Hands in the back rule

[one-eyed]

AFL's remedy for angry fans
Richard Hinds | June 5, 2007 | The Age

GROWING disillusionment with the controversial hands-in-the-back rule will not force any immediate change, with AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou declaring his satisfaction with the new interpretation and the way it has been umpired.

"I think the hands-in-the-back discussion is bordering on hysteria," Demetriou said yesterday. "It is disproportionate to what the rule is doing. It is actually a pretty clear rule, and I think it is being umpired particularly well."

Swans coach Paul Roos repeated his condemnation of the rule at the weekend, saying it was creating "an enormous amount of frustration".

But Demetriou said there was no plan to review the rule and that some judgements had been premature. "I think people should just take a Bex and wait until the end of the year and look at the results over the course of the year, like we do," he said.

"You go and ask Leigh Matthews what he thinks. Paul (Roos) is entitled to his view. He is an excellent coach and I respect his view. But Leigh Matthews is entitled to his view, too and he loves the rule. That's why we have an independent laws-of-the-game committee that makes the rules with regard to everyone rather than leaving it to coaches because you can't get them all to agree anyway."

Demetriou suggested criticism of both the rule and the way it was umpired was a distraction from mistakes made by players. "There is far more discussion about the hands-in-the-back rule and umpiring decisions than there is about a player who misses a shot from goal 20 metres out," he said. "(Compared to) about 50 per cent of the times players convert, umpires have 84 or 85 per cent accuracy in their decision-making."

Full article at: http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/afls-remedy-for-angry-fans/2007/06/04/1180809426066.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[one-eyed]

Umpire reluctant to penalise Richo
Stathi Paxinos | June 11, 2007 | The Age

UMPIRE Brett Allen admitted that he wished he did not have to make the call that disallowed Matthew Richardson's potentially match-winning goal against Essendon last month.

Richmond spearhead Richardson thought he had sealed the Tigers' first win of the season when, with the scores level and minutes remaining in the round-nine clash, he outmarked Mal Michael and kicked a goal.

However, Allen ruled that Richardson had had his hands in the back of Michael during the marking contest.

The ruling was widely regarded as correct, even by Richardson, but thrust into the spotlight the controversial new interpretation of the law that was changed for this season.

Allen yesterday told 3AW that he stood by his decision, but would have preferred that the interpretation had not been changed.

"If I don't pay the free kicks that I am instructed to, I would give myself the flick so I'm going to continue to pay it," Allen said.

"Do I prefer to see it in? Well, probably not."

He also supported the idea of adding a fourth umpire to the field, which would help with in-the-back decisions.

"I think it's much more important now that we are in a side-on position to adjudicate that consistently," Allen said.

"The times that we are missing free kicks for hands in the back is when we are not side-on and I think four umpires would enable you to be in that side-on position all the time."

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/umpire-reluctant-to-penalise-richo/2007/06/10/1181414138882.html

[julzqld]

Why bring this up now?  How many weeks ago did it happen?

[WilliamPowell]

Speaking of the hands in the back when we feel like paying it rule.

Have a look in the 3rd - Headland got paid a mark when he clearly put his hands in Polo's back. They got a goal from it - gave them the momentum.

And there in lies the problem with this rule - they pay it every so often as oppsed to every time 

[wayne]

Plenty today in the Pies vs. Dees clash... plenty missed I should say.

[one-eyed]

Even poor old Mike Sheahan has changed his tune on the new interpretation. Got to suck up to those Pies supporters Mike to sell papers  .

Heavy handed ruling flawed
12 June 2007   Herald-Sun
Mike Sheahan

THE benefits of the hands-in-the-back interpretation, I fear, are outweighed by the negatives, Mike Sheahan writes.

That is a significant shift for me, but we have a messy situation that continues to frustrate players and infuriate supporters.

While the philosophy is correct, the implementation remains flawed, and always will be.

Better, I believe, to revert to the existing rule and impose it with more vigilance. At season's end.
.........
If the player in front is not pushed out of the contest, why is it a free kick?

The interpretation also encourages players to throw themselves forward, as Mal Michael was alleged to have done in his contest with Matthew Richardson a couple of weeks ago.

Recent history says changing rules is fraught with danger. Take the prior opportunity rule.

What is happening here? Early in the weekend players were pinged for simply planning to take possession; yesterday, players were permitted to try to elude opponents and then were dispossessed without penalty.

Nathan Buckley said recently rule changes took the focus from all that's good in the game and created more debate about umpiring inconsistency.

Perhaps we should treat the rule book like the American constitution, a body of fundamental principles that may be challenged, yet also is seen to stand the test of time.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21889813%255E19742,00.html

[one-eyed]

Brett Allen got the all-clear from the AFL for saying he'd have preferred the new interpretation hadn't been brought in.

Umpire Allen given all-clear
Len Johnson | June 13, 2007 | The Age

THE AFL yesterday waved "play on" in the matter of senior field umpire Brett Allen, who conceded in a weekend radio interview that he wished he did not have to make the call that disallowed Matthew Richardson's potentially matchwinning goal against Essendon last month.

Allen also stated quite explicitly during the 3AW interview that he would rather the interpretation that awards a free kick for any contact with the hands to an opponent's back in a marking contest had not been brought in.

"Do I prefer to see it in? Well, probably not," Allen said.

Coaches and players have been issued a "please explain" or fined by the AFL for comments on umpires and umpiring this season, but AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday that this would not apply to Allen who, in effect, was commenting on his own decision.

