I reckon that almost every dropped contested mark involves arm chopping by the player trying to spoil. Similarly, most contested marks are partly a result of clever blocking by a team-mate. Like with “ ruck-lotto”, every now and then an umpire will pay a free for a block or an arm chop.

Collingwood still whinge about the block on Maynard when Dom Sheed took the GF winning mark. But it happens, unpenalised all the time. The commentators compliment the players on a “clever block.”

Similarly, with pushing in the back in marking contests . A principle of our game is to play in front. But if you do, the guy behind gives you a shove, a nudge or a bump in the back and marks it as if unopposed. Every now and then an umpire will pay a push in the back, but nowhere near often enough, in my opinion.

Are those marks recorded as “ contested”, when the man in front is just shoved out of the way?

Was arm-chopping against the rules years ago? Or is it a relatively new rule?

It is a real bug bear of mine as well TP, it has become chronic this year and the 4 umpires seem oblivious to seeing people fly out of packs or worse when packs collapse onto each other. Our AFL Administrators need to reel it in before it becomes the “norm” in the juniors as well. Thanks for pointing it out.

Agree. The blocking is an absolute blight, and the ex-player commentators love it, constantly gushing about it. Just imagine how great Larkey, Hogan or Sam Darcy could be if they were free to launch, and defenders had to re-learn how to beat their man.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Was arm-chopping against the rules years ago? Or is it a relatively new rule?

2005. Before that year, it was open season on punches to the back of the arms/hands, and general sideswipes taking out the head as well.

      This was also the year that they introduced the 10 m circle for the CB contest – presumably to stop the Ruckmen from running and jumping for the tap - one of the ancient highlights of the game, and introduce the CB wrestle, which everybody loves today.

2 hours ago, DeeZone said:

It is a real bug bear of mine as well TP, it has become chronic this year and the 4 umpires seem oblivious to seeing people fly out of packs or worse when packs collapse onto each other. Our AFL Administrators need to reel it in before it becomes the “norm” in the juniors as well. Thanks for pointing it out.

14 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Agree. The blocking is an absolute blight, and the ex-player commentators love it, constantly gushing about it. Just imagine how great Larkey, Hogan or Sam Darcy could be if they were free to launch, and defenders had to re-learn how to beat their man.

Lots of blocking doesn’t get paid, but I think they are trying to cut it back as much as possible – bear in mind that there are very 1:1 contests in the modern game, or anyway a hell of a lot less than the 1980s when the blocks were much easier to see.

I don’t think that the changes to the interpretation of the push in the back rule have been successful. It’s very much like 1995 again. You should be able to use your arms to create space, but not send players flying across the ground. This rule was generally well applied up to 2006, when it got out of control again, and the 2007 “not allowed to touch the player in front of you” rule was introduced. I can’t believe we had to put up with that [censored] for 12 years.

Basically, the umpire needs to forget about the push in the back rule unless it’s obviously interfering with the player in the front/dominant position. This is for marking contests and ruck contests. The only other time is during a tackle, which is completely different as the players are generally on the ground. They also need to forget about paying a free kick for chasing and touching a player as they are about to kick the ball. Should only be a free kick down field if the player has been truly mugged – not just if he falls over.

The AFL have shamefully allowed player interference to go on without reprisal.

Players attempting to mark are interfered with all the time. Max gets interfered with at almost every marking attempt.

Every good ball player gets grabbed and held and impeded at every contest.

Wrestling happens at every ruck contest.

Watching the 1964 GF was like a breath of fresh air. Players went for the ball not the man.

12 hours ago, DiscoStu17 said:

Before that year, it was open season on punches to the back of the arms/hands, and general sideswipes taking out the head as well.

This was also the year that they introduced the 10 m circle for the CB contest – presumably to stop the Ruckmen from running and jumping for the tap - one of the ancient highlights of the game, and introduce the CB wrestle, which everybody loves today.

I didn't realise it was that far back.

I think this is a great example of "stop changing the rules" having its limitations. This was a much-needed rule to stop what was essentially institutionalised cheating. Same with front-on contact.

The 10-metre circle, from memory, was a response to a perceived rise in PCL injuries. I think Goodes stopped rucking because of a PCL, and the theory was if you removed the big run up and the prospect of huge shin-on-shin collisions, you might get fewer injuries of that kind.

12 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Agree. The blocking is an absolute blight, and the ex-player commentators love it, constantly gushing about it. Just imagine how great Larkey, Hogan or Sam Darcy could be if they were free to launch, and defenders had to re-learn how to beat their man.

Don’t disagree, however forwards can block defenders for their key targets as well. The thing that does my head in about the game is that “incorrect disposal” isn’t a thing anymore. You have people being tackled that don’t kick or handball the footy ie incorrect disposal that get rewarded with free kicks for holding the man. It’s fundamentally wrong.

1 hour ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

....

The 10-metre circle, from memory, was a response to a perceived rise in PCL injuries. I think Goodes stopped rucking because of a PCL, and the theory was if you removed the big run up and the prospect of huge shin-on-shin collisions, you might get fewer injuries of that kind.

I think that is right, but it has led to a very ugly wrestle. Why not just limit how far the ruckmen can run before they can impact the opponent thereby limiting the force of the encounter. Doing away with the erratic bounce would help too. Umpires to throw it up to a height designed to ensure the rucks can get to the ball before they get to each other and start wrestling.

Edited Tuesday at 23:322 days by sue

2 hours ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

I didn't realise it was that far back.

I think this is a great example of "stop changing the rules" having its limitations. This was a much-needed rule to stop what was essentially institutionalised cheating. Same with front-on contact.

