Author Topic: Hands in the back rule  (Read 8425 times)

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97882
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2007, 02:37:15 AM »
A turkey of a rule comes home to roost
Rohan Connolly | May 28, 2007 | The Age

Saturday night's free-kick controversy is the latest indictment upon a ruling that AFL administrators should never have tinkered with.

YES, to the letter of the law it was a free kick. No, in the spirit of the game it shouldn't have been. And yes, this hands-in-the-back stuff is a turkey. One that came home to roost at the MCG on Saturday night.

As if this season hadn't already seen enough attention diverted from the playing field. Now even the games themselves are sinking into a mire of endless controversy and debate about their adjudication, thanks largely to tinkering with a rule that didn't need attention in the first place. And that's the greatest shame.

Essendon's comeback win over Richmond was overflowing with great stories and incidents. Matthew Richardson's mere appearance on the field for the Tigers — given the extent of his injuries the previous week — was a pretty good starting point.

The Dreamtime concept again captured the football public's imagination and helped turn what might otherwise have been an insignificant match between two struggling teams into a real occasion.

The winless Tigers were gallant again, but in a sorry twist just couldn't finish off their opponent. The Bombers' effort in hauling back a three-goal deficit with just over six minutes to play was a stunning comeback. There was James Hird's inspirational tackle. Adam McPhee's thumping goal that tied the scores. No end of talking points.

But they were always going to be overshadowed once umpire Brett Allen pinged "Richo" for the lightest of touches on Mal Michael's back, denying him what would most likely have been a famous match-winning goal.

Every week, there seems at least one match whose outcome is overshadowed by the inconsistencies of the application of this new interpretation.

Last week, the Kangaroos and Carlton played a cracker returning 42 goals, but post-match discussion focused just as much on several scored from hands-in-the-back free kicks. Essendon's Mark McVeigh's great grab in round three against Carlton is to date probably mark of the year. But even a moment that spectacular became just a catalyst for another week-long debate about this silly piece of unwanted rules engineering.

We know it's not the umpires' fault, though the 50-metre penalty Brett Allen slapped on Richardson to add insult to injury was a shocker. Play was frantic, scores level, seconds were ticking away and a 60,000-plus crowd was screaming. If Richardson did hear the whistle, he likely believed it was being blown to award him the mark. Common sense, please.

That is exactly what has deserted the law-makers with this latest effort. Michael, caught under the flight of the ball, backed into Richardson. The Tiger forward had nowhere to go and was about to be bowled over. He put out a steadying hand, the impact of which barely moved Michael, let alone removed him from the contest.

If we're talking about the purity of a marking contest, why is it still OK for a player behind to use forearms, hips, or whatever to hold off the man in front, the impact of which is every bit, if not more profound, than a brush with the hand?

But even if the intent was simply to make a push easier to interpret, the hands-in-the-back change has been a miserable failure. Umpires simply can't be in good enough position often enough to detect every one of the most fleeting moments of contact.

Instead, it's become a perilous lucky dip, of which the winning ticket all too often has dramatic consequences of a goal — those missed often costing one, and some, like Saturday night, overshadowing what should have been one of the most talked-about finishes to a game in recent times.

There's often a tendency to dramatise the implications of rule changes, the reality usually proving not nearly as cataclysmic as the dire forecasts. But the hand-wringing that followed the introduction of the hands-in-the-back interpretation has proved spot on. It has been a profound change to the game and, at the very least, should have been trialled first during the pre-season competition. It wasn't and we're paying a high price.

The hands-in-the-back interpretation should go. You suspect, though, pride will prevent an AFL backdown. That stands to hurt the game far more than a few red faces among administrators. Not to mention the shame of all the great football we won't be talking about, lost under the weight of the latest hands-in-the-back controversy.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/a-turkey-of-a-rule-comes-home-to-roost/2007/05/27/1180205077185.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97882
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2007, 02:39:04 AM »
Dictionary says Richo got a raw deal
Tim Lane | May 28, 2007 | The Age

More work is needed on a controversial ruling that still doesn't accurately define what contact is acceptable in a marking contest.

RICHO, Richo, Richo. Why do you do it to us? Why do you do it to yourself? Will your life still be like this even when you perambulate the lawn bowling green of retirement?

If archery becomes your sport, will you forever suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

Please, don't ever take up golf. It's a thought too terrifying to bear.

