New Rule Interpretations and Bazza

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
Did Adrian Anderson ever have a career as a player? Just a question.

Not an AFL one, he plays in the amateurs here in Melbourne.

They'll be red hot on the new rules for the first couple of weeks, then they'll start to let more go - as is the case every year.

[laughingnome]

Originally posted by Plugger46
They'll be red hot on the new rules for the first couple of weeks, then they'll start to let more go - as is the case every year.

Yes, it's the case every year. That's the barmiest part of it all.

Umpires: "Let's crack down on x"
AFL: "Ok!"
Fans: "@@@@ that @@@@"
Umpires: "We suck"
AFL: "Yeah, this was a bad idea. @@@@ it all"

And then next year they do it all again.

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH!

[floppinab]

I'm going to go against the grain here.

I've wondered for a long time how this one has crept into our game. Back in the day hands in the back of an opponent were automatic, push in the back, free kick.

Being able to outBODY (not outhand) your opponent was a skill that was taught to junior footballers and the great players were able to outBODY their opponents in all types of BODY on BODY contests.

Over the course of the last 30 odd years the use of hands in all types of contests seems to have just been allowed to happen by the umps of the day.

If they start to pay more attention to hand on hand contests right around the ground then I think we'll start to see a far purer game.

[Chow-Chicker]

The rules committee is @@@@@@. Instead of focussing on tiggy touchwood, insignificant problems of the game (i.e a player, one on one, body on body, uses his opponent as leverage in a marking contest), they should look at the real problem of the game's poor image of keeping's off (i.e kicking the ball backwards to loose players behind the play just to kill time).

Now those clowns in the committee can come up with some genius idea that isn't unique (i.e the VFL has a rule where a player who kicks the ball backwards outside of their forward 50 is called to play on) but instead, they choose to tinker with existing rules that were not the slightest bit problematic.

Every year, there is a bull-@@@@ rule change or interpretation that only causes angst among players and spectators alike. I think it's time for the rules committee to either puiss off or get real.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by floppinab
I'm going to go against the grain here.

I've wondered for a long time how this one has crept into our game. Back in the day hands in the back of an opponent were automatic, push in the back, free kick.

Being able to outBODY (not outhand) your opponent was a skill that was taught to junior footballers and the great players were able to outBODY their opponents in all types of BODY on BODY contests.

Over the course of the last 30 odd years the use of hands in all types of contests seems to have just been allowed to happen by the umps of the day.

If they start to pay more attention to hand on hand contests right around the ground then I think we'll start to see a far purer game.

i'm with you here. i think making the rule more absolute and less open to interpretation might just clear things up at the ends and leave the umpires with one less grey area they have to hedge their bets on.

i actually wouldn't mind seeing an experiment of allowing all forms of grappling but only in the preseason.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Originally posted by floppinab
Back in the day hands in the back of an opponent were automatic, push in the back, free kick.

Back in the day they didn't have any more than 2 cameras at the ground either, shall we go back to that? and hands on the back isn't a push in the back, if anything the players who fake being pushed, divers like handbag Lloyd, should be the ones penalised. 50 metres for over acting would be a great rule!!!

[liz]

Originally posted by timthefish
i'm with you here. i think making the rule more absolute and less open to interpretation might just clear things up at the ends and leave the umpires with one less grey area they have to hedge their bets on.

Except that codifying what can or cannot be done tends not to increase clarity or consistency, even if that is the intention.

Fewer absolute rules and more guiding principles would be my preference.

eg did the questionable action unfairly prevent a player from contesting the ball or disposing of it or positioning himself to contest the ball. If so, free kick. If not, play on. If there is doubt, play on (since the game is a contact sport and it should really only be blatant infringements that are penalised, IMO).

That principle could be applied to all sorts of things - like contact from hands, chopping of arms, 'in-the-back' motion in a tackle, lingering contact in a tackle, shepherding in marking contests.
The way the game has been going, there seem to be so many attempts to impose black-and-white decisions that the umpires just land up seeing muddy grey, start guessing whether an infringement actually happened because they can't see everything, and everyone gets frustrated with inconsistency.

Fewer rules and more guiding principles may open things up to more judgement from umpires but I suspect the umpiring would actually improve, counter-intuitive though that might sound. Hopefully it would also reduce ticky-touch frees which we all hate. Don't we?

