scully tackle on bolton when Jude was kicking

[Chookbilly]

It's a personal bugbear of mine. I reckon anytime a player gets caught from behind it should be htb. From an aesthetic point of view the tackler should be rewarded and the slow release should be penalised. But from a strictly legalistic interpretation, the incorrect disposal happens before the defender lands in his back.

On the facts I would have called htb even with the existing rule.

Yeah I don't really get why they penalise accidental falling into an opponents back. Has anyone ever been injured from this? All it does is give an excuse for the player being tackled to lunge forward when tackled.

Also don't get me started on the hands in the back rule. Was a crap rule when introduced, and although its now accepted as part of the game, it's still a crap rule.
Just pay a free kick for a push is the back as it should have always been, but was never policed correctly. Regardless of pushing with hands, forearms etc, a push is a push.
The player should be able to protect their space with hands.

/rant over

[Melbournehammer]

I admit I thought that one was a clear in the back (though I haven't watched a replay yet, so it might look different on TV).

I don't have an issue with the principle of requiring a tackle to be properly executed, and backing the guy with the ball over the tackler unless it is perfectly executed. More generally, I would prefer frees always being paid to penalise a player who has done something wrong, rather than as a reward for the recipient. Hence I would like any head high contact to be 'play on' where the play caught high has substantially caused the contact.

But that is my point liz. Bolton takes four very slow steps completely unaware of the pressure and that is clearly wrong. If a player receives the ball in space and fails to dispose of it when tackled that should be penalised. If they fall forward and the player tackling them also falls forward that is secondary. Jude was verrrrrrry slow to kick and did not accelerate away from the pack but rather slowed to steady. I would always prefer to pay holding the ball there as the player had time and space and did not avail themselves of it. That doesn't mean tackling at the legs or head is acceptable, but that the fall into the back is the second free in the sequence.

As an aside when I saw it on tv i didn't even think he did fall into boltons back, and it looked like Judehad twisted and fallen on his side rather than his front - which more or less indicate to me that it wasn't in the back as it was.

[Beerman]

scully tackle on bolton when Jude was kicking

In the back was a bit soft. It wasn't HTB though - umps are being consistent on this one. There was a Carlton (v. Essendon? Collingwood?) game last year where Yarran (?) gathered the ball in the goal square and got caught - exactly the same thing with also a no-call. Giesch explained it and while I thought it was completely wrong at the time, after hearing the explanation and watching the review I had to admit he had a point. The gathers the ball on the run and goes to put it straight on the boot, but due to forward momentum has taken a couple of steps by the time the foot swings. Legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball ASAP. Play on!

[liz]

But that is my point liz. Bolton takes four very slow steps completely unaware of the pressure and that is clearly wrong. If a player receives the ball in space and fails to dispose of it when tackled that should be penalised. If they fall forward and the player tackling them also falls forward that is secondary. Jude was verrrrrrry slow to kick and did not accelerate away from the pack but rather slowed to steady. I would always prefer to pay holding the ball there as the player had time and space and did not avail themselves of it. That doesn't mean tackling at the legs or head is acceptable, but that the fall into the back is the second free in the sequence.

As an aside when I saw it on tv i didn't even think he did fall into boltons back, and it looked like Judehad twisted and fallen on his side rather than his front - which more or less indicate to me that it wasn't in the back as it was.

I don't believe the "action that comes first" principle is one that applies across the raft of various offences in our game. I am not arguing whether it should or not - just that it doesn't in practice. If a player spoils a ball and touches the ball first but then hits the opponent in the head, it will almost always get judged as high contact. Similarly, with a tackle, a player is only required to dispose of the ball when tackled legitimately. The whole tackle first must be correct, and then it becomes holding the ball if there is incorrect disposal and prior opportunity. Again, this is an observation of how the rules are generally applied in practice, not an argument for how they should be applied.

This is an interesting discussion because it shows how divergent RWO posters' views are on how they would prefer rules to be applied. Throw in the number of cases where rules apparently contradict each other (especially the below the knee / high contact rules), three umpires with different interpretations, umpires not being able to see everything all the time (not to mention the odd umpire's ego and need to assert influence), and it is not hard to see why various supporters get frustrated and a newcomer to the game would get completely confused.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Liz you should have been sitting with my mates !!!

it was split down the middle on whether it was HTB or in the back

all guys have played AFL for many years.........so it was heated !

Ive always said to myself that unless I can significantly turn the guy in the tackle so he doesnt fall directly forward (like Bolton did) then I will probably get "in the back" and a free kick against my tackle

the problem is I have seen dozens and dozens of scully tackles on bolton paid as free for 'HTB'

as long as it is consistent it doesnt matter but as stated by many of us yest and today...........sydney got the rub of the green thankfully against GWS !

[dimelb]

I thought Scully was dudded.
I don't see the point of the "in the back rule" and think it ought to be abolished. I'd be interested to see a case for its retention.