So, on Saturday night, was the umpire right or was Richo wronged? He put his hands in Mal Michael's back, of that there can be no doubt. Under this year's approach to such incidents, Brett Allen had to award the free kick against him. Regardless of the time the hands were actually in the back, this looked a clear-cut case.

But do such black-and-white judgements sit coherently with the range of other permitted contacts that occur close to the edge of the rules during the course of any game? That's what the debate over this new application of the push-in-the-back rule is about.

Predictably, the AFL is already telling us that they, and umpire Allen, have got it right. Of course, they would say that. For the past couple of years they've been insisting, despite there being an elephant with a big, white V in their board room, that the on-going failure of the Victorian teams is simply part of a cycle. At the weekend, they finally admitted they may have got this wrong. It's fair to say that after only nine weeks we're entitled to consider the jury still out on "hands in the back".

Prior to this year, the umpire would have been required to interpret whether or not Richo's action constituted a push. The problem was, so liberal had such interpretations become, anything that didn't pitchfork the man in front nose-first into the dust passed muster. It was because of this laxity that the zero tolerance application was brought into effect. It was designed to protect players in marking contests and remove controversy.

While it has to be said that its achievement on the latter count is questionable, the new application is at least clear. It's still struggling for acceptance, though, and that's not simply because it involves change.

The AFL rules committee has failed to address the most important part of the old push-in-the-back rule. The shortcoming of the new ruling is that it simply deals with the barrackers' abbreviation: the in-the-back part. That reckons without the most important word: "push". Were Richo's hands in Michael's back? Unquestionably. Did he push him? A visit to the dictionary is interesting.

My Australian Concise Oxford carries many definitions and uses of both the verb and noun "push", but the first is apposite. It reads: "Exert a force on (a thing) to move it away from oneself."

Did Richo move Michael away from himself? I don't think he did. The replays suggest he attempted to prevent Michael from moving back onto him. Had Michael kept coming, with eyes on the ball, he could have made contact with Richo without giving away a free kick. Richo, from a stationary position, attempted to hold his ground by using his hands and was penalised. So, while there clearly were "hands in the back", the strict answer as to whether there was a push in the back is no.

This year, there's no scope for the umpires to make judgements about such matters. That's where this new rule goes wrong. The umpires must be encouraged to interpret the game, under guidelines that are well thought through and clearly expressed.

It won't solve every problem, but it might at least go some small way to bringing some happiness back into Richo's life.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dictionary-says-richo-got-a-raw-deal/2007/05/27/1180205077188.html

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97882
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2007, 02:40:52 AM »
How two rights made a wrong
Richard Hinds | May 28, 2007 | The Age

THE great shame about the idiotic free kick that could have cost Richmond their first victory of the season against Essendon on Saturday night was not that umpire Brett Allen's "hands in the back" call against Tigers forward Matthew Richardson was wrong. The problem was that the umpire was spot on.

And so, in a single dramatic moment, the AFL's folly in imposing a rule that fundamentally changes the way the game can be played without testing in the pre-season competition or consultation with many significant stakeholders was exposed in a manner both brutal and predictable.

Brutal, particularly, for Richardson, a man whose career is so littered with heroic failure it is the stuff of Greek tragedy. This, however, should have been a moment of rare triumph. Having entered the game with a fractured eye socket that was supposed to have sidelined him for months, Richardson continued to battle bravely even as Essendon fought back from 20 points down in the dying minutes to level the scores.

As the ball came high into the forward line he stood one out with Essendon defender Mal Michael. It was the type of contest Tony Lockett had envisaged when he voiced his own disapproval of the "hands in the back" rule. Two big, powerful players battling for the position. "People want to see a contest," Plugger said.

This time Richardson won. He held his ground as Michael backed into him, grabbed the mark and kicked a brilliant long goal with a boot more renowned for turning the Sherrin into a scud missiles. Under the long-held interpretation of "pushing in the back", Michael would have been entitled to a free kick if his body had been pushed forward. But Richardson did not shove Michael, he merely put a hand up as forwards and defenders had done legally for the first 109 of the competition's 110 years.

But not any more. With Allen following his misguided orders to the letter, Richardson had to be penalised - doubly so with a 50m penalty for kicking the ball away after the whistle had blown. That Essendon went on to record a worthy yet slightly hollow eight-point victory restored Richardson's reputation as a football tragedian. There could be yet more pain. After the match, Richardson echoed the feeling of dumbstruck fans when he described the rule as "pathetic" and not "in the spirit of the game". There was immediate talk he would be fined for criticising the umpires but he had not. Richardson was criticising those who had concocted and imposed the rule with obscene haste.

