I was explaining to a young foreigner the rule about pulling it under yourself and not getting it out is a free kick against you.  I said the rule was introduced because players were doing that to hold up play and create a ball-up.  But I had trouble explaining why when an opponent player pushes/pulls the ball under a player on the ground, the umpire will proclaim - you pulled it under, so no free, ball up.  She naively said that surely that player is even more guilty. Not only does he do something to hold up play, but he tries to con the umpire into awarding themself an undeserved free. 

My only explanation was that the AFL rules and interpretations and implementations are a mess. A difficult game to umpire and the AFL just does things to make it even harder.

23 minutes ago, sue said:

I was explaining to a young foreigner the rule about pulling it under yourself and not getting it out is a free kick against you.  I said the rule was introduced because players were doing that to hold up play and create a ball-up.  But I had trouble explaining why when an opponent player pushes/pulls the ball under a player on the ground, the umpire will proclaim - you pulled it under, so no free, ball up.  She naively said that surely that player is even more guilty. Not only does he do something to hold up play, but he tries to con the umpire into awarding themself an undeserved free. 

My only explanation was that the AFL rules and interpretations and implementations are a mess. A difficult game to umpire and the AFL just does things to make it even harder.

your first mistake was trying to explain afl rules to a non-follower

I would explain to your friend that anytime theres a stoppage in play it allows your team the time to set up defensively and match up on opponents.
Good stoppage teams (like us) love a reset when the games not going their way and a chance to win the next contest.  

Some players will try to hold up the ball because attempting to create a stoppage in some situations is better than the ball spilling out when your defence might be mismatched further up the ground due to the flow of the game, player outnumber etc.

It's hard to explain because the game is so chaotic .
 

5 hours ago, sue said:

She naively said that surely that player is even more guilty. Not only does he do something to hold up play, but he tries to con the umpire into awarding themself an undeserved free. 

I think she has a good point. Pay a free against the player who pushes the ball under an opponent on the ground. 

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

your first mistake was trying to explain afl rules

Full stop

My biggest beef with this rule is when a player who's on the ground goes to gather the ball to distribute it out subsequently gets pushed in the back and then basically sat on.

If players are just holding the ball in to attempt to create a ball up (as was the old interpretation of the rule) - fair enough, pay holding the ball.  But if players are stacked on top of said player, in my view, should be paid push in the back.  If they want a free kick for a player that drags the ball in, they should have to lift the player up by the back of the jumper etc.

Players picking the ball up off the ground and feeding it out (in the absence of being sat on) would actually keep play moving and result in a faster moving game IMHO.

As far as I'm concerned this is just another umpiring mistake (among many).  If the player on the ground pulls it under and fails to get it out, it's a free.  Just because they are on top of another player when they do it doesn't change any of this.  The same rule should still apply and the free be paid against the player who pulled the ball back in.  The error is in the "interpretation" rather than the rule.  

Keep the ball moving. Penalise anyone who doesn’t enable this. Resets frankly are boring. 

7 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

As far as I'm concerned this is just another umpiring mistake (among many).  If the player on the ground pulls it under and fails to get it out, it's a free.  Just because they are on top of another player when they do it doesn't change any of this.  The same rule should still apply and the free be paid against the player who pulled the ball back in.  The error is in the "interpretation" rather than the rule.  

That there is "interpretation" of the rules at all is a joke and a travesty that the AFL have permitted to fester on for years. Everyone's bought into this bogus concept: the fans, the media, the clubs and even the AFL itself.

I'd have more trouble explaining that a clear throw equates to a legitimate handpass - still a mystery how many of these happen when there are 4 umpires on the ground

15 hours ago, sue said:

I was explaining to a young foreigner the rule about pulling it under yourself and not getting it out is a free kick against you.  I said the rule was introduced because players were doing that to hold up play and create a ball-up.  But I had trouble explaining why when an opponent player pushes/pulls the ball under a player on the ground, the umpire will proclaim - you pulled it under, so no free, ball up.  She naively said that surely that player is even more guilty. Not only does he do something to hold up play, but he tries to con the umpire into awarding themself an undeserved free. 

My only explanation was that the AFL rules and interpretations and implementations are a mess. A difficult game to umpire and the AFL just does things to make it even harder.

i completely agree. players are abusing the rules which is fair enough. defenders blatantly pull the ball back in and stick it to fwds chest and sometimes get the free! should be a free against but it is hard for the umps to see this even with 4

 

9 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

I think she has a good point. Pay a free against the player who pushes the ball under an opponent on the ground. 

Your absolutely right BUT look where the umpires are positioned as mainly on the wing they cannot see what players are doing as the ump's are on the opposite side of the contest. I have been saying for years empower the boundary umpires to signal frees. (so NRL) Of course that would go against the AFL's "play on at all costs" and cause too many stoppages.

