Hands in the back rule

[FooffooValve]

so is richo sending the afl a please explain?

[WilliamPowell]

Quite scary to read a Humphrey-Smith article and find he is actually making some sense

I've never been a fan of Humphrey-Smith's columns in the past but this one today is the most well written and well argued article of the lot on this issue IMO. The actual law hasn't been changed but the AFL rules committee has made up some stupid interpretation which contradicts the very law it is meant to enforce. 

Furthermore they have distinguished between the hands and other parts of the body while no distinction is mentioned in the actual law. You tackle an opponent from behind and land on his back it's a push in the back whether your hands, forearms, hip, shoulder or torso land on his back. Why suddenly is a distinction made in marking contests but not with tackling or as Derek says in a ruck contest. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's break the actual law down in Richo's scenario:

i) Did Richo push Michael in the back?

No. Richo did have his left hand on the upper right side of Michael's back and his right hand on Michael's upper right arm but there was no push. The hands were used to  maintain Richo's perfect positioning to take the mark; not to force Michael out of the contest as he was always out of position as he was always underneath the ball. Mark to Richo stands!

ii) Was the contact incidental to the marking contest?

Yes. In fact it was Michael who initiated the contact by charging back into Richo and Richo was simply protecting himself and holding his ground. Hence Richo's contact was incidental to the marking contest. Mark to Richo stands!

iii) Was Michael legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football?

No. Michael was out of position underneath the footy at all times and his sole intention was run back into Richo and spoil Richo's marking attempt. Mark to Richo stands!

So no infringement was made by Richo on Michael according to the actual law and the mark should have stood. Simple!

Far to much logic in your assessment there MT.

Expect your please explain letter in the next few days

[DallasCrane]

The title of The Age article is misleading.
Gieschen is defending the umpire, not the controversial rule.

Yes it was interesting that. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between Adrian Anderson and Giesh!

[DallasCrane]

It's time to shove hands-in-back rule
Robert Walls | May 29, 2007 | The Age


… And 10 more things that suck in football

Isn't Wallsy a school teacher? Get to the back of the class Robert and wash your mouth out!

[mightytiges]

Expect your please explain letter in the next few days

Yes please  . I'd love to give dopey Anderson and co an explanation    .

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between Adrian Anderson and Giesh!

A meeting of great footy minds there 

[one-eyed]

Lawmakers at odds over Richo free kick
30 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Daryl Timms

TWO of the men responsible for introducing the controversial hands-in-the-back rule have disagreed over Matthew Richardson's "mark" on Saturday night.

One member of the AFL laws of the game committee, Kevin Bartlett, said it was not a mark.

However another committee member, 1961 Magarey medallist John Halbert, said he would not have paid a free kick against Richardson.

Bartlett said umpire Brett Allen was correct to pay the free against Richardson for having his hands on Essendon defender Mal Michael's back.

Halbert said that while it was a difficult decision, the mark should have been allowed.

The differing opinions of Bartlett and Halbert have now added more confusion to the contentious new interpretation of the rule.

Bartlett has used his radio program on SEN 1116 this week to stoutly advocate the correct decision had been made to disallow Richardson's mark.

Scores were level when Richardson marked and then played on to goal.

Allen paid a free kick against Richardson for having a hand on Michael's back and paid a 50m penalty against him for playing on.

Richardson described the rule as pathetic after the game but the AFL announced yesterday the Tiger star had not broken any rules with his criticism.

"You can have an opinion on anything you like except criticising umpires," an AFL spokesman said.

"He (Richardson) said all along the decision was the right one, it's just that he doesn't like the rule. And that's fine by us."

Halbert said the hands-in-the- back rule was not new but simply had been given a stricter interpretation.

Asked about the Richardson mark, Halbert said: "I thought that was tough. I think probably the umpire was a bit too tough on that one.

"I saw it simply as almost him (Richardson) steadying the fellow from coming back on him quickly.

