New rules an improvement

[giant]

This rule is the very definiton of "tiggy-touch-wood" - the sort of crap that just drives supporters crazy, an opposition forward getting an easy shot at goals when his ability to contest the footy has not been impeded in any real way.

The FF commentators on the weekend were suggesting that Fanning's goal-kicking record may be at risk this year if this rule ends up being interepreted literally. I don't mind seeing the record broken, but I'd like it to be done via consummate forward play not the constant intervention of the umpires.

[Wazza]

I like the new/old interpertation, this is how I was taught to play football, the art of using your body to out position your man without putting your hands in his back or holding the jumper. This was always one of the skills of the game I use to teach when coaching.

IMHO one of the worse aspects of the game over the last 10 - 15 years is the amount of leverage umpires give to backmen in interperting holding and pushing. The amount of Jumper holding, arms around the player and pushing that has been allowed, has gone a long way to forcing teams to play the keepy off stlye of football we watch now.

IMHO its not a ticky touch wood thing, seems pretty clear cut to me - pull the jumper or have a hand in the back and its a free.

As long as the umpires are consistent.......... it should improve the game.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Wazza
I like the new/old interpertation, this is how I was taught to play football, the art of using your body to out position your man without putting your hands in his back or holding the jumper. This was always one of the skills of the game I use to teach when coaching.

IMHO one of the worse aspects of the game over the last 10 - 15 years is the amount of leverage umpires give to backmen in interperting holding and pushing. The amount of Jumper holding, arms around the player and pushing that has been allowed, has gone a long way to forcing teams to play the keepy off stlye of football we watch now.

IMHO its not a ticky touch wood thing, seems pretty clear cut to me - pull the jumper or have a hand in the back and its a free.

As long as the umpires are consistent.......... it should improve the game.

I agree, if the player has actually interferred with the other player and illegally prevented him from making a contest, but not simply because he has "placed" his hand on the back for goodness sake!

[Xie Shan]

You know, I was just thinking, to some people, this new hands in the back rule makes about as much sense as this one.

[Chow-Chicker]

For once, I agree with Sheedy!........

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,%255E32425,00.html

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
For once, I agree with Sheedy!........

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/foo...E32425,00.html

He makes some very good points, but why does he repeat himself?

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
He makes some very good points, but why does he repeat himself?

Haha, yeah......not sure if that is just double printed or he's showing signs of alzheimers....

[Swan5]

I can't believe the "hands in the back rule" Its a Joke. 100's of fans around the country this season will be replacing there tv's because this goose "Adrian Anderson" .

[liz]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21323831%255E20322,00.html

More from Roos on the subject. Or at least, the same but again.

The rule was very noticeable on Saturday. The Swans were recipients of a number of frees that wouldn't have been frees last year and were soft as. IIRC O'Keefe and Rowe each got one - but missed their conversions -while Shaw scored from his.

There were others down the other end.

At times you could see players just not competing for marks because pretty much everything they did would have been an infringement under current interpretations.

That said, I think my most hated free kick - and these have usually, but not consistently, been paid for a while; not a new interpretation this year - is where a forward and back are both chasing at a lead, the forward (usually) misjudges the flight of the ball and as he props, the following defender runs into the back of him.

So long as the defender hasn't pushed out with hands, I really don't see why a forward should be rewarded if he can't read the flight of the ball correctly.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by liz
That said, I think my most hated free kick - and these have usually, but not consistently, been paid for a while; not a new interpretation this year - is where a forward and back are both chasing at a lead, the forward (usually) misjudges the flight of the ball and as he props, the following defender runs into the back of him.

So long as the defender hasn't pushed out with hands, I really don't see why a forward should be rewarded if he can't read the flight of the ball correctly.

According to the new rule/interpretation that shouldn't be a free kick unless the hands are used. But if you are Lloyd, it will be paid no matter what the defender does.

[ROK Lobster]

Roos rubbishes rotten rule

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hands-in-back-a-pain-in-neck/2007/03/04/1172943276929.html

Well said Paul

[ROK Lobster]

Thanks mods ^^^ I had a quick look but thought this thread had gone elsewhere.

[Old Royboy]

As a footy traditionalist, I initially thought this new rule was a good move. Now I?m not so sure.

Literal interpretation of the ITB rule also includes taking hanger marks off players because they take rides and/or use their hands to help in the take-off. I seem to remember that dissatisfaction with this was the reason ITB was relaxed. (late 60?s I think) The interpretation of the games laws in marking contests then slowly softened over the years and also came to include extremely generous interpretation the of no body contact before the ball is within 10 yards rule. Any return to the ?pure? marking contests of the 60?s would have to include proper enforcement of this law as well.

I thought that the reason for the re-introduction of ITB in marking contests was to:

a) Enhance the contest
b) Remove the grey area of push vs hold position.

In the games I have seen this year, the umps seem to have taken it upon themselves to try and distinguish between deliberate and incidental ITB, thus introducing another grey area and doing nothing to enhance the game. During the course of Saturday?s game at Manuka, there were probably 10 or so ITB?s paid and as many again not paid. A couple of times there was the ridiculous situation of the ball hitting the ground and nobody chasing it because the players were waiting for the ITB call which never came. Hence my call in my match report that everybody seemed confused.

We get this sort of situation whenever there is a significant rule change, but I would expect the players will adjust and the umps will slowly soften their interpretation during the year and the result will be a gradual change in interpretation to only penalise the blatant Clement style of ITB.

The only sure thing is that regardless of what the interpretation is, the umpires will continue to over penalise players they see as serial offenders in marking contests ? notably B Hall, M O?Loughlan and L Barry.

[AnnieH]

If they're going to be maggots about it, they should at least be consistent.
As ORB said, on Saturday - one minute they're paying ITB, the next minute they're not. If they can't decide on only one interpretation of the rule, the crowds are going to go feral on them this year.
Practice matches are good for getting back into "abusing the umpire" mode.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
If they're going to be maggots about it, they should at least be consistent.
As ORB said, on Saturday - one minute they're paying ITB, the next minute they're not. If they can't decide on only one interpretation of the rule, the crowds are going to go feral on them this year.
Practice matches are good for getting back into "abusing the umpire" mode.

Yes but this aint the umpires fault! They are only administering a stupid directive by Demetriou and his clown puppet Adrian Anderson. The rules committee (whoever they are) are a committee of bored incompetent morons who continually over complicate a simple game. It's time to install the 16 AFL coaches as a forum on the rules of the game.