the game against Essendon with Matthew Lloyd. At one time he pushed Leo in the face, illegally fending him off, chopped his arms once and a free kick is never paid to a defender. Also, how about Peverill's illegal block on Leo when Lloyd was leading - you cannot do that.

It really seems there is a set of rules for forwards and another for defenders

Definitely. I was thinking the same thing on exactly the same incident.

Typically you find an insignificant illegal contact by a defender results in a free kick, but a forward has to commit a fairly major one.

I guess the rationale could be that goals make the game more interesting.

[Slick Swans]

One of the things that gets me most worked up is the "holding" rule, a back so much as brushes a thread of a forwards clothing and the whistle blows but it is fine for a forward to have a fistfull of jumper and still end up with the free kick.