The Rubbish Hands in the back Rule, Costs a win

[Deano74 156]

The new rule of Hands in the Back, is driving me crazy! Surely you should be able to put your hands on someones back, as long as you dont push them out of the contest. Davey was robbed of a goal, and thus victory, when a free kicked was given to Port in the dying moments. This rule needs to be thrown out. There are to many soft free kicks given.

[Harcourt 146]

the thing that annoys me is the that, at the end of last season NOBODY said "gee people having their hands in the back of their opponent is ruining the game". Now people are saying the exact opposite. Kevin Bartlett was a great player but as one of the member of the rules committee he has totally farked up the game. This will be his lasting leagcy. The bloke should have his house petrol bombed. Why have 100 year dinasaurs on the rule committee? The bloke is a joke. I know I'm being harsh but quite frankly if you disagree you are a [censored].

Reverse this stupid rule if you have any brains at all AFL.

[deanox 8,629]

there is no problem with the rule. there never has been, it is how people wish to interpret it.

you could never, and still cant, place your hands on and opponents back. if a player backs into you no worries. you cannot ever get leverage with your hands, but balance should be fine. the reason they tightened down on the rule was so there was no grey area cos the umpires didnt call it properly. now there is no excuse for the umpires. apparently you cannot 'oush' with a forearm or closed fist. thats bs, of course you can...

[DeeBest 13]

Kevin Bartlett

I can only imagine he'll be cutting a number of callers off tomorrow morning on SEN.

[drdrake 3,038]

they should look at the holding the ball rule, the amount of good tackles we layed today for the port player to what i saw incorrectly dispose of the ball, they just dropped it when our tackle stuck. not once but many times.

[Gorgoroth 12,325]

but bar the 1 time i remember them paying it against bell i cant remember them paying any to either side

[deanox 8,629]

but bar the 1 time i remember them paying it against bell i cant remember them paying any to either side

thats the problem - they didnt.

the holding the ball rule is one of the fundamental rules of our game. you cant run with it, you need to bounce it occassionally. body contact is allowed as long as the ball is within 5 metres and you don't hold a player (unless he has the ball). the mark. the scoring system. the holding the ball rule.

if you have the ball you must use it.

if you have prior opportunity, it is holding the ball if you are tackled and retarded. that means if you get the ball, run 5 metres get tackled and pulled off your line, it is holding the ball. if you get swung in a circle, it is holding the ball. if you fall over it is holding the ball.

if you didnt have prior oppertunity you must dispose of the ball immediately other wise it is holding the ball. you cannot just hold it because you didnt have prior opportunity.

the exceptions. if the ball is knocked free in the process of the tackle. if the ball is pinned to a player by another player.

dropping the ball when you are tackled (not having it knocked out of your hands) is holding the ball.

trying to break a tackle and failing and then looking to handpass to the second option is holding the ball.

grabbing the ball and holding on without trying to get rid of it, while you are being tackled is holding the ball.

this rule is not paid and it should be...

[45HG 1,539]

i want to know how in hell moloney got done for holding the ball on members wing. no one called for it, there hadn't been any all day. where did it come from? let alone the fact he was biffed in the head. a minute later, tredrea holds carroll and gets a free. what in the world

[Pates 9,537]

I think the main problem today was that hey weren't consistent with what they were paying. Early on it seemed like the umps had made the call to keep the whistle in the pocket and not too call the push-in-the-back rule to harshly (Neitz not being paid early in the second one example). The thing that bugged me was that AT THE END of the game, right when it's preferred that they don't get involved, the ump decided to change his mind and pay the soft PITB rule.

Keep it consistent, that's all we ask for.

(PS. I don't i've ever been more livid with a umpiring decision than after the Junior got done for deliberate, that umpire should read the rule book backwards before he even thinks about stepping out onto a footy field again) :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Rogue 585]

I know I've commented on it in another thread, but the McDonald FA for deliberate was terrible.

I also thought the free kick against Carroll was poor too.

I'd rather the holding the ball rule be modified so that good tacklers and players who make the play are both rewarded.

Have prior opportunity, get tackled, and legally get rid of the ball in a timely fashion? Play on.

Have prior opportunity, get tackled, and don't legally get rid of the ball in a timely fashion? Free kick against, even if the 'ball is held to him' or 'arms were pinned'.

