Hands in the back rule

[mightytiges]

[WilliamPowell]

 

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 .

Absolutely agree MT and yep the NRl change the obstruction rule a couple of weeks ago because it saimple wasn't working (sound familiar) and it was deemed to be not in the spirit of the game  On thing about the NRL the are not afraid to admit they stuffed up unlike the "twiddle dumbs and twiddle dees" at AFL headquarters

[WilliamPowell]

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.

Gotta say Julz that Crazy John analogy is not funny -sacry yep funny nope  because you've probably given Mr Crazy and idea

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

With ya GB 

[julzqld]

Yeah sorry

BTW peoples - Richo will be speaking to Mike, Gerard and the other guy (Wall?) on On the Couch - 8.30m tonight on Fox Sports 1

[julzqld]

That's because Andrew D. and Andy A. think they are above us mere mortals.  Oops - I dare criticise - how am I going to pay the fine??

[one-eyed]

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

IT'S good to go bush every now and then. Much of last week was spent up on the Murray River and I lost count of the number of grassroots footy people who said they were losing faith in the direction the game was going due to the increasing number of tiggy-touchwood decisions by umpires.

Well, I hope they weren't watching on Saturday night when Richmond's Matthew Richardson was disallowed a mark late in the game against Essendon, and then penalised 50 metres for kicking the ball. The in-the-back decision cost Richmond the game and "Richo" the chance to be an even greater hero than he already was.

"Footy sucks sometimes," was Melbourne coach Neale Daniher's quote of the week. And what sucks most at the moment was the decision to interpret strongly the hands-in-the-back rule this season. The game is so much the poorer for it. We shouldn't blame the umpires or their boss Jeff Gieschen. They must be embarrassed by the new interpretation they are being forced to implement.

Richo has played AFL football for 15 years. In the previous 14, he would not have conceded a free kick for what he did on Saturday night. AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson says "we want to see genuine marking contests where both players contest the ball without pushing out".

That's fine. But on Saturday night, Essendon's Mal Michael was not even trying to mark the ball. He had read the flight of the ball incorrectly. He had got under the ball and was pushing back forcefully onto Richo. As Michael backed into Richo's space, Richo's hand was placed on Michael's back. It was not a push. Umpire Brett Allen was forced to pay a free against Richo because of the hand placement. But the rule interpretation is an ass and those who pushed for it should be embarrassed at the mockery they are making of our great game. The interpretation should be "push with hands to disadvantage". And so a suck of a rule ruins the game and the Dreamtime experience for thousands of Richmond diehards and football followers in general.

What else sucks? Going down by close margins when your team is yet to register a win hurts. In recent weeks, Terry Wallace and Daniher have gone through hell. The wise heads will say that's what coaching is all about, fighting adversity, battling against the odds, keeping a positive facade, when all around you appears negative. The bottom line is, it can tear chunks out of you. With each narrow, harrowing loss, a little piece inside you dies.

I couldn't sleep after night matches. Especially after a loss, I would walk the streets after midnight. You feel sorry and responsible for the players and supporters. You think it is all your fault. This game can depress you.

… And 10 more things that suck in football

1. A drugs policy that needs an overhaul.

2. Not enough position play.

3. An interchange system that allows too many rotations.

4. Too few contested marks.

5. Adelaide and Perth-based supporters who just can't see the big picture.

6. Not enough appreciation of ruckmen and their craft.

7. Umpires still bounce the ball, when a throw up would benefit all.

8. Goalkicking accuracy from set shots hasn't improved despite players being full-time professionals.

9. Food is too expensive at the footy.

10. My next grandchild will be forced by his/her father to be a Tigers supporter.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/its-time-to-shove-handsinback-rule/2007/05/28/1180205159533.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[one-eyed]

AFL defends controversial rule
May 28, 2007 - 7:30PM
The Age

The AFL continues to strongly defend the "hands in the back" rule interpretation, with umpire Brett Allen receiving praise for Saturday night's critical decision.

Umpires boss Jeff Gieschen strongly supported Allen for his decision to penalise Richmond forward Matthew Richardson.

