View Full Version : O/T - The New Hands in the Back Rule
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 10:28
Just wondering what people think of the rule, I see there are many threads and posts on it but many posters are people who don't seem to understand it.
Talk to the majority of old timers who aren't too anti-umpire and they tell you that they all learnt the play football without touching the back of their oppostion, I guy I know who played League for South even said in the 70's (considering you could belt guys out!!) a hand in the back was a free kick. The rule seemed to be relaxed in the 80's and 90's to the point where you could push someone over as long as you look the mark.
I think the issue lies in the fact that the umpires weren't given enough time to get their skills correct to make consistent calls and the same goes for the players. However I have decided that I am coverted to the new rule and it does promote one on one football.
Thoughts ?
samdaman_2
5 Jun 2007, 10:48
i really dont see the rule as being too bad... yes supporters are getting frustrated with it but i see the rule as just a cop out as something to blame... you never have been able to "push" someone in the back, yes in the past it has seemed you are able to but the rule has always said you cannot. you are however allowed to use your forearm and body which is the way it should be... thats how most of the great full forwards of the past has done it and thats the way it should be... i just wish ppl would get over it and except it, i hope the afl keep the rule cos if they do in a year or so most players wont be putting their hands in the back anyway
i think the real thing that is actually frustrating ppl is the umpires in general... there has been only a few games this season i have watched and not thought that the umpires made way too many stupid calls... i wish they would just let the game run, let it be free flowing and put their whistle away... yes ppl will still be frustrated with the frees they miss but the game would be much more enjoyable if they are missing free kicks rather than paying way too many and ones that arent there.
I don't always agree with Robert Walls but he is correct on this topic. A free kick should only be paid when there is a "push to disadvantage", not when someone simply places their hands on an opponent's back.
It is a ridiculous over the top interpretion bought in with no trial in a pre-season, simply because in recent years umpires weren't paying free kicks that should have been paid.
The current intrepretation is a blight on the game.:thumbsd:
I don't always agree with Robert Walls but he is correct on this topic. A free kick should only be paid when there is a "push to disadvantage", not when someone simply places their hands on an opponent's back.
It is a ridiculous over the top interpretion bought in with no trial in a pre-season, simply because in recent years umpires weren't paying free kicks that should have been paid.
The current intrepretation is a blight on the game.:thumbsd:
Spot on.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 12:32
I don't always agree with Robert Walls but he is correct on this topic. A free kick should only be paid when there is a "push to disadvantage", not when someone simply places their hands on an opponent's back.
It is a ridiculous over the top interpretion bought in with no trial in a pre-season, simply because in recent years umpires weren't paying free kicks that should have been paid.
The current intrepretation is a blight on the game.:thumbsd:
that just adds another grey area
why not just leave your hands away from the back to avoid any issues with umpires trying to work out how much of a push it to disadvantage
glengowan
5 Jun 2007, 13:14
that just adds another grey area
why not just leave your hands away from the back to avoid any issues with umpires trying to work out how much of a push it to disadvantage
The AFL are trying to make everything black and white, when commonsense should be used in judging whether a player is being disadvantaged in a contest. The umpires are there for a reason.
The rule is deplorable. The amount of contests that have been ruined by an umpire awarding a pathetically soft free kick is a disgrace.
Same with the rule rewarding the player hanging back to pounce on a tackle with holding the ball instead of giving the player who gets in there a fair chance.
The rules committee should be put on a live 60 minutes style debate with the people that actually play or coach the game. I wonder how they'd argue their point?
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 13:29
The AFL are trying to make everything black and white, when commonsense should be used in judging whether a player is being disadvantaged in a contest. The umpires are there for a reason.
The rule is deplorable. The amount of contests that have been ruined by an umpire awarding a pathetically soft free kick is a disgrace.
Same with the rule rewarding the player hanging back to pounce on a tackle with holding the ball instead of giving the player who gets in there a fair chance.
The rules committee should be put on a live 60 minutes style debate with the people that actually play or coach the game. I wonder how they'd argue their point?
but they have made it black and white - if your hands are on the opponents back its a free kick - pretty simple. The umpires are yet to get it 100% (or even 90%) right yet but I think the rule works.