[DemonDoug 0]

If the rule stays, they HAVE to apply it consistently. Neitz got a subtle push in the back early in the game, no free so we missed what would have been an easy goal. Then they pay it against him at the end and we lose. Where is the consistency there !

[grazman 6,460]

The worst example on the weekend was the free they paid against Fevola, - watching the replay of the Neita Free Kick I thought that the free paid was fair enough, he gave the Port player a decent shove in the back after the marking contest to give Aaron the space to kick the goal.

The real problem isn't the law it's the interpretation, you can't push a player in the back, that's been the rule since for ever, but for the last twenty or thirty years blokes have been pushing and shoving each other and using their hands to climb for marks, I think that the umpires should go back to what the law was designed for, to stop players being unfairly taken out of marking contests.

[layzie 28,769]

To be quite honest I'm getting a bit sick of changing rules for the sake of changing rules. First its the choppingthe arms rule which I still don't agree with, then there's the mark in the goal square going straight back rule (what is the point). I'm sure there are more but this hands in the back one takes the cake. It is so inconsistent its not funny. Bunch of bs. A few weeks ago I went to the game against Freo with a friend who knew nothing about the game and explaining it was the hardest thing to do because there are just too many rules that are inconsistenly enforced. I would hate to be learning how to play this game right now!

[demon_josh_au 0]

Wouldn't mind so much if the maggots were consistent, but basically they aren’t.

Where was Neitz’s free for hands in the back in the 3rd qtr?

Where was our free for deliberate out of bounds (which was obvious) in the 3rd qtr against Cornes I think?

Where were our soft frees for absolutely nothing in front of goal like that whingeing poonce Tradre got in the 3rd?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The worst example on the weekend was the free they paid against Fevola, - watching the replay of the Neita Free Kick I thought that the free paid was fair enough, he gave the Port player a decent shove in the back after the marking contest to give Aaron the space to kick the goal.

The real problem isn't the law it's the interpretation, you can't push a player in the back, that's been the rule since for ever, but for the last twenty or thirty years blokes have been pushing and shoving each other and using their hands to climb for marks, I think that the umpires should go back to what the law was designed for, to stop players being unfairly taken out of marking contests.

Correct.

We could look at the fact we had more inside 50s, kick 9 goals from 26 shots as the cause.

Too hard for some.

Lets blame the umpires.

[QueenC 74]

To be quite honest I'm getting a bit sick of changing rules for the sake of changing rules.

I agree with you here layzie.......

Enough is enough with the rule changes. Maybe there can be a moratorium on any further rule changes for the next couple of seasons to let the game get back to normality without the yelling and screaming and uncertainty that happens each and every time they tinker with something that isn't necessarily broken.

The difference here as I see it, and please someone correct me if I am wrong, is that the shoving or pushing of an opponent in the back with your hands in a contest is illegal (and rightfully so) and has been for some time, but the changes that have been made over the off season have had that ramped up to making a penalty out of even placing the hands on the back of and opponent, even if no pushing was involved.

And Graz and Rhino are right, the one on Friday night against Fevola was appalling. As he put no obvious pressure on his opponent, he just put his hands there, but he certainly didn't push him out of the contest. Which is what I thought the original rule was established to protect.

But if my interpretation is right (and that is totally debatable, believe me!!) then it also becomes pretty bloody difficult for an umpire to actually see let alone penalise the infringement consistantly given that the sport is a body contact one (apparently) and there is always pushing and shoving in and out of the contest.

But in the end it unfortunately all comes down to consistency. And that is all I really ask for from the umpiring.

And this is something that has been bellowed about for a very long time in relation to nearly everything the AFL touches. But in the context of the second half, the free kicks awarded against us seemed massively out of place and to came from nowhere, therefore they were not constant.

Plus that particular rule interpretation wasn't held up in reverse (eg Neitz being pushed in the back, and the Tredrea goal) on a few occasions throughout the game that I can remember. And the McDonald out of bounds was simply a very bad and totally inaccurate call.

But at the end of the day, while they certainly didn't help and the finish was horribly frustrating, the umpires didn't really cost us the game, we did that !!!

[sideshowbob 0]

I probably shouldn't be posting as i have nothing further to add, but I agree that we shouldn't be changing the rules, I agree that the decisions were inconsistent yetserday and that is what should be looked at, and I agree that the umpiring had no effect on the win-loss colum - it was all our own fault!

