NEW UMP. INTERPRETATION.....

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,794]

I noticed on Thursday, and especially today in the Mudpies match, the umps are being strict on not allowing players much time to take their kick after a free or mark. After about 5 sec. they yell "play on!" , and woe betide the guy with the ball if an opponent is a yard behind him. He gets grabbed and pinged for "holding it".

This is an error of understanding the game from the umps. In fact, if a player has a mark or free ,the rules state that he must have 5 m. leeway. The ump. should not call "play-on" if someone's less than 5m. from the guy with the ball. In fact, by absolutely exact interpretation of the laws, it should be 50m. for not being 5m. away.

Tomorrow we should pick up on this, and make sure that a defender "sneaks up" from behind on a player with a mark or free who's having trouble finding a clear option upfield. As soon as the ump yells "play on", pin him , and cause the vital turn-over.

Conversely,if it's our free , we should be ready for this error from the umps, and realise we're "fair game" from a defender less than 5m. away when we have free.

Have any other Demonlanders noticed this new interpretation?

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,794]

I just went back to the TV to see the final minutes of St K /Sydney, and what happens? Hall lurks behind Schneider who takes too long,(about 6 sec.) looking upfield after a free. Hall tackles him from behind when the Ump calls play on. Turn-over, pass to Davis at 50m. He misses. The result of the game could have changed as a result of this new interpretation, and rejection of(or ignorance of the law about) the 5m. radius of protection afforded to the player with the free kick.

Demonlanders(and the MFC footy dept) are notoriously uninterested in these niceties.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

You make a valid point.

It is something that I have seen over recent times as well.

It is a shame that the one player who has the ball is now targeted instead of protected by umpires these days.

[Guest wheres_jacka]

Demonlanders(and the MFC footy dept) are notoriously uninterested in these niceties.

OK, is it me or is this man trippin? How can else can the above sentence make sense?

Yeah it must be me......... cool!

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,794]

"OK, is it me or is this man trippin? How can else can the above sentence make sense?"

You certainly don't seem very interested, Jacka. Perhaps my impression is correct!

[deanox 9,915]

jjc i agree. i like the rules the way they are and think the interpretations stink. you should have 5 metres protections at all times. the other rules that get me are:

a player who has possession and is running and bouncing, is tackled and spun around in a circle and then handpasses. he has already had prior oportunity so the tackler should win the free kick for holding the ball.

if the player with the ball hasnt had prior opportunity then he gets tackled in a circle, before the ball is locked to him the umpire usually calls 'ball up because he didnt have prior opportunity'. this is also wrong. he didnt have 'prior opportunity' but he did have opportunity while being tackled and therefore it should be holding the ball. it should only be a ball up if the ball is pinned to him before he has a chance to get rid of it.