View Full Version : HITB rule with hindsight
VanBerlo=God
9 Jul 2007, 14:34
As stated by DH.Smith, the main reason this rule was introduced was due to the lack of proper policing of the illegal Pushing rule.
This is my own opinion, after discussion with other experienced umpires alike.
Main reason why the rule was introduced:
To make sure the illegal pushing rule was properly enforced. Eg. James Clement. Those sorts of pushes were supposed to be paid as free kicks under the old rules, as they have been since day dot (or day of introduction), but have not been paid. As a consequence, the AFL introduced a difficult yet obvious way to bring back proper interpretation.
While it is not always fair, or easy to police, it can be argued that the rule has had success with eliminating illegal pushing.
The rule
In writing is a simpler version of illegal pushing.
Any hands in the back should be adjudicated as an illegal push out against the infringing player, regardless of where on the back the hands are. The placement shall be deemed as unnecessary and illegal contact against the victim. A free kick shall be awarded to the player infringed against.
Simple eh?
Yeah right, try getting into position for that puppy. Althought I must say, it has most definitely forced umpires to be strict about illegal pushing.
The illegal pushing rule is similar, but less strict.
Any hands in the back that have made forceful contact, or propel the player forwards, or prevent the player from entering a contest, shall be awarded a free kick against. This includes and is not limited to preventing a player from backing into a contest, illegally preventing a player from entreing a contest when the ball is greater than 5 metres away from the contest, 'walking' a player under the ball with hands in the back, or pushing a player deliberately, intentionally, recklessly or negligently in the back.
Thoughts
Good for policing the original rule properly.
Will it stay? I hope not.
Will i pay any of it in the finals? hell no.
Grimreepah
9 Jul 2007, 15:10
It just creates too many painfully soft free kicks IMO, and when soft free kicks give you shots on goal it feels like a good hard fair contest has been tainted.
It was easy before - being allowed to incidentally interfere if it's in the same action as legitimately marking/spoiling or attempting to mark/spoil the ball.
That's why we say "eyes on the ball". It shows legitimacy.
If there's a clear push/bump before trying to mark, then the contact can't be incidental. Also, riding a player's back too early shows that the attempt isn't legitimate or realistic. The only exception to riding too early is if the player actually takes the mark, which is technically against the rules, but has always been paid as a mark.
The HITB "rule" is inconsistant with other contact that is allowed and not is the spirit of a tough contest. People want blatant and obvious free kicks, not netball crap.
The AFL and states leagues are the only ones using this "rule". Every other league in Australia is still using the rules in the rule book and the old interpretation. There nothing in the current rule book about HITB.
I could see this controversy happening right back in January. The inconsistant and trivial application was always bound to happen. Every umpire I officiate with is so glad we don't have to police this bulls*t rule in my comp.
As stated by DH.Smith, the main reason this rule was introduced was due to the lack of proper policing of the illegal Pushing rule
The key is "pushing". You don't start being stricter on "pushing" by paying free kicks for "touching" a player's back. That's just insane! Also, they're paying HITB even when the hands make contact to the back that is incidental to marking the footy. (Ie. in the same action.)
I don't remember anyone making huge complaints about marking contest free kicks last year, so there couldn't have been much wrong. The key is, if you're realistic attempting to mark or spoil the ball, then there should be no free kick, as it has been for at least the last 25 years.
I never did rate D. H-S. as a good umpire... There's a give difference between knowing exactly what the rules say and how they are applied a match. Someone can know the rule book inside-out but have no idea how to umpire a footy match.
VanBerlo=God
9 Jul 2007, 15:42
doesn't matter if he was terrible or not, what he said was the accurate truth.
It has increased awareness for the hands in the back, and as a result, more pushes are being paid.
Since round 6 probably, there haven't been many hands in the back frees.
I agree with the rule. Keep hands out of backs. simple.
doesn't matter if he was terrible or not, what he said was the accurate truth
Mate, with all due respect, "accurate truth" is still a matter of opinion. Of course, you and HS can have an opinion. I don't have to agree with it.
My opinion is if you can't do something yourself "correctly", then there must be flaws in your own thinking. HS was a poor bouncer - it doesn't mean he's an idiot, it just means that he didn't have the right knowledge to be able to perform the skill accurately.