The umpire hasn't ruined any contests, the players have, kepp your hands off the oppositions back and you'll be fine, put your hands there and its a free kick.
as for the holding the ball rule - i've given up on that one
Markthirtytwo
5 Jun 2007, 13:38
but they have made it black and white - if your hands are on the opponents back its a free kick - pretty simple. The umpires are yet to get it 100% (or even 90%) right yet but I think the rule works.
The umpire hasn't ruined any contests, the players have, kepp your hands off the oppositions back and you'll be fine, put your hands there and its a free kick.
as for the holding the ball rule - i've given up on that one
Not quite right. Whereas all the attention has been in a marking contest, nothing is being done where a player is pushed in the back while they are in the process of disposing of the ball. Utter inconsistant bullship.
but they have made it black and white - if your hands are on the opponents back its a free kick - pretty simple. The umpires are yet to get it 100% (or even 90%) right yet but I think the rule works.
The umpire hasn't ruined any contests, the players have, kepp your hands off the oppositions back and you'll be fine, put your hands there and its a free kick.
There's a game for you - check out a team called the Thunderbirds. They play at ETSA Park with lots of black and white rules. ;)
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 13:40
Not quite right. Whereas all the attention has been in a marking contest, nothing is being done where a player is pushed in the back while they are in the process of disposing of the ball. Utter inconsistant bullship.
the rule works - the umpires haven't quite got it yet
my arguement is the rule is good ;)
CarnCrows
5 Jun 2007, 14:04
I like the intent of the rule. Hands in back = free; simple. The umpirers positioning is sometimes wrong, but they can't get everything.
Those that want 'degrees' of pushing leave the door agar for all the actors out their to throw themselves forward ie if I am holding my position with my hands and someone is pushing back hard on me, all they have to do is go forward and my hands will naturally follow, which looks like a push in the back.
Again it is pretty simple, commentators are just making it a big deal as they always reminisce about 'the good old days'. The same good old days where shit didnt smell.
The two rules I don't like are:
1. Holding the ball when on the ground
2. Chopping the arms.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 14:16
I like the intent of the rule. Hands in back = free; simple. The umpirers positioning is sometimes wrong, but they can't get everything.
Those that want 'degrees' of pushing leave the door agar for all the actors out their to throw themselves forward ie if I am holding my position with my hands and someone is pushing back hard on me, all they have to do is go forward and my hands will naturally follow, which looks like a push in the back.
Again it is pretty simple, commentators are just making it a big deal as they always reminisce about 'the good old days'. The same good old days where shit didnt smell.
The two rules I don't like are:
1. Holding the ball when on the ground
2. Chopping the arms.
I especailly agree with part 2.
I like the intent of the rule. Hands in back = free; simple. The umpirers positioning is sometimes wrong, but they can't get everything.
Those that want 'degrees' of pushing leave the door agar for all the actors out their to throw themselves forward ie if I am holding my position with my hands and someone is pushing back hard on me, all they have to do is go forward and my hands will naturally follow, which looks like a push in the back.
Again it is pretty simple, commentators are just making it a big deal as they always reminisce about 'the good old days'. The same good old days where shit didnt smell.
The two rules I don't like are:
1. Holding the ball when on the ground
2. Chopping the arms.
So should we go down the same path for all rules? High contact for example. Just about every stoppage with a few players on the ground has some degree of incidental high contact. If this was interpreted the same way the hands in the back rule is there would be a free kick every time.
How about listening to the players - forwards and backs. They want a push penalised, they don't want a non-push penalised.
The rule is a blight on the game.
Stiffy_18
5 Jun 2007, 14:39
I don't have a problem with the rule. What I do have a problem with is the inconsistent interpretations of the rule. At the start of the year, we were told that hands in the back were a No No but that forearm in the back was ok.
Well, what we are seeing now is umpires calling free kicks on what they think they see rather than what they do see. Players get pinged for something that is not there.