[Deano74 156]

Well its a few weeks later and this stupid rule is still effecting results, The Tigers would have won the game off Richo's boot had a free kick not been paid against him for hands in the back. This is the softest worst complete Bulls*** rule and they have to get rid of it. Just wait till later in the year it could cost a team a chance to make the 8 or worst a final.

[Real Demon 232]

Well its a few weeks later and this stupid rule is still effecting results, The Tigers would have won the game off Richo's boot had a free kick not been paid against him for hands in the back. This is the softest worst complete Bulls*** rule and they have to get rid of it. Just wait till later in the year it could cost a team a chance to make the 8 or worst a final.

Under the current interpretation, it was a free kick............but Robert Walls makes a good point saying that for 15 years of Richos career, it wasn't, now all of a sudden this season it is.

Pathetic rule change............the increased involvement by the umpires in the game is seriously starting to turn me off AFL at the minute.

[Deano74 156]

Under the current interpretation, it was a free kick............but Robert Walls makes a good point saying that for 15 years of Richos career, it wasn't, now all of a sudden this season it is.

Pathetic rule change............the increased involvement by the umpires in the game is seriously starting to turn me off AFL at the minute.

I agree the umpire was following the rules, its not his fault its the D**kheads who brought it in

[CHAMP 347]

I agree the umpire was following the rules, its not his fault its the D**kheads who brought it in

The new interpretation I understand was to bring back the contested mark. It has had the reverse effect. Bartlett would not know much about it. Gieschen was a hack "utility" who played 24 games with Footscray over 5 seasons; exactly why he was appointed has always been a mystery to me. The longer he coached Richmond the further he brought them down. He neither brings much to the table. It is against the instincts of a player not to hold his ground with the hands. The interpretation encourages players to exaggerate even the slightest contact in the back. If the rule remains in place a whole new generation of Matthew Lloyds will be born.

[Gorgoroth 12,325]

yep a technically correct free but seriously what a joke, it should have been, mark to richo, play on and goal!

walls, qauters, christo and andy maher all said pretty much it has too go, wallsy said its ruining the game and casuing more anger on the field and off than any other rule ever bought in

[Chelly 742]

yep a technically correct free but seriously what a joke, it should have been, mark to richo, play on and goal!

walls, qauters, christo and andy maher all said pretty much it has too go, wallsy said its ruining the game and casuing more anger on the field and off than any other rule ever bought in

I saw an unbelievable umpiring decision yesterday in the first 15 seconds of the Brisbane Collingwood game. Lockyer got the ball and was tackled and dispossesed by #7 of Brisbane. The momentum of the tackle saw the Brisbane player ending up on Lockyer's back. Both commentators (one of them was Jason Dunstall?) said "great tackle" and the umpire called "play on".

Eat your heart out James McDonald!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I saw an unbelievable umpiring decision yesterday in the first 15 seconds of the Brisbane Collingwood game. Lockyer got the ball and was tackled and dispossesed by #7 of Brisbane. The momentum of the tackle saw the Brisbane player ending up on Lockyer's back. Both commentators (one of them was Jason Dunstall?) said "great tackle" and the umpire called "play on".

Eat your heart out James McDonald!

I though that the James McDonald decision last week was the right one.

Momentum or no momentum, he pushed him in the back.

[Jaded No More 57,978]

I though that the James McDonald decision last week was the right one.

Momentum or no momentum, he pushed him in the back.

I think he was referring to the Jame McDonland 'push in the back' against the Dogs, which was clearly NOT a push in the back.

The hands in the back rule has got to go down in history as the most idiotic over-ruling of our game.

I remember when it first came in and I brought it up here and complained that it will be too difficult to umpire and will ruin the game. A lot of people disagreed at the time, but I guess now everyone apart from the AFL itself has realised that there is nothing worse than manipulating rules that have been set in place for years.

It is completely unnecessary, when we have never had a problem of pushing players out of a contest. In the past, when a push was really obvious, they payed the free and it was fine. I've never heard a supporter complain that players pushing one another in the back is ruining the spectacle of the game. This stupid rule on the other hand...

I understand when they bring in new rules to protect the players from getting hurt, but nobody has ever suffered from being pushed in the back by an opponent. This isn't under 10's FFS, we WANT to see a contest.

As Richo said last night, he's been playing for 15 years and for 15 years his mark would have been deemed ok. Why fix things that aren't broken?