The same people who, emboldened by the support of some bandwagon jumping media commentators, have refused to listen to voices of those insiders and fans who had foreseen the Richardson fiasco - or one just like it.

The critics such as Swans coach Paul Roos, whose right to an opinion, like those of many AFL coaches, has been diminished because he is told it is his tactics that are ruining the game. Like Collingwood champion Nathan Buckley, who resigned from the rules committee because he believed his opinions were disregarded. Like the AFL Umpires Association who feared, correctly, that their members would be unfairly vilified by this punitive law.

Coincidentally, the leading public proponent of the rule has been former Richmond great Kevin Bartlett, a radio broadcaster and member of the AFL's rules committee, who yesterday described the decision as "an absolute no-brainer". Presumably he meant the umpire had made the right decision, not that those who had brought in the rule had no brains.

What has never been fully explained, beyond the vague assertion of producing a "fairer contest", is why the new interpretation was brought in when the old "push in the back rule" had stood the test of time. Some have suggested it was the brainchild of new AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick. It seems to support the view that the AFL has become enamoured by the low-contact Gaelic game.

Whatever the genesis, from the moment it was sprung on the public without trial or discussion it was an accident waiting to happen. And Richardson is the innocent victim.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/how-two-rights-made-a-wrong/2007/05/27/1180205079061.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97882
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2007, 02:44:05 AM »

Take this rule and shove it: A disgruntled Matthew Richardson argues with the umpire after his goal was overturned because of a controversial push in the back free was paid against him. Picture: Wayne Ludbey


Lloyd: I feel for Richardson
28 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Daryl Timms

ESSENDON captain Matthew Lloyd shares the frustration of Richmond forward Matthew Richardson with the new interpretation of the hands-in-the-back rule.
 
Tigers fans believed they were robbed of their first victory of the season when Richardson's mark, and subsequent goal, was disallowed in the dying moments of Saturday night's narrow loss to the Bombers.

Lloyd said he did not agree with the rule, but under the interpretation the umpire made the right call.

"They say you can use your forearm, but, like Matthew Richardson, I have been using the hand just to place it there (back) for balance. Not a push, but to just hold your opponent out, for 12 years," Lloyd said yesterday.

"You can actually hold your opponent out better that way than with the forearm."

Lloyd's empathy for Richardson came as former field umpire Derek Humphery-Smith called on the AFL to release statistics on how many hands-in-the-back frees have been missed in the first nine rounds.

Humphery-Smith said while the free against Richardson, and then a 50m penalty, were both correct, other decisions were clearly wrong in previous games.

"Whether the free kick would have been paid in 2006 is questionable, but certainly under the 2007 interpretation it was applied correctly," Humphery-Smith said.

"I think it was the decision we had to have to make the AFL finally sit up and take notice at the frustration of the new interpretation and hopefully (assess) whether the game needs it."

The AFL is happy with the rule and, despite pressure from players and coaches, it will not follow the lead of the NRL and change the rule during the season.

The NRL introduced an obstruction rule this season, but scrubbed it when there were almost as many penalties for obstruction in the first six rounds of 2007 as there were in the entire 2006 season.

Richardson's "goal" put the Tigers six points in front, but umpire Brett Allen ruled that the Tiger forward had his hands on defender Mal Michael's back.

A 50m penalty was given after Richardson played on and booted the goal.

Richardson, who faces a "please explain" from the AFL after he blasted the rule after the game, showed enormous courage to play on Saturday after suffering facial injuries a week earlier.

"On the way they're interpreting it this year, it was a push in the back. But I've been playing 15 years and any other year, that was a mark," Richardson told 3AW after the game.

"I think it's a pathetic rule . . . I think it's spoiling the contest between two guys going for a mark. I don't think I will say much more . . . but I don't think it's in the spirit of how the game's been played for a long time."

Lloyd said the rule would affect recruiting.

"It's getting harder and harder to think your way through things when you are playing from behind in a one-on-one situation," he told ABC 774 radio yesterday.

"It is hard work for the forwards and defenders to work out at the moment."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21804168%255E20322,00.html

Offline julzqld

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Richo says push rule is 'pathetic' / Richo could face a fine
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2007, 07:40:22 AM »
I heard on Sports Tonight that Richo could face a fine for comments he made (which I thought were rather subdued considering) and yet it looks like Judd will get off an eye gouging charge.  :banghead  So it's ok to practically blind someone but don't you dare criticise the precious AFL or their umpires :banghead

What a joke!  If this is true, every Richmond supporter and the club should be writing in protest to the AFL.