Stating the obvious - much knowledge can only come with EXPERIENCE. You haven't been umpiring that long. Umpire a few more years, and you'll see what I mean.
I used to think that things were more "black and white" too, but it just isn't. There's much knowledge that isn't in the public domain.
Mr Lizard
9 Jul 2007, 17:50
If umpires called the old rule/interpretation correctly, there would have been no need for a revised interpretation.
This wasn't happening. Players would get held under the ball, unrewarded. Other players would stage-dive, and be rewarded for it.
Yes, some that are paid are 'netball-soft crap-you're killing the game', but the overall effect is players are less inclined to use their hands now, for fear of being pinged. Much the same as a player will actually try (most times successfully) to clear a ball from a pack rather than be pinged for holding.
Good rule.
Will i pay any of it in the finals? hell no.
No good. Stop paying it now then.
VanBerlo=God
9 Jul 2007, 19:20
No good. Stop paying it now then.
Should revisit that and say rather:
I would not pay it unless blatantly obvious, in which case I don't anyway, unless it is clear it has happened.
Mr Lizard
9 Jul 2007, 19:54
Fair enough then. Consistent.
Is that consistent with the other umpires in your league?
If they(you) pay it consistently, whatever it is, players will learn.
VanBerlo=God
9 Jul 2007, 21:24
Fair enough then. Consistent.
Is that consistent with the other umpires in your league?
If they(you) pay it consistently, whatever it is, players will learn.
cant speak for other umpires, but its my opinion and interpretation.
VanBerlo=God
10 Jul 2007, 10:16
The key is "pushing". You don't start being stricter on "pushing" by paying free kicks for "touching" a player's back. That's just insane! Also, they're paying HITB even when the hands make contact to the back that is incidental to marking the footy. (Ie. in the same action.)
I don't remember anyone making huge complaints about marking contest free kicks last year, so there couldn't have been much wrong. The key is, if you're realistic attempting to mark or spoil the ball, then there should be no free kick, as it has been for at least the last 25 years.
I never did rate D. H-S. as a good umpire... There's a give difference between knowing exactly what the rules say and how they are applied a match. Someone can know the rule book inside-out but have no idea how to umpire a footy match.
you can't argue however, that since its introduction, there has been a higher awareness for the hands in the back, and illegal push outs.
Umpires are forced to work harder to get into position.
I personally hate the rule, and yes it does introduce a grey area.
Did he have his hands in his back? Were they in his side? Was there actually any contact? Did he use his fists or his forearm?
These are all split second decisions that have to be made on the go, proving to be difficult in a lot of cases, and in others the umpires have been in perfect positions to make the correct decisions.
Yes I am a first year umpire, but you won't see me guessing whether or not a player had their hands in the players back, I would only adjudicate as such if I was 100% certain it happened and I definitely saw it, not how far the player jumps forwards to milk a free kick.
I suppose it also comes back to having the balls to make the call.
No balls, no calls.
VanBerlo=God
10 Jul 2007, 10:25
If umpires called the old rule/interpretation correctly, there would have been no need for a revised interpretation.
This wasn't happening. Players would get held under the ball, unrewarded. Other players would stage-dive, and be rewarded for it.
Yes, some that are paid are 'netball-soft crap-you're killing the game', but the overall effect is players are less inclined to use their hands now, for fear of being pinged. Much the same as a player will actually try (most times successfully) to clear a ball from a pack rather than be pinged for holding.
Good rule.
No good. Stop paying it now then.
You should see some of the contests now, still getting players jumping over the top of each other, but only when they can actually make contact with the ball, not to make a nuisance of themselves in a marking contest.
You also see with AFL matches, it hasn't really had that much effect on the games, only a few publicised results (richmond v essendon).
There is always worry it will happen in a grand final, but isn't there worry that in a GF under several revamped interpretations, that a free kick may still be given at a crucial match winning point?