Scores were level when Richardson out-marked Essendon opponent Mal Michael, played on and kicked a goal.

Allen paid a free against Richardson for having a hand on Michael's back in the marking contest.

He also paid a 50m free against the Tigers star for playing on.

Essendon won the match a few minutes later by eight points.

"We're just pleased Brett Allen was able to get into a really good position, side-on, saw the hands resting in the back, then saw the push out - so he's obliged to pay a free kick," Gieschen said.

Richardson was furious post-match, calling the rule "pathetic", and Hawthorn veteran Shane Crawford said he could understand the frustration.

"It's a hard situation ... a lot of the players involved were players who have been playing the game for a long period of time," he said.

"It makes it hard to adjust your game when you've been playing like that for 25-30 years, as a kid and into your senior years.

"That's probably one of the hardest things about the rule, that it can cost sides games.

"You certainly don't want rules having an impact on games like that."

The AFL introduced the new interpretation of its current hands-in-the-back rule this season to stop players pushing opponents out of marking contests.

http://news.realfooty.com.au/afl-defends-controversial-rule/20074928-fbq.html

[one-eyed]

Umps blamed for hands-in-back change
29 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Daryl Timms with AAP

TWO-time Grand Final umpire John Russo claims umpires are to blame for the AFL introducing the contentious hands-in-the-back rule.

Russo said the new interpretation evolved because umpires were not strict enough in past years to penalise players who pushed opponents in the back during marking contests.

"I think the hands-in-the-back rule they (the AFL) have introduced now is probably a knee-jerk reaction to the fact umpires in general weren't paying it as we should have," Russo said yesterday.

"And I'm just as much at fault as anyone else.

"If umpires had been paying free kicks for pushing in the back in marking contests as we should have, I don't think the administrators of the game would have had to have changed the rule."

Russo, whose 222-game career included the 1986 and 1991 Grand Finals, said he feared the rule would alter the game forever.

"I think changing the rule is potentially going to change the game and that's probably a bit of a sad legacy that we as umpires may have left for the game," Russo said.

Speaking at yesterday's launch of the E. J. Whitten Legends Game, Russo, who retired in 1995, said he hoped the AFL would throw out the stricter interpretation that was again highlighted when Richmond's Matthew Richardson was penalised against Essendon at the MCG on Saturday night.

"I hope they (AFL) do, but I can't see any indication that they will," Russo said.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said yesterday he understood why fans reacted to the Richardson decision, but said the right call had been made.

"Given the point of time of the game and given the outcome, people became very emotional," Demetriou said.

"If it hadn't been paid in the back, we probably would've had more controversy about the decision, as in 'Why wasn't there a free kick for in the back?' "

Demetriou said a review of the rule at the end of the season was unlikely.

"I wouldn't have thought so. It's only been in for nine weeks now," Demetriou said.

"This issue just arose because of the closeness of the game and the 50m penalty."

Russo said umpires should be made more accountable for their errors, including their inconsistency on the hands-in-the-back rule.

"What seems to happen is that some are paid and some aren't paid, and we see the same names (of umpires) week in and week out, and that's probably a little bit of a concern for the football world," Russo said.

"I'm not saying that Matthew Richardson wasn't a free kick. I'm saying that if it was two actions -- a push and then a mark -- I'm comfortable with that. I think a push in the back in a marking contest has always been a free kick and should always be a free kick."

Asked if he thought umpiring was better now than during his career, Russo said: "I paid worse decisions than I see on the telly now.

"But I spent more time out of the AFL than I see umpires spending out of the AFL now. I think the football world deserves everyone who walks over the white line to be accountable."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21810863%255E19742,00.html

[one-eyed]

'Rule' should get the shove
29 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Derek Humphery-Smith

THE Laws of Australian Football have never been straightforward, Derek Humphery-Smith writes.

In fact, they are widely regarded as the most interpretative laws governing any of the world's football codes.

This doesn't make the job of an umpire an easy one.

This year, amongst great fanfare but little reason, the Laws of the Game Committee instructed the AFL Umpiring Department to ensure field umpires applied a much stricter interpretation to the "push-in-the-back" law for marking contests.

