In The Back Rule (Not Hands In The Back)

[diesel and dust]

Can someone point me towards the exact rule for pushing or landing on an opponent's back?


I find this the most inconsistent rule in the game...... but no-one else seems to mention it, so i'm assuming there is something in the wording of the rule that will suddenly make it crystal clear

[Bomberland06]

Worst rule ever i hate it and they need to change back the rule at seasons end.:mad:

[andrepetz]

Worst rule ever i hate it and they need to change back the rule at seasons end.:mad:

I don't think hes talking about the new rule, but just the wording of the original push in the back rule for an actual push, ie Landing on the opponents back in a tackle, or an actual push as they kick it.

[Panch]

i hate seeing players purposely diving forward when under pressure. it seems they are more interesting in throwing their weight forward in the hope that a player will make contact with them, making it look like they are being pushed in the back..

[diesel and dust]

i hate seeing players purposely diving forward when under pressure. it seems they are more interesting in throwing their weight forward in the hope that a player will make contact with them, making it look like they are being pushed in the back..


i agree..... reeks of soccer style diving when that happens

[diesel and dust]

I don't think hes talking about the new rule, but just the wording of the original push in the back rule for an actual push, ie Landing on the opponents back in a tackle, or an actual push as they kick it.



Yep...that's the one i mean


If a player tackles a player from behind,and they both hit the ground, i have absolutely no idea if it's gonna be a free kick or not.....


I'm wondering if anyone knows the exact rule number so i can see how it's defined so i might be able to see where the umps are coming from, and why i seem to think they pick free kicks at random in that situation, but no-one else seems to mention that as a contentious rule

[Bob_vic]

15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a tackle may be executed correctly
by holding a Player from the front, side or behind, provided
that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.


15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact
is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately
Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

Bear in mind, these rules have not changed at all since the rewrite of the rules in 2000. The rules before 2000 were similar. There is no "hands in the back" rule in the current rule book, as HITB isn't a push. It's an "unwritten" rule for the AFL.

Falling on a player's back is a push with the body. Merely tackling from behind when a player's already on the ground shouldn't be a PITB, but irritatingly, still gets paid sometimes. When tackling from behind, that's the risk you take. Bumping in the back has also always been interpreted as a push in the back. (As a bump is really just a sharp push.)

[diesel and dust]

15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a tackle may be executed correctly
by holding a Player from the front, side or behind, provided
that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.


15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact
is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately
Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

Bear in mind, these rules have not changed at all since the rewrite of the rules in 2000. The rules before 2000 were similar. There is no "hands in the back" rule in the current rule book, as HITB isn't a push. It's an "unwritten" rule for the AFL.

Falling on a player's back is a push with the body. Merely tackling from behind when a player's already on the ground shouldn't be a PITB, but irritatingly, still gets paid sometimes. When tackling from behind, that's the risk you take. Bumping in the back has also always been interpreted as a push in the back. (As a bump is really just a sharp push.)


Thanks a lot for that..... hasn't really cleared up the reason for the inconsistency for me, but at least i know what the rule book definition is now.... good on ya

[deadfish]

This is probably my most hated rule, or atleast, its the rule that gets players way too many soft free kicks. Its bloody terrible.

[diesel and dust]

This is probably my most hated rule, or atleast, its the rule that gets players way too many soft free kicks. Its bloody terrible.



:mad::thumbsd: i agree.......... Glad to know i'm not the only one who thinks that

[VanBerlo=God]

Falling on a player's back is a push with the body. Merely tackling from behind when a player's already on the ground shouldn't be a PITB, but irritatingly, still gets paid sometimes. When tackling from behind, that's the risk you take. Bumping in the back has also always been interpreted as a push in the back. (As a bump is really just a sharp push.)
Is a push in the back if the player is pushed forwards. Happens when a player dives for the ball and lands in the guys back, or goes to tackle him and shoves him to the ground, goes for the ball and etc. so on...

[Coughlan]

I don't think hes talking about the new rule, but just the wording of the original push in the back rule for an actual push, ie Landing on the opponents back in a tackle, or an actual push as they kick it.
They are the same rule, hands in the back is an interpretation for a push in the back, as in, as in they see having hands in the back as a push in the back

[Bob_vic]

Is a push in the back if the player is pushed forwards. Happens when a player dives for the ball and lands in the guys back, or goes to tackle him and shoves him to the ground, goes for the ball and etc. so on...

1. Always a subjective one. A player who tackles from the side shouldn't be penalised for PITB, but sometimes they still are. If it's just the hands or a bump, I just look for where the contact is made, how hard, and what affect it has. It's only a free kick if I see an obvious push or bump to the back, not the side.

Marking and ruck contests are different. It's a free kick for a push/bump, whether it's in the front, side or back.

2. Landing on a player's back is a PITB.

3. No, unless the player rides the player's back into the ground.

4. A player can go for the ball, as long as he doesn't infringe against an opposition player. If a player is already on the ground, it shouldn't be a free kick unless the player on top puts weight on the player under him.

These are all "micro rules" which are all just interpretations. The umpire is there to make a subjective judgement based on everything that happens.

[VanBerlo=God]

1. Always a subjective one. A player who tackles from the side shouldn't be penalised for PITB, but sometimes they still are. If it's just the hands or a bump, I just look for where the contact is made, how hard, and what affect it has. It's only a free kick if I see an obvious push or bump to the back, not the side.

Marking and ruck contests are different. It's a free kick for a push/bump, whether it's in the front, side or back.

2. Landing on a player's back is a PITB.

3. No, unless the players rides the player's back into the ground.

4. A player can go for the ball, as long as he doesn't infringe against an opposition player. If a player is already on the ground, it shouldn't be a free kick unless the player on top puts weight on the player under him.

These are all "micro rules" which are all just interpretations. The umpire is there to make a subjective judgement based on everything that happens.
yes, there is supposed to be a consistent and one set of interpretations that all umpires are supposed to judge by.
However since we aren't robots, its not possible for every single individual to adjudicate accordingly, and will also have some sort of minute influence on each decision.