New Rule Interpretations and Bazza

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by sharp9
I REALLY like that interpretation....reward for who gets their BODY into the best position.

Well in the scenario I gave, the player at the back has his body in the best position with respect to the flight of the ball, however, he will be penalised for protecting himself from the player in front who would be pushing back into him. Fair?

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Well in the scenario I gave, the player at the back has his body in the best position with respect to the flight of the ball, however, he will be penalised for protecting himself from the player in front who would be pushing back into him. Fair?

I thought that is what you were saying, so I couldn't work out how the response fitted the scenario you gave.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by goswannie14
I thought that is what you were saying, so I couldn't work out how the response fitted the scenario you gave.

Yes, it just goes to show that if some of us get confused in here, then what hope the umpires on the field in the heat of battle?

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Well in the scenario I gave, the player at the back has his body in the best position with respect to the flight of the ball, however, he will be penalised for protecting himself from the player in front who would be pushing back into him. Fair?

No....if the player comes back at you you hold your ground (with shoulder) and the player going backwards stops. This is what usually happens when the player in front is out of position. Player behind has the sit. Umpires already penalise players backing in, btw...that is to say trying to move the player behind back PAST where the ball will land.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by sharp9
No....if the player comes back at you you hold your ground (with shoulder) and the player going backwards stops. This is what usually happens when the player in front is out of position. Player behind has the sit. Umpires already penalise players backing in, btw...that is to say trying to move the player behind back PAST where the ball will land.

Ah now I see what your scenario is. I'm actually saying that both players are in motion - moving backward to make position, while you're saying that the player behind is stationary while the player in front backs into him. I'm saying that two players find themselves "under" the ball, and move back to a position to mark it. Now the player behind has the advantage - eyes up at the ball and the player in front, also does the same thing. It is instinct that the player behind may place their hand on the player in front to #1 prevent that player from crashing into him #2 steady themselves just prior to the mark. That will be penalised even though the player behind was in the "best" position.

[Jeffers1984]

Bump*

After watching the game at NSO i am really worried for Leo, Bazza and Magic RE: this rule.

Teddy Richards had a mark in the goal square taken from him when he put the most subtle hand in the back of his opponent who was in front to balance himself and took a grab. Softest thing ever but was paid.

Both the Pies and Swans got some of the most softest frees for in the back that night and it really did detract from the spectacle.

Thoughts?

[TheHood]

Got to agree - one of my biggest grievances with Rugby at the moment is that penalties decide the majority of games. I prefer contests.

First principles seem to be abandoned with most rule changes and interpretations. Administrators in most codes seem obsessed with their jobs. The top down management of winter footy codes is destroying the game, add Cricket to that list if you like too (Sutherland will no doubt land at AFL house next).

What happened to the days when these roles were to support the infrastructure of the game, not to control it like some puppet controlling type of guy?

Seriously now, crowds don't get bigger due to reduced contests and if scoreboard ticking was the best indicator of success, then the roundball game would be reduced to tin cans and bare feet in car parks at the highest level.

The best thing, the very best thing a rules committee could do is tinker with things to make footy easier to umpire and slightly easier to play. Maybe then they will get the brand of footy they are after...LEAVE THE OVER-ENGINEERING OUT KB!

[swantastic]

Originally posted by TheHood
Seriously now, crowds don't get bigger due to reduced contests and if scoreboard ticking was the best indicator of success, then the roundball game would be reduced to tin cans and bare feet in car parks at the highest level.

Your joking surely,the round ball game will never be reduced to that the only two rules to change to soccar should be no golden goals and no penalty shootouts IMHO.

[liz]

Originally posted by swantastic
Your joking surely,the round ball game will never be reduced to that the only two rules to change to soccar should be no golden goals and no penalty shootouts IMHO.

I think you've missed the point. The Hood was using soccer as an illustration that supporters don't base their interest in a game purely on the frequency of scoring.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by liz
I think you've missed the point. The Hood was using soccer as an illustration that supporters don't base their interest in a game purely on the frequency of scoring.

Thats how we should be about footy its not about the scoring but the contest.

[liz]

Originally posted by swantastic
Thats how we should be about footy its not about the scoring but the contest.

QED!