"A player should have his hands in the air if he is going for the mark but if a player is backing on to him, I think it is OK to just put the hand on the back without pushing him. But if he moves him forward, he should be immediately penalised.

"I wouldn't have paid that as a free kick, but where do you draw the line?"

Halbert said it would take time, like any new interpretation, for the umpires to adjust to it.

"A player should not put his hands on a player's back and move him forward, that's nothing new," Halbert said.

"Overall, I think it was absolutely necessary to look at that interpretation of that rule because it was getting to the ridiculous stage with players being pushed in the back when going for a mark."

Halbert said there was always going to be some variations in umpires' interpretations when a rule was tightened up.

"Generally, I think it has been improving, but there will be occasions when I'm watching a game when I will say that I don't think the umpire interpreted that very well or he was probably a bit too fussy in a player putting his hands on the back.

"It might have been for an absolute second and had not moved the player forward in any way."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21817500%255E20322,00.html

[one-eyed]

And the Rules committee ignored the players wishes according to Aker

Change hands-in-back-rule: Aker
By Western Bulldogs player Jason Akermanis
Herald-Sun
May 30, 2007

THE AFL has no problem changing rules between seasons, even when the players' representative on the laws committee urges it to leave things alone.

Why then do we need to wait until the end of a season to change something that isn't working?

We're two weeks away from the split round, and perhaps that should be the time the game has a proper look at the contentious hands-in-the-back rule.

A push in the back should be a free, but not hands on the back to hold your ground. They are different things.

To me, the rule is just not working.

I don't like to claim to speak on behalf of others, but take it as fact a lot of players feel the same way.

If the hands-in-the-back rule is proven to be bad for the game, why can't it be changed for the rest this season?

Any quality company in the world has assessment periods where ideas and rules are considered, discussed and, if necessary, changed.

Yet in the AFL, it seems, it takes six months (the off season) for ideas to manifest and rules to change.

Are we in a quality business? Can we quickly assess a problem and make swift changes?

Surely nothing is to be gained by waiting for the end of the year.

The rules committee has, for some reason, wanted to help the game with new rules and interpretations.

But this rule was never really trialled, so why fix it if it wasn't broken? Or are some too stubborn to admit a mistake in the rule and fix it?

I feel for Matthew Richardson with what happened at the weekend.

As he said, he's now in his 15th AFL season, and in the other 14, his action against Mal Michael would have been allowable.

It's an unfortunate state of affairs for one of the great, entertaining players in our game.

Some say players should just abide by the new interpretations, but, as Richo said, it's very difficult changing an ingrained habit.

And why is it better for our game, anyway?

The change to the hands-in-the-back rule was sudden and despite the fact our representative on the laws committee, Nathan Buckley, pleaded for no change.

We all try to live within the rules that govern our lives, including those that tell us that doing 66km/h in a 60km/h zone is no good.

Yes, I know, I haven't let it go yet.

But it's hard when change is so drastic and as regular as it has been in footy in many facets of the game.

Go and look at a football video from 1995. Have a look at the standard of footy then. Note the rules then, and you'll see the change in the game in my time.

The games were still exciting, but the speed of the players as a whole is just amazing. The rules, however, seem easy to understand.

Change is necessary in life. It's just that with footy, we can stuff around with things too much.

Just remember this point - when the rules committee asked our player representative to give his feedback on this rule, he told them straight. He said it wasn't a good idea.

Bucks is a well-respected man in this industry, so why did they ignore him? I admire how Buckley responded to rejection of his input.

From my understanding, he had no choice but to resign from the laws committee once he was ignored.

The players are the ones putting on the show each week and, in so doing, they risk limb and reputation.

Maybe, just maybe, our business can change its mind.

Just as people, businesses and sporting competitions all over the world do, why can't we?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21818315-23211,00.html

[one-eyed]

Tiger off the hook
May 30, 2007 | The Age

THE AFL has spared Richmond and Matthew Richardson from having to explain the Tiger's criticism of the controversial hands-in-the-back rule.

