roosy s bitterness according to patrick smith

[hammo]

[email protected]

[Dogberry]

I wonder if Roosey starts teaching his back 6 to back into their opponents more often whether the umpires will play us the frees as they miss a lot of them which we deserves on Saturday. It seems like learning how to "dive" for properly for free kicks should also be one of the training routines. Serie A, La Liga and Soccer World Cup videos will be perfect reference materials for that.

[Pommie Swannie]

Thanks Hammo - have just fired off an email questioning Mr Smith's sanity (and attendance at the game!)

[hammo]

Thanks Hammo - have just fired off an email questioning Mr Smith's sanity (and attendance at the game!)

Great work! Please post the buffoon's reply (if any).

[Pommie Swannie]

Great work! Please post the buffoon's reply (if any).

Certainly will do! I was far from insulting, so let's hope he has the gumption to reply and defend his views ... don't hold your breath though!!

[Ludwig]

And the response from those intent on defending the rule has been the most hysterical I've read. I haven't heard a single decent argument why touching (not pushing) with the hands is such a blight on the game, other than an admission that umpires weren't properly ruling on real pushes in the past.

What exactly is so heinous about hands touching another player IF IT IS COMPLETELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTEST?

The issue involving the HITB as well as the holding the ball (HTB) rule derives from the same concept, I believe, which is:

In the case of HTB, it is believed that the umpires are not in a position to determine the intent of a player as to whether he is trying to cause a stoppage in play or is just trying to get possession of the ball and continue play. So in order to resolve the problem of determining intent, the rules committee has decided that if a player acts in a manner that could lead to a stoppage, such as falling on the ball, then it becomes that player's responsibility to get the ball back into play. If he can't, then it will be assumed that the intent was to stop play, and hence a free kick awarded. This is similar to the interpretation of the taking possession in a ruck contest. Take possession, and its your responsibility to keep the play alive, regardless of actual intent.

Since the umpires would find it easier to see a HITB than to determine if pushing has actually occurred, it will just be assumed that HITB means there was a push. The problems so far with this rule is that of inconsistency and dealing with what Liz has pointed out that simply touching should not be a rule infraction. The biggest problem with the rule is the lack of consistency of the interpretation. Some get called and others don't. In the Saturday game, Fletcher clearly pushed Ted Richards with hands in the back, yet no foul was called. The other problem, addressing Liz's concern, is that there seems to be no differentiation between Hands in the Back and Back in the Hands. This is exemplified by the Richo-Mal incident where Michael seems to initiate the contact. I think a clarification of the rule is warranted. I can't really say what will work best. I don't particularly like a player pushing another out of a marking contest, but how to stop this is clearly far from resolved.

I have noticed that since the new HITB interpretation a number of players have made an adjustment by using a body in the back manoeuvre. Two proponents of this are Leo Barry and Brian Harris. The action is to run in your opponents shadow and as the ball arrives nudge your body into the opposing player while displaying your hands, thus showing the ump that no hands where involved. This seems to work. Leo usually gets away with this and Harris just ran over Bazza last week every time he led up, and I don't think Harris got pinged once for that move. The funny thing is, it seems to be even more effective than a push in the back. I've noticed that Harris has been in top form since taking on this manoeuvre. And I can see the day when this too will need to be addressed.

[ROK Lobster]

a typical pompus wanker.
obviously wqas picked on a scholl by the footy team and thinks he can use his words as justifiable crap.
that has got to be the biggest load of crap i have ever read..

been tryiongt to find his email so i could email him and let him know..funny it doesn't seem to be listed.

This is one of the most idiotic comments ever. It is almost trolling - surely no one with enough brain power to walk on two legs could post such tripe without deliberately looking for a reaction

Anyway, Smith's opinion piece is meant to be opionated, and generate interest, which it seems to have done.

Where I disagree is in his opinion that the new rule is less open to interpretation than previous interpretations of the rule. Clearly it is not. Much of the angst has been in the inconsistent application of the rule (ie it is always a free when Hall is begind but never when he is in front) rather than the rule itself - which is ordinary. I hope the controversey does not go away. The current AFL administration need to leave things alone.