It will probably stay, and gotta say it has eliminated the ugliness of several defenders like clement. Geez I don't miss seeing that hack :o
And, you get the 'brain' packing footballers who use their bodies, those like goodes, brown, hird, harvey, glass etc.
bourbons
10 Jul 2007, 10:32
It just creates too many painfully soft free kicks IMO, and when soft free kicks give you shots on goal it feels like a good hard fair contest has been tainted.
Exactly, its worse than the problem it was brought in to fix (which personally I didn't think was a problem anyway).
The cure is worse than the disease.
Bob_vic
10 Jul 2007, 19:36
you can't argue however, that since its introduction, there has been a higher awareness for the hands in the back, and illegal push outs.
Umpires are forced to work harder to get into position.
I personally hate the rule, and yes it does introduce a grey area.
Did he have his hands in his back? Were they in his side? Was there actually any contact? Did he use his fists or his forearm?
These are all split second decisions that have to be made on the go, proving to be difficult in a lot of cases, and in others the umpires have been in perfect positions to make the correct decisions.
Yes I am a first year umpire, but you won't see me guessing whether or not a player had their hands in the players back, I would only adjudicate as such if I was 100% certain it happened and I definitely saw it, not how far the player jumps forwards to milk a free kick.
I suppose it also comes back to having the balls to make the call.
No balls, no calls.
I think you've really nailed everything on the head. No matter how well an umpire gets himself into position, some frees will still be missed. Making free kicks LESS blantant and obvious makes it harder to be consistant. By paying only the blatant and obvious free kicks, it's more consistant, less free kicks are paid, the players are happy that they are being protected/rewarded, the game is free flowing and players aren't scared to play hard.
I reckon the aim is to get through the game with minimal lineball decisions. A day with many lineball decisions (which can be unavoidable from time to time) will usually mean people will think the umpiring is inconsistant. The umpire might notice the slight differences between the decisions, but you'll have a hard time convincing everyone else of two different decisions on similar (but not the same) incidents.
docker_azza
10 Jul 2007, 22:33
As stated by DH.Smith, the main reason this rule was introduced was due to the lack of proper policing of the illegal Pushing rule.
This is my own opinion, after discussion with other experienced umpires alike.
Main reason why the rule was introduced:
To make sure the illegal pushing rule was properly enforced. Eg. James Clement. Those sorts of pushes were supposed to be paid as free kicks under the old rules, as they have been since day dot (or day of introduction), but have not been paid. As a consequence, the AFL introduced a difficult yet obvious way to bring back proper interpretation.
While it is not always fair, or easy to police, it can be argued that the rule has had success with eliminating illegal pushing.
The rule
In writing is a simpler version of illegal pushing.
Any hands in the back should be adjudicated as an illegal push out against the infringing player, regardless of where on the back the hands are. The placement shall be deemed as unnecessary and illegal contact against the victim. A free kick shall be awarded to the player infringed against.
Simple eh?
Yeah right, try getting into position for that puppy. Althought I must say, it has most definitely forced umpires to be strict about illegal pushing.
The illegal pushing rule is similar, but less strict.
Any hands in the back that have made forceful contact, or propel the player forwards, or prevent the player from entering a contest, shall be awarded a free kick against. This includes and is not limited to preventing a player from backing into a contest, illegally preventing a player from entreing a contest when the ball is greater than 5 metres away from the contest, 'walking' a player under the ball with hands in the back, or pushing a player deliberately, intentionally, recklessly or negligently in the back.
Thoughts
Good for policing the original rule properly.
Will it stay? I hope not.
Will i pay any of it in the finals? hell no.
Fair enough.
What I have notices though is players getting away with putting their elbows and forearms in the back. Which I think should be an ITB free.
VanBerlo=God
12 Jul 2007, 16:54
Fair enough.
What I have notices though is players getting away with putting their elbows and forearms in the back. Which I think should be an ITB free.
true, it does promote other methods of getting an unfair advantage.
removes the hands, but offers an elbow or forearm...
giantsully
13 Jul 2007, 16:44
It just creates too many painfully soft free kicks IMO, and when soft free kicks give you shots on goal it feels like a good hard fair contest has been tainted.
This is the main problem for me - when you have a situation like the goal for Lucas last week when Scarlett "rested" his hand on the back for a split second then this is not a contest I want to see in our game.