The 10-metre circle, from memory, was a response to a perceived rise in PCL injuries. I think Goodes stopped rucking because of a PCL, and the theory was if you removed the big run up and the prospect of huge shin-on-shin collisions, you might get fewer injuries of that kind.

Yes, it was a direct response to PCL injuries to Goodes and others, which I think was largely misguided. If you want to now jump at the ball, it will be at the same time and opposite direction as the opposition – you each get about three steps, which surely must cause more problems. When you could decide for yourself whether you wanted to go back 5 m – 20 m and jump early or late, there was less chance of a direct clash. The random nature of the bounce also stopped direct clashes, but it’s unrealistic to expect umpires to be able to bounce the ball that high anymore – especially without the plate in the middle, which was removed following Rehn‘s injury in 1996.

It didn’t stop Goodes getting another PCL injury in the 2012 GF, so was it just something about the way he jumped?

I would like to see the Ruckmen required to start outside the 10m circle, with their foot touching the line. Ideally, the circle should become 15m. This would only work if the blocking infringement was re-introduced. This is a key part of our game in all contests. Players need to be able to make the ball their priority. If players are not going for the ball, what are they doing?

23 minutes ago, DiscoStu17 said:

largely misguided

Definitely.

What they now have in ruck contests is absurd. Numerous rules that apply everywhere else, just get ignored in the ruck. If Brodie Grundy did what he does in the ruck as a key defender, he'd have 45 free kicks against him a game.

The AFL is obsessed with "the product" (on of the most insidious terms in all of footy), but have turned rucking into the ugliest, most uninteresting contest imaginable.

21 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Definitely.

What they now have in ruck contests is absurd. Numerous rules that apply everywhere else, just get ignored in the ruck. If Brodie Grundy did what he does in the ruck as a key defender, he'd have 45 free kicks against him a game.

The AFL is obsessed with "the product" (on of the most insidious terms in all of footy), but have turned rucking into the ugliest, most uninteresting contest imaginable.

And so much ugly wresting goes on that it is a complete toss-up as to when and to whom a free kick is awarded.

16 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

The AFL have shamefully allowed player interference to go on without reprisal.

Players attempting to mark are interfered with all the time. Max gets interfered with at almost every marking attempt.

Every good ball player gets grabbed and held and impeded at every contest.

Wrestling happens at every ruck contest.

Watching the 1964 GF was like a breath of fresh air. Players went for the ball not the man.

Despite Max getting infringed in just about every marking contest he still is second for highest contested mark averages per game for players with 500 or more contested marks. Truly a superstar.

I never knew why the arm chopping rule came in and don't know why it has lasted this long to be honest. A key forward worth their salt in physical strength can be arm chopped all day and still pull marks in.

Doesn't get nearly enough heat that rule.

Edited Wednesday at 07:531 day by layzie

It frustrates me too, that the game is moving away from contested marking due to the chopping rules. A lot are not chopping but just arm contact in the marking contest. Although I will hijack this thread to moan about players that throw themselves forward when tackled and receive "In the back" frees, there are a few bulldog players that are masters of this.

11 minutes ago, Demon_spurs said:

I will hijack this thread to moan about players that throw themselves forward when tackled and receive "In the back" frees

One particular Hawthorn player has become so adept at this manoeuvre that he has been selected to represent his country.

14 hours ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Don’t disagree, however forwards can block defenders for their key targets as well. The thing that does my head in about the game is that “incorrect disposal” isn’t a thing anymore. You have people being tackled that don’t kick or handball the footy ie incorrect disposal that get rewarded with free kicks for holding the man. It’s fundamentally wrong.

Totally agree. The other aspect is when the ball spills free and is taken away by the team that incorrectly disposed of it and becomes part of a quality forward ball movement chain. The tackling team is actually disadvantaged in these instances, which is counter to what should be the case.

With respect to holding the ball in general, I feel that the AFL has also let it slip on two aspects:

1. The time allowed to dispose of it has gone up drastically from the 80s;

2. Players are being allowed to dive on the ball and being penalised in very few instances, which is also a significant relaxation from when that rule was bought in. Only if it gets raked back in blatantly are the always called or at others its a lottery;

The impact of 1 & 2 is to slow up and bottle up the game more.

On 15/07/2025 at 17:37, sue said:

Was arm-chopping against the rules years ago? Or is it a relatively new rule?

5 hours ago, layzie said:

I never knew why the arm chopping rule came in and don't know why it has lasted this long to be honest. A key forward worth their salt in physical strength can be arm chopped all day and still pull marks in.

Doesn't get nearly enough heat that rule.

When I played juniors I recall assistant coach who had played U19s footy for Collingwood back in the 70s (Bruce Armstrong I recall) who gave us the advice based on his playing days that if you can't reach to punch the ball, then punch the inside of their arm, such that even if they hold the mark, at the end of the day they will have a sore/brused arm. That's pretty much the Collingwood way right?

Ex Bomber David Shaw coached me in the Ormond College footy team in the late 60’s. He told us, if we couldn’t reach to spoil, punch the back of the head, because the player loses vision momentarily.

I don’t think we did it.

But Newman did!

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

When I played juniors I recall assistant coach who had played U19s footy for Collingwood back in the 70s (Bruce Armstrong I recall) who gave us the advice based on his playing days that if you can't reach to punch the ball, then punch the inside of their arm, such that even if they hold the mark, at the end of the day they will have a sore/brused arm. That's pretty much the Collingwood way right?

Absolutely Balls, totally agree. We were taught the same way, if you can't punch the ball then punch their arms. Obviously don't hold the arm but disrupt any way possible.

It seemed like another dippy dappy thing they brought in purely to increase scoring.