New rules an improvement

[Glenn]

Going to be interesting to see this years Toyota
"Mark of the Year"
Next rule change we will have player deemed to be holding the ball if a opposition player touches him

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
So a player backing back into an opponent, who has judged the flight of the ball better and is standing his ground, will be penalised for putting his hands out to protect himself from contact is a "fantastic interpretation" is it?

This has been my fear since they said that this new interpretation would happen in 07. There will be forwards (and backs) who will use this exact ploy and according to the rules they will be rewarded with a free kick.

The problem I see is that there is a big difference with a push in the back and holding ones ground in a marking competition, be it with the hands, arms, shoulder, whatever. The umpires struggle with the current interpretation, so the AFL's answer is to make everything with the hands a push in the back.

Why does the fat controller feel that he has to make his own mark on our game, all he is doing is making it a lesser game than it once was.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by sharp9
Are you joking???? This is a fantastic interpretation. I am sick to death of players (like Ottens in the "mark of the year") using their hands to climb up. It's been cheating for years but no one has had the guts to call it. About time.

I am more frustrated with players not controlling the ball, but having a mark paid regardless.

[Chow-Chicker]

We have a real problem with the image of the game as a spectacle when teams adopt the "keepings off" tactic. Right or wrong, good or bad, it is dead set rubbish and boring. The VFL introduced a great rule where any kick backwards outside the team's forward 50 is called play on. It is a great rule because it keeps the flow of the game going. So what does the AFL rules committee come up with? Pay free kicks to players who have had a hand placed on their back regardless of actual infringement. Yep, that will improve the image and spectacle of the game! Complete rot.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by goswannie14
There will be forwards who will use this exact ploy and according to the rules they will be rewarded with a free kick.

Matty Loyd sound familiar,but oh he's already doing it.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
So a player backing back into an opponent, who has judged the flight of the ball better and is standing his ground, will be penalised for putting his hands out to protect himself from contact is a "fantastic interpretation" is it?

Yes it is, rather than use your hands you'll have use your body instead, keep your arms tucked in, hold your ground, turn your body slightly, and put your shoulder on the player backing back, then throw yourself backwards, hands in the air to take the mark.
This was the way it was always taught, no hands in the marking contest.

It's where the expression "out-body" your opponet came from

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by floppinab
Yes it is, rather than use your hands you'll have use your body instead, keep your arms tucked in, hold your ground, turn your body slightly, and put your shoulder on the player backing back, then throw yourself backwards, hands in the air to take the mark.
This was the way it was always taught, no hands in the marking contest.

It's where the expression "out-body" your opponet came from

I think you're talking about an opponent who is directly in front of you almost body on body from the outset. I'm talking about a player who leads, gets caught "under the ball" while the defender who has read the flight better is a metre or so behind him. The player in front, then "backs back" while the defender has eyes on the ball, so doesn't have a clear idea where the player is, and has every right to put his hand out to prevent a collision. .

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
I think you're talking about an opponent who is directly in front of you almost body on body from the outset.

No, I'm talking exactly about the situation you describe, the player at the rear should use his body (not hands or forearm) to stop the player in front who is backing back into him.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by floppinab
No, I'm talking exactly about the situation you describe, the player at the rear should use his body (not hands or forearm) to stop the player in front who is backing back into him.

Why can't he use the forearm?

And in any case, it is the player in front who makes the contact, not the other way around. I still maintain that if the player behind is holding his ground to protect himself from a collision then he should be able to do so. If the player behind pushes the player in the back to remove him from the contest, then he should be penalised.

[hammo]

Originally posted by swantastic
Matty Loyd sound familiar,but oh he's already doing it.

Spot on Swantastic. It's almost as if the AFL has sat down to figure out how they can make sure Lloyd gets even more free kicks than he currently does.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Why can't he use the forearm?