In theory, the rule is great but in practice there is just WAY too much margin for error and too big a grey area and as such, the rule has become a huge joke!
I don’t have a problem with the hands in the back rule. The way the rule has been described via the media makes the interpretation a lot clearer.
In most sporting rules there is black area, white areas and grey areas; the wording of this rule takes a lot of the grey area of the rule. “If someone places there hand in the back of the opponent a free kick should be given”. If every single umpires abided by the wording of the rule and gave a free kick away every single time someone placed there hands in the back of there opponent the rule would be fine.
The problem I have with this rule is the inconsistency and how liberal the umpires are with giving the free kick away.
Where I sit, I have a very good veiw of the 50 metre area and so many times during a game I can see a player push and use there hands to move the forward under the ball. Most of the time the umpire is either out of position or will not give a free kick away with 180 degree of goal. The ball goes down the other end and a different umpire sees it differently (because he has worked a bit harder to get in the correct position) and gives hands in the back free kick away, the inconsistency of the rule sucks.
The inconsistency of the rule sucks, not the rule itself.
I don't have a problem with the rule. What I do have a problem with is the inconsistent interpretations of the rule. At the start of the year, we were told that hands in the back were a No No but that forearm in the back was ok.
Well, what we are seeing now is umpires calling free kicks on what they think they see rather than what they do see. Players get pinged for something that is not there.
In theory, the rule is great but in practice there is just WAY too much margin for error and too big a grey area and as such, the rule has become a huge joke!
Snap :thumbsu:
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 14:50
Snap :thumbsu:
so you both agree the rule is correct but the umpires need to work on its execution
NikkiNoo
5 Jun 2007, 15:02
Like with most rules these days the problem is the interpretations and not the rule perse. The fact that these interpretations are changing on a weekly basis (obviously no one told Goldspink that the side is not actually a part of a back....) makes the umpires job very difficult.
My main issue is the idiots that are in charge of the Umpiring department that are forcing the umps to view contests from the wrong positions on the field. The main decisions and directions are coming from people that have not umpired and that is what is really worrying me at the moment.
so you both agree the rule is correct but the umpires need to work on its execution
Since when has the wording of the rule changed?
When have you ever been allowed to place your hands in someone back and not give a free kick away, it’s only the inconsistency of how the umpire interprets it and decides when to give that free kick away?
So to answer your question, IMO yes the rule is correct and it’s about how the umpire executes the rule.
Any rule that is good in theory but crap in practice is a crap rule! The umpires will never be able to get this one right.
By the way, check out the rule book. The AFL have not made any changes to it this year and it still describes a free being paid for a "push" in a marking contest. Who says placing your hands on an opponents back without pushing them is actually a "push"??? :confused:
The AFL is going against its own rules with this crap interpretation.:thumbsd:
Since when has the wording of the rule changed?
When have you ever been allowed to place your hands in someone back and not give a free kick away, it’s only the inconsistency of how the umpire interprets it and decides when to give that free kick away?
So to answer your question, IMO yes the rule is correct and it’s about how the umpire executes the rule.
You've always been allowed to place your hands in someones back, you just haven't been allowed to push. It's a fundamental difference that has a significant impact on the game.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2007, 15:19
Since when has the wording of the rule changed?
When have you ever been allowed to place your hands in someone back and not give a free kick away, it’s only the inconsistency of how the umpire interprets it and decides when to give that free kick away?
So to answer your question, IMO yes the rule is correct and it’s about how the umpire executes the rule.
your right - it never has
King Elvis
5 Jun 2007, 20:00
Hands ON the back - fine.
Hands IN the back - a free if they push them to disadvantage them.
Bodying out of the contest, should be fine.
I don't like the rule, but I think the major issue is the inconsistency in interpretation.
And, once again, the fact that Umpires are so often umpiring based on the players reaction, not on what they actually see.
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 13:09
Hands ON the back - fine.
Hands IN the back - a free if they push them to disadvantage them.
Bodying out of the contest, should be fine.
I don't like the rule, but I think the major issue is the inconsistency in interpretation.