This became what most commentators now refer to as the "hands-in-the-back rule".

Amazing that a stricter interpretation of an existing law has become a "rule" in its own right only nine rounds into the 2007 season. But the relevant law hasn't actually changed.

Law 15.4.5 reads as follows:

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:

(b) pushes an opposition player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the player is legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football.

Incredibly, this interpretation was thrust on the umpires without any input from them.

On paper, it is easier to apply because whenever a player places his hands on the back of his opponent in a marking contest, an umpire needs to pay a free kick. This is irrelevant of whether the player actually breached the law by pushing his opponent in the back.

I don't understand it.

A new "law" of our game has been created. There were no extensive trials of the interpretation nor were examples given of what scourge on our game it was trying to eradicate.

No such change applies to ruck contests, although the law book basically treats them the same as marking contests.

This is confusing and frustrating stuff.

Now, we have seen a pivotal decision correctly made by umpire Brett Allen against the Tigers' Matthew Richardson.

Tigers' fans are hurting enough without this rubbing of salt into their wounds.

But it is the decision we needed. In my view, it would not have been paid as a free kick in 2006 and Richmond may have gone on to win their first match of the season.

The AFL heads shortly to its mid-year break and an immediate review is required of this interpretation.

Richardson's actions did not warrant a free kick.

A player should be allowed to hold his ground in a marking contest, whether it's with his hands, his forearm or his hip. But if he pushes, then that should be a free kick -- as it always has been and as the Laws of Australian Football rightly outlaw.

AFL chief Andrew Demetriou will hopefully watch this mess unfolding and take appropriate action. The interpretation should be scrapped from the mid-season break.

That will take leadership and a preparedness to say the Laws of the Game Committee got it wrong. We will watch with interest.

Derek Humphery-Smith is a former AFL field umpire.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21810824%255E19742,00.html

[one-eyed]

Hudson: It was a free
29 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Jon Anderson

PETER Hudson, the man who averages more goals a game (5.6) than anyone in AFL history, says the hands-in-the-back interpretation has greatly improved the game.

Hudson, who kicked 727 goals in 129 matches between 1967-77, says the acceptance of players being able to push in the back has grown since he finished in the game.

"I'm all for the new interpretation. I grew up in an era where you weren't allowed to use your hands to push in the back," Hudson said.

"Yes, the odd mistake will still be made, but that's a much better situation than before. From what I saw, Matthew Richardson's hands were clearly on Mal Michael's back.

"That's a free kick and always should be. If you allow pushes in the back, how do you differentiate between a big and small push?"

Hudson said there was a generation of footballing fans who grew up watching football in the 1980s and 1990s who say hands in the back is an accepted part of the game.

"But it's not," Hudson said.

"Using the body was a big part of my games, but I never used my hands to push a player out. I actually feel sorry for the umpires. At least the players can't argue any more because it's now clear-cut.

"Soon enough we will accept it."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21810825%255E19742,00.html

[mightytiges]

Amazing that a stricter interpretation of an existing law has become a "rule" in its own right only nine rounds into the 2007 season. But the relevant law hasn't actually changed.

Law 15.4.5 reads as follows:

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:

(b) pushes an opposition player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the player is legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football.

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!

[julzqld]

 
 
No whistle: the roles were reversed, but without a free kick when Essendon defender Mal Michael touched Tiger Matthew Richardson's back in the last quarter at the MCG on Saturday. Picture: Wayne Ludbey
 
 
www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/printpage/0,8036,21810863%255E20322,00.html

Oops - sorry - didn't see this pic on another thread but it is worth a second look.

Agree for once with Walls.

Stupid Roger Merrett (for something completely differently) has come out in today's Gold Coast Bulletin saying that it was a blatant push in the back by Richo.   

[Fishfinger]

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

[mightytiges]

Richo has got the all clear from his please explain. So no fine. Just reported on SEN.

 

[one-eyed]

Richo has got the all clear from his please explain. So no fine. Just reported on SEN.

 

SEN added that Richo didn't get a please explain. Richo said he will have to learn to modify his action so he doesn't use his hands.