Richardson described the new rule as "pathetic" after he was denied what could have been a winning goal against Essendon at the MCG last Saturday night.

"You can have an opinion on anything you like except criticising umpires," an AFL spokesman said.

"He (Richardson) said all along the decision was the right one, it's just that he doesn't like the rule. And that's fine by us."

Richardson was penalised for putting his hands in the back of Essendon's Mal Michael in the last quarter at the MCG, which meant he was denied the subsequent mark and goal.

Richardson acknowledged umpire Brett Allen's decision was correct, but was furious with the rule. "I think it's a pathetic rule … I think it's spoiling the contest between two guys going for a mark," he said after the game.

Coach Terry Wallace said it was right that his forward not be asked to explain himself. "He certainly didn't make any comment on the umpires," Wallace said. "In fact, he's gone at lengths to say he thought the decision was right in relation to what the rule is at the moment. He doesn't like the rule and that's his choice on that, but certainly that wasn't anything to be critical of the umpires."

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/richo-off-the-hook/2007/05/29/1180205249774.html

[julzqld]

Good article by Acker.  Just shows how stupid the AFL are.

[julzqld]

Big of them

[richmondrules]

They can't agree because it's a crap rule. Unfortunately the AFL and the rules committee are unaccountable so all they need to say is "we are right" and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Football is becoming an exercise in lining corporate pockets with cash, the ground roots support has little to do with it except to supply the money. AFL has become the plaything of the obscenely rich. A reprehensible and disgusting state of affairs.

[mightytiges]

They can't agree because it's a crap rule. Unfortunately the AFL and the rules committee are unaccountable so all they need to say is "we are right" and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Exactly. It's all a giant farce. Why do we need a standing rules committee anyway. All they are doing is fiddling with the laws of the game that are perfectly fine and have been for over 100 years to justify their existence.

[one-eyed]

Tiger treatment annoys Charman
31 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Jim Wilson

MATTHEW Richardson's contentious push-in-the-back free kick has received another sympathy vote -- this time from Brisbane Lion ruckman Jamie Charman.

As the Tigers prepare to meet the Lions at Telstra Dome on Saturday night, Charman said Richardson had every reason to be frustrated and called on the AFL to review the controversial rule.

"They need to look at it at the end of the season no doubt," Charman said.

"Everyone would agree it's changed the way we go about our approach to the game. It was pretty heartbreaking for 'Richo' and the rule does need reviewing. They need to look at the finer points and its interpretation of the rule."

Charman also gave a strong hint that he will remain at Brisbane next season.

"Brisbane has been a great part of my life and I love my teammates," he said.

"I've had a fantastic seven years and to be honest contract talks aren't my priority as I want to get a win. Having lost three in a row, we need to regroup and focus on bouncing back."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21823099%255E19742,00.html

[mightytiges]

The way 1-on-1 marking contests are now being officiated is russian roulette. Last night Medhurst was penalised for two movements in attempting to mark while pushing with two hands in his opponents side. Two minutes later Tarrant was paid a mark despite it being an exact copy of what Medhurst did. So you're  allowed to hold or push the opponent away in his side with your hands yet if you just touch the back with your hands with no pushing it's a free. It's a total farce.

[one-eyed]

Matthews defends push-in-back rule
Greg Denham
The Australian
June 05, 2007

FOUR-TIME premiership coach Leigh Matthews yesterday urged the laws of the game committee to remain committed to the stricter interpretation of the push-in-the-back rule, introduced this season.

Despite strong opposition from several coaches, Lions coach Matthews told Kevin Bartlett, the public face of the committee, that he completely endorsed the controversial interpretation.

"What you are trying to do on the rules committee is make people go for the ball," Matthews said on SEN radio.

"That's the essence of it and it's just taking a long time for players to get used to it.

"Umpires, I think, are OK, if you are in position, because if you are not in position, you can't see it. The flat hands, that's too easy to hold someone out, and there's no skill in that. It used to be that if you can use your forearm and keep your balance, then there's some skill in that."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21849189-2722,00.html