And, once again, the fact that Umpires are so often umpiring based on the players reaction, not on what they actually see.
thats the point
eventually any contact with hands and backs is a free kick, players will stop putting there hands near the opposition backs and things will be fine
NikkiNoo
6 Jun 2007, 14:54
eventually any contact with hands and backs is a free kick, players will stop putting there hands near the opposition backs and things will be fine
This is the problem I have with it. The natural reaction for any human is when you are standing under a ball, someone backs into you, you are going to put your hands up to protect yourself.
What do you expect people to do Cappy? stand there with their arms by their side while someone cannons into them?
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 15:15
This is the problem I have with it. The natural reaction for any human is when you are standing under a ball, someone backs into you, you are going to put your hands up to protect yourself.
What do you expect people to do Cappy? stand there with their arms by their side while someone cannons into them?
the natural reaction of a small person in the way of a large person its to get out of the way.... they seemed to have solved that problem fairly easily. other things in sport aren't natural - bloody hell your into gymnastics and half the stuff they do seems as natural as a 8 legged donkey :D.
its called adapting....
the natural reaction of a small person in the way of a large person its to get out of the way.... they seemed to have solved that problem fairly easily. other things in sport aren't natural - bloody hell your into gymnastics and half the stuff they do seems as natural as a 8 legged donkey :D.
its called adapting....
Exactly
Exactly
In cricket over the last 15 year the interpretation of the LBW rule has basically changed because of spin bowling. In the 1970s and 1980s a batter could just kick the ball out of the rough and not expect to get out (unless it was blatantly plum). In the 1990’s and 2000 with the proficient spin bowling of Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan the batter has been forced to learn how to defend with his bat.
Before Warne came onto the cricket scene and reinvented the art of spin bowling it was totally unexpected that a spin bowler could turn the ball in angles that he did. The batter could just use his pads and kick the ball out of the way because the umpires was not going to give it out because they didn’t expect the ball to spin as much as it did and hit the stumps. Once Warne showed how gifted he was with the ball and how much turn he could give the ball, batters had to learn how to use there bats rather than there pads.
During the last Ashes series against the English side, Kevin Peterson started using his bat by playing the ball out in front of his pads to avoid the spin Warne could put on the ball and to take the chance of getting out LBW. Over the years he has learnt to adapt to how the umpires were interpreting the LBW law and changed his batting technique. So as Caps said it’s all about adapting to how the sport in being interpreted by the officials of that sport.
If the hands in the back rule stays in, either a player will adapt to the rule or get a truck load of free kick given against him.
NikkiNoo
6 Jun 2007, 15:59
the natural reaction of a small person in the way of a large person its to get out of the way.... they seemed to have solved that problem fairly easily. other things in sport aren't natural - bloody hell your into gymnastics and half the stuff they do seems as natural as a 8 legged donkey :D.
its called adapting....
So players who got to the space first and anticipated the fall of the ball better will just need to get out of the way of those guys that can't judge correctly and are a little late getting to the contest. That's your idea of adapting? Oh and small person get out of the way of a large person? Tell that to Byron and Biggles ;)
Gymnastics is natural, it's just taking the body to it's limits :D
So players who got to the space first and anticipated the fall of the ball better will just need to get out of the way of those guys that can't judge correctly and are a little late getting to the contest. That's your idea of adapting? Oh and small person get out of the way of a large person? Tell that to Byron and Biggles ;)
Gymnastics is natural, it's just taking the body to it's limits :D
From my understanding of the rule, any player is allowed to use his hips, shoulder or forearm to defend his ground; just not hands.
If a bigger player had miss read the flight of the ball and backs into me and I raise my forearm or turn and defend my ground by using my hip that is not a free kick.