Oh, and the beat the flood - bench of four. Once off cannot return (except for blood rule in which instance you have a maximum of 10 minutes off. More than once off for the blood rule and you are deemed to be injured and have to be substituted. No player can be named on the bench 3 consecutive weeks). Quick kick-ins don't alleviate the flood. Players run back as soon as the point is scored. Forwards remain in the 50 but the midfielders flood back. It gets the ball to the wing quicker but leads to congestion at the other end.

[Xie Shan]

The issue involving the HITB as well as the holding the ball (HTB) rule derives from the same concept, I believe, which is:

In the case of HTB, it is believed that the umpires are not in a position to determine the intent of a player as to whether he is trying to cause a stoppage in play or is just trying to get possession of the ball and continue play. So in order to resolve the problem of determining intent, the rules committee has decided that if a player acts in a manner that could lead to a stoppage, such as falling on the ball, then it becomes that player's responsibility to get the ball back into play. If he can't, then it will be assumed that the intent was to stop play, and hence a free kick awarded. This is similar to the interpretation of the taking possession in a ruck contest. Take possession, and its your responsibility to keep the play alive, regardless of actual intent.

Since the umpires would find it easier to see a HITB than to determine if pushing has actually occurred, it will just be assumed that HITB means there was a push.

Good post, and one that, IMO, helps to see the AFL's line of reasoning in bringing in these two rules, as dodgy as they are. The main problem with these rules is that they sound good in theory but don't work in practice, and the AFL really needs to admit this. With HTB, it doesn't give enough protection to the guy playing the ball as players are just sitting on him waiting for the free. With HITB, as you've said, the main problems are interpretation, as Rok pointed out (where to draw the line? What's the difference between hands in the back and hands in the side? etc etc) and defenders backing into forwards.

Time for the AFL to admit that it got this one wrong, IMO.

[Ludwig]

I think the HTB rule will resolve itself. I think we might see players, rather than dive on the ball, dive and punch (hopefully to advantage). Another scene may find two opposing player 'dancing' over the ball and trying to kick it to advantage. I don't mind either of these, in that it should keep the ball moving and reduce stoppages.

The HITB rule looks more difficult. The criteria for determining an offence is just too difficult to adjudicate. The league clearly wishes to stop players pushing opposition out of marking contests, and fair enough. Liz noted that the operative word may be 'incidental'. How is an umpire to determine what is a push constituting an unfair advantage, and what is just incidental to good old marking contest. And until that happens the dispute will rage on.

[Vivien]

What annoys me is that the booing was for the umpires and not Mathew Lloyd and I just wish these idiotic journalists would realise that.

I wonder:

If the game was at the MCG and the situation was reversed - ie. Swans win by a point and a few v.controversial descisions go against the Bombers - would there be such an outcry over Essendon fans booing Barry Hall during his acceptance speech?

[Margie]

I wonder:

If the game was at the MCG and the situation was reversed - ie. Swans win by a point and a few v.controversial descisions go against the Bombers - would there be such an outcry over Essendon fans booing Barry Hall during his acceptance speech?

Not from me. And there have been limited numbers here who say they actually booed at Lloyd. Most say it was directed at the umpires.

[Vivien]

Not from me. And there have been limited numbers here who say they actually booed at Lloyd. Most say it was directed at the umpires.

Sorry, I should've chosen my words more carefully.

Would there be such an outcry if Essendon supporters booed during Barry Hall's speech?

I realise that most people were directing their booing at the umpire. But when you're booing whilst someone is talking, regardless of whether the booing is directed at them or not, it comes accross as being rude.

[Margie]

Sorry, I should've chosen my words more carefully.

Would there be such an outcry if Essendon supporters booed during Barry Hall's speech?

I realise that most people were directing their booing at the umpire. But when you're booing whilst someone is talking, regardless of whether the booing is directed at them or not, it comes accross as being rude.

I agree Viven it does sound rude to boo the Captain's acceptance speech but I'd already left by that time so didn't witness it. However, his precious self said tonight OTC that he was annoyed.

If Barry Hall was booed by Essendon supporters in the same situation, it wouldn't really bother me.

[Vivien]

If Barry Hall was booed by Essendon supporters in the same situation, it wouldn't really bother me.

Nor I. Just wondering if smeg-heads like Walls and Sheehan would be so vocal in their disapproval if the situations were reversed.

[Margie]

Nor I. Just wondering if smeg-heads like Walls and Sheehan would be so vocal in their disapproval if the situations were reversed.

Doubtful.