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
Back in the day they didn't have any more than 2 cameras at the ground either, shall we go back to that? and hands on the back isn't a push in the back, if anything the players who fake being pushed, divers like handbag Lloyd, should be the ones penalised. 50 metres for over acting would be a great rule!!!

Yep, now the pretenders will only have to slightly lean forward when they feel a sets of hands in their back instead of taking the big dive. This will just create the subtle actors in getting easy free kicks. It will frusrate the crap out of players, and supporters will be baying for blood when a easy kicks for goal are awarded for basically nothing. And as someone has already said, they will go overboard in the first part of the season with this rubbish, and then the rule will virtually disappear out the window by finals time. Meanwhile, we will see the usual garbage wasting of time with the "keepings off" that is allowed to grow year after year and week after week in our game. Wake up clowns, the game is being eroded by bull-@@@@ tactics and you're doing nothing about it.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Yep, now the pretenders will only have to slightly lean forward when they feel a sets of hands in their back instead of taking the big dive. This will just create the subtle actors in getting easy free kicks. It will frusrate the crap out of players, and supporters will be baying for blood when a easy kicks for goal are awarded for basically nothing.

Yep - it will be a joke!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

As Roos was quoted as saying in the Tele, players such as Micky, Hall and Leo will be effected because of their tendency to use their bodies in most contests. Yes, last time i checked my hands and arms were still a part of my body!

[swantastic]

Roos isnt happy...Full story

[TheHood]

Liz is absolutely right. The 2005 GF was umpired under a sensible interpretation rather than, "that finger slipped over the shoulder so you know the rules Monty, I have to pay the free"...kinda rubbish.

The 2006 GF was umpired poorly and without common sense as well as loaded down with plain wrong decisions.

The only way I see this is working for us is if we get our forwards to play in front and back into opponent or pack, thereby milking soft free.

There is no doubt Lloydy will be the first to perfect this. If he remains injury free, Lloyd will kick 100+ in 2007.

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by floppinab
I'm going to go against the grain here.

I've wondered for a long time how this one has crept into our game. Back in the day hands in the back of an opponent were automatic, push in the back, free kick.

Being able to outBODY (not outhand) your opponent was a skill that was taught to junior footballers and the great players were able to outBODY their opponents in all types of BODY on BODY contests.

Over the course of the last 30 odd years the use of hands in all types of contests seems to have just been allowed to happen by the umps of the day.

If they start to pay more attention to hand on hand contests right around the ground then I think we'll start to see a far purer game.

I watched the 1969 Grand Final between Richmond & Carlton last night on Late Night Legends on ABC2.

What a fabulous game. Unfortunately, I missed the last quarter (falling asleep in front of the TV). Who won??

Flopp is right.
A hand in the back, automatic free kick.
The body on body contests were unbelieveable.

Players on the day included Sheeds, Robert Walls, Serge Silvagni (Sp?), Kevin Barrett, Jesulenko, Richardson & the umpire was "Umprie Crouch" (all very ABC formal).

Was Crouchy's dad an umpire? I swear he looked exactly like Crouchy, except a lot more thinner (think thin weedy white maggot)!!

[laughingnome]

Originally posted by liz
Except that codifying what can or cannot be done tends not to increase clarity or consistency, even if that is the intention.

Fewer absolute rules and more guiding principles would be my preference.

eg did the questionable action unfairly prevent a player from contesting the ball or disposing of it or positioning himself to contest the ball. If so, free kick. If not, play on. If there is doubt, play on (since the game is a contact sport and it should really only be blatant infringements that are penalised, IMO).

That principle could be applied to all sorts of things - like contact from hands, chopping of arms, 'in-the-back' motion in a tackle, lingering contact in a tackle, shepherding in marking contests.
The way the game has been going, there seem to be so many attempts to impose black-and-white decisions that the umpires just land up seeing muddy grey, start guessing whether an infringement actually happened because they can't see everything, and everyone gets frustrated with inconsistency.

Fewer rules and more guiding principles may open things up to more judgement from umpires but I suspect the umpiring would actually improve, counter-intuitive though that might sound. Hopefully it would also reduce ticky-touch frees which we all hate. Don't we?

Here here!

Although the push in the back tackle rule is more for player safety. I really don't have any qualms with it, nor the penalties for head high bumps. Very dangerous.

[NMWBloods]

Roos' point is my main problem with the new rule:

"I started in football in 1982 and ever since I played you were allowed to put your hands in the back but you weren't allowed to push so it is a massive adjustment," Roos said.