Offline julzqld

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2007, 08:16:05 AM »
Lloyd should offer to give Richo lessons in diving.

Offline julzqld

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Richo says push rule is 'pathetic' / Richo could face a fine
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2007, 08:18:39 AM »
Here's a thought.  Supposing Richo gets fine for his comments.  Crazy John would help his move to the Richmond board and get some support from members if he offered to pay Richo's fine.  Or reimbursed Richo for the fine.

Offline julzqld

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Change dangerous hand-in-back rule: March
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2007, 08:20:31 AM »
So are the AFL going to fine Gary March too?

2JD

  • Guest
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2007, 09:28:16 AM »
Why is it that every single living breathing life form on this planet can see  the stupidity of this rule, except the (i cant think of a name bad enough!!!) people who came up with it!!!!
I'm such a sook an angry tear came to my eye reading these articles!!! >:(

Offline wayne

  • Fame of Hall
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
  • In Absentia
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2007, 09:49:43 AM »
KB is a filthy rat.
And you may not think I care for you
When you know down inside that I really do

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58590
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Change dangerous hand-in-back rule: March
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2007, 01:52:34 PM »
So are the AFL going to fine Gary March too?
He shouldn't but who knows anymore with the AFL.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58590
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2007, 02:08:20 PM »
Well said Connolly, Lane and Hinds. Mike you're a dill. The NRL have abolished a bad new rule after 8 rounds. Why can't the AFL?

Why is it that every single living breathing life form on this planet can see  the stupidity of this rule, except the (i cant think of a name bad enough!!!) people who came up with it!!!!
Because these morons don't have to sit through a game and watch this crap and have forgotten that Aussie rules is meant to be a free-form contact sport based around skill, strength and better judgement. This new intepretation rewards players who misread the flight of the ball and are caught underneath it. All they have to do is run backwards into the player behind them. They either get a spoil in or it's a free to them for push in the back. Absolute garbage penalising the player who is skillful enough to judge the best position in a contest :banghead.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: 'Hands in the back' opinion articles [merged]
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2007, 02:13:32 PM »
Well said Connolly, Lane and Hinds. Mike you're a dill. The NRL have abolished a bad new rule after 8 rounds. Why can't the AFL?

Why is it that every single living breathing life form on this planet can see  the stupidity of this rule, except the (i cant think of a name bad enough!!!) people who came up with it!!!!
Because these morons don't have to sit through a game and watch this crap and have forgotten that Aussie rules is meant to be a free-form contact sport based around skill, strength and better judgement. This new intepretation rewards players who misread the flight of the ball and are caught underneath it. All they have to do is run backwards into the player behind them. They either get a spoil in or it's a free to them for push in the back. Absolute garbage penalising the player who is skillful enough to judge the best position in a contest :banghead.

Hear, Here MT!!  :thumbsup :thumbsup

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58590
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Richo says push rule is 'pathetic' / Richo could face a fine
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2007, 02:22:34 PM »
More often than not this rule is rewarding players who are out of position and not judging the flight of the ball as Mal Michael did. There was also one early on that Lloyd got where thirsty was doing nothing stronger than picking pills of the back of his jumper and got penalised for it.  :banghead :banghead
I believe that the rule should be modified to state that if a player is caught under the ball and is forcing their way back into position, the player directly behind in better position should be able to use his arms to maintain his position. This was the old rule wasn't it??
Spot on tiga. Everyone understood the old rule but of course like so things Adrian Anderson and co had to "fix it" to justify their existence  :banghead.

FF, the AFL are a dictatorship with its censorship.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Gordon Bennett

  • Guest
Re: Richo says push rule is 'pathetic' / Richo could face a fine
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2007, 02:47:57 PM »
Here's a thought.  Supposing Richo gets fine for his comments.  Crazy John would help his move to the Richmond board and get some support from members if he offered to pay Richo's fine.  Or reimbursed Richo for the fine.
That's just the sort of populist,opportunistic thing I'd expect from Ilhan - cheap heroics and exploitation of a situation. It would cost him a trifle, and he would milk it. This guy is a flake, a shameless self-promoter. We must not indulge the guy's ego.

My new logo - Don't go down the ill-advised ill-han path....hang on, I need to work on that a little more. Something simpler is needed.

P.O.I.   Pee Off Ilhan