Rules that bug you

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
I thought Lloydy already did.

LMAO!!!

[Rizzo]

Netball like zones would certainly kill flooding...

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Rizzo
Netball like zones would certainly kill flooding...

Yeh, but almost impossible to enforce/monitor, unless you introduce more umpires.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ScottH
Yeh, but almost impossible to enforce/monitor, unless you introduce more umpires.

Technology to the rescue!

[Rizzo]

Originally posted by ScottH
Yeh, but almost impossible to enforce/monitor, unless you introduce more umpires.

Or those GPS things become mandatory!

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Rizzo
Or those GPS things become mandatory!

And when they cross the lines a REALLY LOUD beep goes off in the Umpires ear, and the light on the players head starts flashing.

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by ScottH
And when they cross the lines a REALLY LOUD beep goes off in the Umpires ear, and the light on the players head starts flashing.

I love it when a plan starts coming together!

[Justice]

I hate when a player plays on from a mark or free kick, tries to beat a man, is tackled but they receive a soft free kick for minimal over the shoulder or in the back contact, especially if they are rundown from behind.

If they play on and are caught it sould be "holding the ball" unless there is significate high contact.

Cheers

Justice

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Justice
I hate when a player plays on from a mark or free kick, tries to beat a man, is tackled but they receive a soft free kick for minimal over the shoulder or in the back contact, especially if they are rundown from behind.

If they play on and are caught it sould be "holding the ball" unless there is significate high contact.

Cheers

Justice

Yep, Hate that interpretation

[connolly]

The most senseless rule is the one against a player deliberately kicking a football into the roof of the Dome. Most astonishing interpretation is this classic from Jeff "Goebbels" Gieshen in early May 2005
"The rules are the same from round one through until the grand final and there is to be no change in their interpretation."

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by jimmyconnolly
The most senseless rule is the one against a player deliberately kicking a football into the roof of the Dome.

But supposing the ball doesn't come down again?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
But supposing the ball doesn't come down again?

"Play on! Play on!" *energetic arm waving*

[Nico]

Re: Re: Rules that bug you

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
I think it was Leo Barry, not Goodes.

It is in the rules, I have specifically seen it listed there when I was reading the rules last year. There are other things that also are in the rules that are rarely seen at the top level, like shaking the goalpost.

The rule you cited makes sense when you think about it. What happens here is that Barry played on *before* kicking the ball. He played on -> ball is in play. Ball is in play but out of bounds -> boundary throw in.

Have seen the DVD and this one is clearly put. Leo went one way then doubled back as he does. Er out of bounds was correct call.

[Nico]

My useless rule is the grabbing the ball at a throw in. The player can grab the ball but if tackled/touched with a fingernail it is holding the ball "with prior opportunity", even if they have not had a chance to get rid of it. It contradicts the other prior opportunity rule.

My problem with this rule is that it takes another skill away from the game. Give the man time to get rid of it. I believe it was brought in to reduce stoppages, but isn't a boundary throw in a stoppage. Also some so called purests thought that there was not enough tap rucking done.

[liz]

Originally posted by Nico
My useless rule is the grabbing the ball at a throw in. The player can grab the ball but if tackled/touched with a fingernail it is holding the ball "with prior opportunity", even if they have not had a chance to get rid of it. It contradicts the other prior opportunity rule.

My problem with this rule is that it takes another skill away from the game. Give the man time to get rid of it. I believe it was brought in to reduce stoppages, but isn't a boundary throw in a stoppage. Also some so called purests thought that there was not enough tap rucking done.

Continuing on the theme, I think that tackling players should be obliged to lay a proper tackle before the HTB rules come into play.

There was a ludicrous example earlier this year when Kennelly was pinged for holding the ball because he bounced it momentarily after an opponent caught him, and was deemed to have 'dropped the ball' while being tackled. What made it galling is that he wasn't being tackled at the time, merely touched from behind.