The rule would best belong in another sport like gymnastics or netball.:mad:
Capitalist, I'll give you one point. The players will have to adapt to this intrepretation because Demetriou and his croonies will be too stubborn to do a backflip on this one.:mad::mad:
Unfortunately, it looks like it is here to stay and the majority of us will be moaning about it every week from here on in.:mad::mad::mad:
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 16:14
So players who got to the space first and anticipated the fall of the ball better will just need to get out of the way of those guys that can't judge correctly and are a little late getting to the contest. That's your idea of adapting? Oh and small person get out of the way of a large person? Tell that to Byron and Biggles ;)
Gymnastics is natural, it's just taking the body to it's limits :D
you missed my point then you brushed on it !! we were talking about natural reactions to things - if a bigger bloke than me comes running at me with the intent to knock me over i get out of the way, however in football i try to knock him over........
so people adapt, Byron and Biggles (who the hell is that? ) have adapted to take on people bigger than then for the sake of football.
The rule would best belong in another sport like gymnastics or netball.:mad:
Capitalist, I'll give you one point. The players will have to adapt to this intrepretation because Demetriou and his croonies will be too stubborn to do a backflip on this one.:mad::mad:
Unfortunately, it looks like it is here to stay and the majority of us will be moaning about it every week from here on in.:mad::mad:
read the rule, it never changed - it is simply being inforced. why waste your energy getting annoyed at the umpires and get annoyed at the players for doing the wrong thing by the rules of the game.
read the rule, it never changed - it is simply being inforced. why waste your energy getting annoyed at the umpires and get annoyed at the players for doing the wrong thing by the rules of the game.
I agree that the rulebook has not changed but it is not being inforced as the rule reads.
As I've said before, the rulebook actually goes AGAINST this strict and ridiculously over officious interpretation. There is no mention that placing your hands on the back should be a free, only if there is a push.
If we went back to not penalising placing hands on the back but only penalising a push, we would be getting back to what is actually in the rulebook.
If they are going to persist with this interpretation, they are going to have to change the rulebook. You would have thought they would have done that before this season!:confused:
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 16:46
I agree that the rulebook has not changed but it is not being inforced as the rule reads.
As I've said before, the rulebook actually goes AGAINST this strict and ridiculously over officious interpretation. There is no mention that placing your hands on the back should be a free, only if there is a push.
If we went back to not penalising placing hands on the back but only penalising a push, we would be getting back to what is actually in the rulebook.
If they are going to persist with this interpretation, they are going to have to change the rulebook. You would have thought they would have done that before this season!:confused:
imagine if they did go down that path - you would need 1000 replays to work out if its a push or not
imagine if they did go down that path - you would need 1000 replays to work out if its a push or not
Considering the old interpretation worked pretty well for many years without 1000 replays per incident, I doubt it.
Question for you Cappy - visualise for a second that you are stationary under an incoming ball waiting to mark it. Where are your hands?
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 17:08
Considering the old interpretation worked pretty well for many years without 1000 replays per incident, I doubt it.
Question for you Cappy - visualise for a second that you are stationary under an incoming ball waiting to mark it. Where are your hands?
probably going to mark the ball....
probably going to mark the ball....
Where are your hands if you are going to mark the ball. (Assume the ball is still half way to getting to you).
By your sides?
Over your head?
In front of your chest?
Tucked behind your back?
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 17:18
Where are your hands if you are going to mark the ball. (Assume the ball is still half way to getting to you).
By your sides?
Over your head?
In front of your chest?
Tucked behind your back?
going from memory I was a hands in the air type of guy (to my side)
I was a full back, so my hands were never anywhere near the back of my opponent, learnt that early...
NikkiNoo
6 Jun 2007, 17:19
you missed my point then you brushed on it !! we were talking about natural reactions to things - if a bigger bloke than me comes running at me with the intent to knock me over i get out of the way, however in football i try to knock him over........
so people adapt, Byron and Biggles (who the hell is that? ) have adapted to take on people bigger than then for the sake of football.
Biggles = Biglands. Now think back to a certain final in 2005 and a legitimate bump that occured between a smaller bloke (byron) and a much larger fellow (biglands)..... It's all about a centre of gravity and the ability to know how to use it.