And in any case, it is the player in front who makes the contact, not the other way around. I still maintain that if the player behind is holding his ground to protect himself from a collision then he should be able to do so. If the player behind pushes the player in the back to remove him from the contest, then he should be penalised.

The 'forearm' point is a perfect example of why rule changes don't work, when they aim to penalise technical breaches that do not involve getting an unfair advantage over your opponent.

The rule is: no hands in the back at all; even if you're in the superior position and ready to mark and your opponent, with no eyes for the ball, is simply backing into you in the hope of interfering. It might not be easy to do or fair, but at least it's easy to understand.

Most players will change their behaviour reasonably soon. However, what will they do instead, in that situation? We will have a riot of forearms, elbows, upper arms, shoulders and hips into backs of opponents; most of whom (if they're smart) will bend over double like a one-tonne weight has just pressed down on their shoulder-blades. We will have an array of completely inconsistent decisions made by umpires in that situation. By halfway through the year, everyone's going to be clamouring for clarification from the umpires about exactly what you can and can't put in an opponent's back.

We then run the risk of going through an even more pointless and self-defeating round of trying to prescribe exactly which body parts, in which context, you can and can't put in an opponent's back. It'll be death by lawyering.

Whereas being guided by a broad principle of fairness was and is far better: 'No pushing in the back to put an opponent out of the contest or force them off the ball. But it's not an illegal push in the back if you're in position to take the ball and you use your hands to do no more than hold yourself in that position.'

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by SimonH
The 'forearm' point is a perfect example of why rule changes don't work, when they aim to penalise technical breaches that do not involve getting an unfair advantage over your opponent.

The rule is: no hands in the back at all; even if you're in the superior position and ready to mark and your opponent, with no eyes for the ball, is simply backing into you in the hope of interfering. It might not be easy to do or fair, but at least it's easy to understand.

Most players will change their behaviour reasonably soon. However, what will they do instead, in that situation? We will have a riot of forearms, elbows, upper arms, shoulders and hips into backs of opponents; most of whom (if they're smart) will bend over double like a one-tonne weight has just pressed down on their shoulder-blades. We will have an array of completely inconsistent decisions made by umpires in that situation. By halfway through the year, everyone's going to be clamouring for clarification from the umpires about exactly what you can and can't put in an opponent's back.

We then run the risk of going through an even more pointless and self-defeating round of trying to prescribe exactly which body parts, in which context, you can and can't put in an opponent's back. It'll be death by lawyering.

Whereas being guided by a broad principle of fairness was and is far better: 'No pushing in the back to put an opponent out of the contest or force them off the ball. But it's not an illegal push in the back if you're in position to take the ball and you use your hands to do no more than hold yourself in that position.'

Perfectly put.

All this focus on a technical aspect of a contested mark is alarming. As I said previously, the game is suffering when we have the ever increasing "keepings off" tactic employed by teams, yet the AFL are concentrating on insignificant problems of the game's image.

[Doctor]

I agree. The new rules will make the chipping around even more prevalent, especially when combined with the holding the ball interpretation they still seem to be very keen on.

[Xie Shan]

Early signs are that Sawers has no idea. I think it was Fevola who got a free under the new rule on the weekend against Essendon that drew the ire of the commentators for several minutes afterwards. I agree with Simon in that it might be easy to understand (no hands in the back), but from the free that was paid, there was definitely no unfair advantage gained by the hands in the back.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Xie Shan
Early signs are that Sawers has no idea. I think it was Fevola who got a free under the new rule on the weekend against Essendon that drew the ire of the commentators for several minutes afterwards. I agree with Simon in that it might be easy to understand (no hands in the back), but from the free that was paid, there was definitely no unfair advantage gained by the hands in the back.

I saw parts of that game and did see a couple of those free kicks. Seriously, this game is suffering at the hands of some very soft bastards in the rules committee. Please, someone with some testosterone get in there and sweep out the @@@@, and put some damn simplicity back into our game.....