Hands in the Back...

[rjay 25,424]

There is a reason this has been a rule in the game for as long as I can remember.

The last few years however we have seen players being able to place hands in the back in marking contests to so called hold position or keep balance.

Briggs copped one today, resulting in serious injury...this is becoming more common.

It's time the rule was enforced as per the original rules of the game not the current stupid & dangerous interpretation.

[whatwhat say what 23,852]

Cameron braced with hands; no push

There’ll be no penalty for that action

[DeeSpencer 26,671]

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

Cameron braced with hands; no push

There’ll be no penalty for that action

Cameron was only trying to brace but with his size and momentum Briggs was shifted forward. Left him in a terrible spot.

There’s been no penalty for any of them this year, they won’t start with a pies player.

But they probably need to go back to hands in the back. Use your forearms if you want to hold space.

[rjay 25,424]

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

But they probably need to go back to hands in the back

That's the point 'Dee'...it's only a matter of time before something really bad happens with this interpretation.

 

[Gorgoroth 13,218]

You use to be taught to brace with the side of your body, let them bounce then take the mark. Now you would prob get 8 weeks for bracing with your body.

[bush demon 2,208]

If you look at the Rhettrospective 60s footage on YouTube there's a lot of biffo, but the ball player, and player in front was sacrosanct. WCE won a premiership about five years ago v Collingwood with a nod, nod, wink wink nudge, and now it seems anything goes. Head office doesn't want any implication that this is a game for pansies. Ditto those life-ending knees ... primary function of which is to take out a player.

[monoccular 17,760]

The knees driven into the back have already damn nearly killed one player, and will certainly shorten Max’s career, but nothing will happen until a CFC, CFC or GFC ‘superstar’ gets seriously injured. 

[Brownie 6,086]

Of all the rule changes in the past decade, this is the one that really frustrates me.

I always thought that getting front position was the key objective of a marking contest. Now, a lot of players just play behind and give their opponent a nudge forward with hands in the back at the last moment to mark the ball from an inferior position in the pack.

My understandning for the rule was that it allowed (mainly forwards) to not have players backing into their space to spoil so they could hold their ground. But as mentioned above, that should just be good body work to hold your ground.

Pushing people in the back has always been a foundation free kick in our game.
To allow certain circumstances where you can do it is confusing for umpires, fans and players. It's typical AFL to make these changes without thinking how "hands in the back" get's exploited over time.

Above all, it is incredibly dangerous!

I don't think the incident on the weekend was a good example. 
However, I'm really surprised that this "allowance" hasn't led to someone having their neck broken.
Every week you see players now jettisoned from a front position completely off balance as bodies come in from all angles.

It's an incredibly stupid and dangerous rule change that should be reversed

[DeeSpencer 26,671]

18 hours ago, rjay said:

That's the point 'Dee'...it's only a matter of time before something really bad happens with this interpretation.

 

Very strange that we all got used to hands in the back then it changed.

Either to boost scoring or boost Tom Hawkins! Not sure which 

[Wrecker45 3,381]

2 hours ago, Brownie said:

Of all the rule changes in the past decade, this is the one that really frustrates me.

I always thought that getting front position was the key objective of a marking contest. Now, a lot of players just play behind and give their opponent a nudge forward with hands in the back at the last moment to mark the ball from an inferior position 

 

What about the opposition player, following his man, running through some imaginary zone and reversing the free kick. Nobody knows what's going on

[Willmoy1947 4,260]

19 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

Cameron braced with hands; no push

There’ll be no penalty for that action

Sentence two, it's Collingwood.

Sentence one, it's not hard to see that by pushing,and in line with the direction of the push there just happened to be another GWS Player coming from the other side. Cameron would have seen that player along with the inevitable collision, and still pushed.

[KozzyCan 963]

Hands in the back has not been a rule for years.

[rjay 25,424]

6 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Hands in the back has not been a rule for years.

The interpretation has changed...the rule is still the rule and should be enforced.

[KozzyCan 963]

Just now, rjay said:

The interpretation has changed...the rule is still the rule and should be enforced.

A push in the back is illegal. You are allowed to place hands on the back of you're opponent without a pushing motion.

[old55 23,860]

"In the back" in field play is extinct.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 11,064]

While we're at it, the falling forward into the player in a takle is another one that needs to be policed far more heavily.  If I recall in the days before ANB was a reconsed quite acahevier type superstar, he was rubbed out for several weeks for the sort of thing you see happening every week now.

Similarly, it frustrates the heck out of me to see players get jumped on when the ball is on the ground when attempting to pick-up the loose ball.  Sure we don't want players scoping it in, sitting on it and holding up play, but give the guy actually going for the ball some protection and opptunity.  Maybe we'd see more balls comming free, more fluid ball movement around the ground and less scrimmages.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 11,064]

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

A push in the back is illegal. You are allowed to place hands on the back of you're opponent without a pushing motion.

In the back is technically illegal, but so rarely actually gets paid due to the interpretation being applied that it might as well not be there.

[Willmoy1947 4,260]

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

In the back is technically illegal, but so rarely actually gets paid due to the interpretation being applied that it might as well not be there.

Balls you must have been in the same era 60's/ 70's