You're explanation is sounding like a Jericho move on the football field, and we all know how much value we place on players being strong at the contest and not shirking the hard stuff. I will try and explain better my thoughts
1. Ball kicked by team A into their forward line.
2. Defender from team B sees it coming and can tell where the ball is going to land so is gets to that spot first.
3. Forward from team A led too far forward so starts to back back watching the ball.
4. Defender from team B stands their ground as they got their first.
Ok here is my question - when the forward backs into the defender what should the defender do? According to you he should step out of the way to allow that nice forward to mark the ball. Shouldn't the defender be allowed to protect themselves and the space that they are occupying? isn't the natural and possibly the only way that the defender can protect that space and the fall of the ball is with their hands or their forearm on the forward? You don't want to allow the body contact, as that can knock you off the space and not allow you to contest the ball.
Isn't football a contact sport that contains contests?
Capitalist
6 Jun 2007, 17:24
Biggles = Biglands. Now think back to a certain final in 2005 and a legitimate bump that occured between a smaller bloke (byron) and a much larger fellow (biglands)..... It's all about a centre of gravity and the ability to know how to use it.
You're explanation is sounding like a Jericho move on the football field, and we all know how much value we place on players being strong at the contest and not shirking the hard stuff. I will try and explain better my thoughts
1. Ball kicked by team A into their forward line.
2. Defender from team B sees it coming and can tell where the ball is going to land so is gets to that spot first.
3. Forward from team A led too far forward so starts to back back watching the ball.
4. Defender from team B stands their ground as they got their first.
Ok here is my question - when the forward backs into the defender what should the defender do? According to you he should step out of the way to allow that nice forward to mark the ball. Shouldn't the defender be allowed to protect themselves and the space that they are occupying? isn't the natural and possibly the only way that the defender can protect that space and the fall of the ball is with their hands or their forearm on the forward? You don't want to allow the body contact, as that can knock you off the space and not allow you to contest the ball.
Isn't football a contact sport that contains contests?
what ? when did I say he was should get out of the way ???
Yes the defender should stand his ground, he has an entire body to use, don't use your hands - its not that difficult....
saying that there used to be a rule which protected player B, but i'm not sure if that exists anymore :confused:
going from memory I was a hands in the air type of guy (to my side)
I was a full back, so my hands were never anywhere near the back of my opponent, learnt that early...
I'm not talking about when you've got your opponent hanging off you, I'm talking about when you are standing all by yourself (you think) and you are waiting to mark it. It's particularly so if you are camped under a Simon Tregenza style lob kick.
It's a rhetorical question in a way, because I tried it with a few other dads at an Auskick clinic the other day while we were arguing this question. To a man, every person who stood waiting for a mark has their hands somewhere in front of the chest, ready to adapt to whether it's going to be an overhead grab, a chest mark or something in between by the time the ball gets there.
What it means, also inevitably, is that the first point of contact between you, camped under the footy, and an opponent who you are not aware of but takes front position, is going to be your hands and their body. Why? Because your hands are the furthest extremity of your body at this time. It doesn't mean you push them, but it's the first point of contact.
Now, if you are aware early enough, sure, you can turn your body to use your hip, your body, your shoulder, whatever. If it's a high ball, and remembering your vertical peripheral vision is not as good as your horizontal peripheral vision, there's every chance that you don't have the awareness of the opponent in time to make that adjustment, so contact between your hands and your opponent is almost not preventable.
Now, I accept that when we are talking about AFL footballers as opposed to retired schoolyard hacks like me we are talking about greater adaptation and peripheral vision than I can possibly realise. However, having seen umpire after umpire screw up this year ("your hands were all over his number" when they were on a hip, or not even touching), I cannot accept that the current interpretation of contact or no contact makes it any easier for the umps than determining if there was a push or not a push.
That's why the interpretation stinks.
FWIW, I was a full back too, so I share your pain. :D
ams4crows
6 Jun 2007, 18:29
so if I used my Fore Arm to withhold my oppositon player backing back into me that is totaly legal cos....
A I'm not using by hand (open palm)
B. I'm not pushing just resting
C.......well i don't have a C option but it makes it look better!
King Elvis
6 Jun 2007, 20:50
I don't think it's a coincidence that this rule wasn't trialled in the NAB Cup either.
They knew what the reaction would be to it, so they snuck it in the back door.
Disgraceful.