Try and explain to your friend how Cripps (AFL darling) is allowed to throw the ball so often. P.S. Well done St Kilda. Haha 

This should be very simple actually.

Surely a correct tackle ie not high, not in the back, should be required for any HTB free.  Otherwise a clear free to the guy tackled. 

Protect the guy making the play before the lurking vultures. 

Edited April 23, 20232 yr by monoccular

48 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I'd have more trouble explaining that a clear throw equates to a legitimate handpass - still a mystery how many of these happen when there are 4 umpires on the ground

Yesterday a miracle occurred: Crapps was pinged for a throw!

56 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I'd have more trouble explaining that a clear throw equates to a legitimate handpass - still a mystery how many of these happen when there are 4 umpires on the ground

The little 'pop up scoop flick' is happening so often at the moment. 

37 minutes ago, layzie said:

The little 'pop up scoop flick' is happening so often at the moment. 

I think people are trying to ape Clarry.  But where Clarry is skilled enough to actually pop up, scoop, and handball a flick over the top... others can only throw if they even manage to succeed in actions 1 and 2.

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Yesterday a miracle occurred: Crapps was pinged for a throw!

Yep, TWICE!

4 hours ago, Sydee said:

I'd have more trouble explaining that a clear throw equates to a legitimate handpass - still a mystery how many of these happen when there are 4 umpires on the ground

I feel certain that the rule on handpassing used to be a fist hitting the ball from a stationary hand. None of this hand and palm both moving in the same direction or over the head two-handed 'throws' or worse, the Adelaide/Western Bulldogs 'flick' pass.

Does anyone remember seeing that written in the rules ? And if so when was it changed?

 

 

50 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I feel certain that the rule on handpassing used to be a fist hitting the ball from a stationary hand. None of this hand and palm both moving in the same direction or over the head two-handed 'throws' or worse, the Adelaide/Western Bulldogs 'flick' pass.

Does anyone remember seeing that written in the rules ? And if so when was it changed?

 

 

The definition currently is:

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting
it with the clenched fist of the other hand.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2022/03/28/6d92ed7c-efc2-44dc-86bc-9fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf

No idea when it changed. Having  the ball holding the ball completely stationary is a bit too tough.  But a mere touch of the fist to a ball largely being propelled by the hand 'holding' the ball is really a throw. Maybe the rule shoudl be that the majority of the impetus to the ball must come from a fist. Good luck umpiring that. 

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I feel certain that the rule on handpassing used to be a fist hitting the ball from a stationary hand. None of this hand and palm both moving in the same direction or over the head two-handed 'throws' or worse, the Adelaide/Western Bulldogs 'flick' pass.

Does anyone remember seeing that written in the rules ? And if so when was it changed?

 

 

it's never been off a stationary hand that i can remember

must be clearly moved off by clenched fist (not open palm) off the holding hand ***

*** except during short period flick pass was allowed

again it's umpire interpretation that has changed plus more players with super fast handballs now

umps previously didn't give benefit of doubt if it looked "dodgy" now they do unless they clearly see a throw (which can be quite problematic)

of course players take full advantage of the ump's reluctance and game it.

i've always called for some expert slow motion video examination to study and determine how much real throwing is going on but i don't think the afl could give a rat's rz

Edited April 24, 20232 yr by daisycutter

What [censored] me is the "rule of the week" rule.

I.E  Any particular rule is interpreted strictly  ( harshly) one week and then apparently put back in the filing cabinet for some future round.

3 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Yep, TWICE!

Cripps looked totally incredulous that this happened. 

“Look, it’s me!!”

Edited April 24, 20232 yr by monoccular

Since the thread has wandered off into other issues, let me add another:

The 'stand' rule was introduced to stop the player on the mark moving sideways so as to make it harder for the player with the ball to runoff and kick centrally.  So what happens now?  The player on the mark is often nowhere near the actual mark.  They take up position towards or even at where they used to waltz sideways to before the stand rule came in.  And the umpire then says 'stand' - and doesn't require him to come to the actual mark or move 5m away.   So we end up with the orginal situation and a lot more shouting by the umpires.

 

28 minutes ago, sue said:

Since the thread has wandered off into other issues, let me add another:

The 'stand' rule was introduced to stop the player on the mark moving sideways so as to make it harder for the player with the ball to runoff and kick centrally.  So what happens now?  The player on the mark is often nowhere near the actual mark.  They take up position towards or even at where they used to waltz sideways to before the stand rule came in.  And the umpire then says 'stand' - and doesn't require him to come to the actual mark or move 5m away.   So we end up with the orginal situation and a lot more shouting by the umpires.

 

and the ump doesn't insist the player with the ball goes back on the line properly

the line is a line from middle of goals through the mark extending back to player with ball

this is most noticeable when the mark is set on the wings or flanks. the player with ball invariably is way off the line,  closer to the corridor than the line, often by 10m or more