Richardson thought he had sealed the Tigers' first win of the season when, with the scores level and minutes remaining in the round-nine clash, he outmarked Essendon full-back Mal Michael and kicked a goal.

But Allen ruled that Richardson had placed his hands in the back of Michael during the marking contest. The ruling was widely regarded as correct, even by Richardson.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/umpire-allen-given-allclear/2007/06/12/1181414299423.html

[one-eyed]

Michael: It was a push
17 June 2007   Sunday Herald Sun
Jon Ralph

ESSENDON full-back Mal Michael says the controversial Round 9 push-in-the-back free kick paid against opponent Matthew Richardson was definitely a free kick.

But he feels for the umpires being made to enforce the rules crackdown.

Michael revealed yesterday he has been forced to break with a decade of playing from behind opponents, and is now playing in front to cope with the new rule.

Early in the season there were fears Michael would be driven from the game as a result of the new interpretation, which saw him give away a host of free kicks in the Round 1 NAB Cup clash against Carlton.

He has slowly come to grips with the tightened interpretation and says, while Tigers' forward Richardson did infringe, it was a still only minimal contact.

"A push (in the back), probably no. I would say it was more of a nudge, but it's still a free kick. I feel sorry for the umpires because a lot of people come down on them," Michael said.

"I copped a fair bit early on and I wasn't willing to change, but if you don't change you keep getting free kicks against you.

"I didn't like (the rule) when it came in, primarily because of the fact I was giving away free kicks. You just have to change with the rules and that's what I have had to do.

"I have varied my starting points. The past three weeks I have tried to play in front. I always played from behind or the side."

Michael said it was now much harder for players with less reach to compete on the last line of defence.

"It was a very hard habit to break because it was my comfort zone.

"I felt most comfortable playing like that and then suddenly, from a defender's point of view, there were a lot of things that I used to do which were taken away from me and I had to find other ways of how I could be effective."

Fellow defender Dustin Fletcher says he has also adapted to the rule.

"I think when you push someone and extend your arms it should be a free kick," he said.

 "But the ones where they are coming back at you and you just put your hands there so they don't come back into your space, that is the tough one to get hold of."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21918146%255E19742,00.html

[mightytiges]

Apart from one decision where the ump was out of position and guessed that Richo put his hands in Carroll's back (when they were into his side), the umps got the hands in the back interpretation correct most of the night which only confirmed how stupid it is. Let's pay the free to the player who is completely out of position running back into player who through skill and better judgement has obtained best position to take the mark . Talk about killing good contests in the game . 

As for Richo, he said on 3aw that after last night he needs to practice at training how to avoid giving away a free. We hate the rule but we've got to put up with it at least until the end of the season.

You can understand the big fella's frustration. He gets pinged for laying a fingernail in the back of his opponent while opponents crash into him without looking at the incoming footy, chop his arms, hold his arms and scrag him.

As for the standard of umpiring in the 3rd quarter  . Back to the lower grades No. 8.

[julzqld]

When it came to Richo, yes I think the umpires got it right but not when it came to other players.  Bowden got pinged and there must have been 2 feet between him and the Melbourne player.  IIRC happened to Thursty as well.  Stupid rule though and really wrecks the game.  Very hard after 14 years playing senior level footy and something becomes automatic to then have to change it.

[bluey_21]

When it came to Richo, yes I think the umpires got it right but not when it came to other players.  Bowden got pinged and there must have been 2 feet between him and the Melbourne player.  IIRC happened to Thursty as well.  Stupid rule though and really wrecks the game.  Very hard after 14 years playing senior level footy and something becomes automatic to then have to change it.

ditto

[one-eyed]

Richo after revenge over that free?

Raines admits that the match will hold special significance for Matthew Richardson, who was furious when he had a goal disallowed late in the game when he was penalised for a hands in the back infringement.

“It’s still going to be in the back of our minds,” Raines said.

“The Richo decision, he wasn’t too happy with that. He might be out to make amends for it too. We’re all going out there with the same mentality we’ve had over the last few weeks, to go out there and have real crack at it and play one-on-one footy and take them on.”

http://richmondfc.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/6301/Default.aspx?newsId=49515

[wayne]

Richo after revenge over that free?

Fletcher is out this week isn't he?

Would the Bombers be silly eno..... nah they couldn't.......would they use Keplar Bradley on him again? 

[one-eyed]

Adrian Anderson on the "hands in the back rule":

The Laws Committee considered "at length" a modification of the hands-in-the-back rule that would allow incidental contact, but felt it would make it impossible to umpire and would confuse fans.

Research showed a significant majority of the 289 free kicks paid for hands-in-the-back clearly affected the outcome of marking contests.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22839458%255E19742,00.html

[richmondrules]

Adrian Anderson on the "hands in the back rule":

The Laws Committee considered "at length" a modification of the hands-in-the-back rule that would allow incidental contact, but felt it would make it impossible to umpire and would confuse fans.

I'm sorry? And the difference with what is happening now would be? The management school of say it's right enough times and it has to be.

Research showed a significant majority of the 289 free kicks paid for hands-in-the-back clearly affected the outcome of marking contests.

There is no doubting that statement. Has completely changed the game. Wrecked a few careers in the process. Is it any better? I have never understood what problem this rules change has been trying to solve. Flooding is the main blight on the game IMO, does this rule help?