What KB said.

[Courtney_Fish 183]

There's a posting on another site where someone claims that KB said CC is a certainty to coach MFC. There then follows some derision of KB. I heard KB on the issue and he was actually saying that some people sometimes seem to be definite on some issues such as some are that CC is coming to MFC. So it was not KB that was definite about the position. It was interesting how he was attacked for that.

KB was called a fool; "look at his stance as a member of the rules committee". I assume this is about the hands in the back issue. I don't feel strongly about the hands in the back issue but I'm fairly please with it and I heard the CEO/Gen Mgr of AFL (can't for the life of me remember his name) give some statistical evidence to show it has been a success. I think the rule is clear and when guys (like Richo) get upset for breaching it, it's partly because it was such a stupid mistake - maybe just an old habit. (I also think that KB is one of the best radio men around. He has very good common sense and always get things right. No, we're not related. I normally hate initials but it sure helps with spelling.)

So do you want the hands in the back rule to go? Other comments?

[Jarka 767]

I like the new rule but you've never legally been able to push a player in the back, it was something that just became accepted because it wasn't policed properly.

[Rogue 585]

I don't feel strongly about the hands in the back issue but I'm fairly please with it and I heard the CEO/Gen Mgr of AFL (can't for the life of me remember his name) give some statistical evidence to show it has been a success.

Eh? ;o

[Hannabal 4]

I don't like the rule for one major reason. It's not in the rule book. Hands are allowed in the back (in the official rules) as long as it is incidental contact and no pushing has occured.

[Courtney_Fish 183]

Eh? ;o

He was saying things like there have been more marks taken.

[Courtney_Fish 183]

I don't like the rule for one major reason. It's not in the rule book. Hands are allowed in the back (in the official rules) as long as it is incidental contact and no pushing has occured.

If someone just places their hands on someone else's back then I guess there is no push. But if that someone else is pushing backwards and the player behind holds his ground by placing his hands in the other's back then there must be a force applied and that is what I think push means*. I guess holding out the player with the shoulder, strictly speaking,would also be a push. So the problem is that we need to come up with some definite clear rules. The new rule has been very clear which is good but I think people still regard holding out with the hands as not being a push. The only change I would make to the new rule is to say if there is no force applied with the hands (actively or resistively [did I make up that word?]) then the contact is incidental and should be ignored - but that will blur the line.

So I agree with you as long as holding out is held to be a push.

*The exception would be if the hands are placed on the back but the force is applied through the chest, hips or other - but this would not be usual and the line would be very blurry for some incidents.

[grazman 6,427]

I can't agree, the rule as it stands is a nonsense... and the evidence is overwhelming, the players think so, the coaches think so and so does nearly every supporter you talk to. The old interpretation is best. You can't PUSH in the back(take a player out of the contest illegally)... the hands IN the back rule doesn't work.

As for the CC issue, I don't know where this is coming from... there's certainly a lot of conspiracy theories that were started even before the season kicked off that there'd be a direct swap between ND and CC, but given that a decision on the senior coach isn't even close to being made I think a lot of people are making judgements based on assumptions grounded on presumptions.

[Kit Walker 207]

I don't like the rule for one major reason. It's not in the rule book. Hands are allowed in the back (in the official rules) as long as it is incidental contact and no pushing has occured.

Graeme Bond on 3AW is very strong on that point. You are exactly right, the interpretation is not consistent with the rule. It's a bizarre situation where this can and is allowed to occur - particularly when the AFL's Football Operations Officer is a lawyer.

For my part, I think the interpretation is nonsensical as well but the above point is valid.

[QueenC 74]

I can't agree, the rule as it stands is a nonsense... and the evidence is overwhelming, the players think so, the coaches think so and so does nearly every supporter you talk to. The old interpretation is best. You can't PUSH in the back(take a player out of the contest illegally)... the hands IN the back rule doesn't work.

Amen Graz, well said !!!

[Rogue 585]

Everyone seems to conveniently forget that players were constantly pushing others in the back under the guise of simply 'holding'.

Keeping the ability to hold a player off by putting your hands in his back vs dramatically lessening pushing in the back during marking contests etc?

I prefer the latter tbh.

[45HG 1,539]

to me it makes no sense to bring in a rule that attempts to stop an occurance that doesn't impede a player! will they next bring in that backmen can't put an arm out to maintain touch on their opponent, simply because sometimes it leads to shoving.

i understand the idea behind the rule, but it drives me crazy to see a normal contest where two players are not impeding each other, and yet a free kick is paid.

also, what's with two guys diving on a footy, one getting there second and thus being penalised for in the back, not a fan of that.