Can someone point me to the "must watch the ball" rule

[Furn2]

Where is this rule ?

I grew up in the UK playing pretty high level football (eg soccer) and as i played mostly in a defensive role we were never taught or told that we had to always watch the ball.

When defending a corner or free kick the idea was to try to always try to be aware of where both the ball and your man were but your man was always the priority. I would often watch my man almost the entire time. There were never frees given for simply watching your man.you had to attualy commit a foul.

So why in Aussie rule does it seem that this is a rule, the umpires actually quote it, yet ive read the rules and not seen it.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

They are different sports

 

[Nomad12]

If you take your eyes off the ball and infringe then the umpires will mostly likely pay a free... If you have your eyes on the ball they cut you a bit of slack. Is like that in junior footy too.

Didnt know or don't know if there Is a written rule for it but If not its certaintly a unwritten one. Can understand your confusion but in Aussie rules you should know or feel for where your man is already and when the ball is close you should have all eyes for the ball.

 

[Power Raid]

Where is this rule ?

I grew up in the UK playing pretty high level football (eg soccer) and as i played mostly in a defensive role we were never taught or told that we had to always watch the ball.

When defending a corner or free kick the idea was to try to always try to be aware of where both the ball and your man were but your man was always the priority. I would often watch my man almost the entire time. There were never frees given for simply watching your man.you had to attualy commit a foul.

So why in Aussie rule does it seem that this is a rule, the umpires actually quote it, yet ive read the rules and not seen it.

yep its silly

to think looking at someone is a foul.....lol

 

[Nomad12]

Re read your post and you don't get a free for your man just watching you..they still have to infringe.

 

[Furn2]

I get that its a different sport etc but its an oddity amongst all ball sports isnt it? imagine the NBA or NFL, NHL if there were penalties for simply not watching the ball ?

Where did this come from if its not a rule ?

Why cant you mark a man ?

 

[Furn2]

Re read your post and you don't get a free for your man just watching you..they still have to infringe.

But the ump says "you didnt watch the ball" nothing else.

 

[sedders]

the umpires let you get away with a lot, such as high contact, blocking, and interference, as long as your intention is to go for the ball. so if you dont have eyes for the ball you give away the free.

its an interpretation of the 'legitimate attempt' phrase you'll see in the rule book a bit, eg
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: ... (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;

 

[Suma Magic]

I agree with the OP's premise.

It's an unwritten rule.

Just like the holding the ball rule where you don't actually have to have the ball to be penalised.

 

[Furn2]

the umpires let you get away with a lot, such as high contact, blocking, and interference, as long as your intention is to go for the ball. so if you dont have eyes for the ball you give away the free.

its an interpretation of the 'legitimate attempt' phrase you'll see in the rule book a bit, eg
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: ... (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;

but under that a spoil is illegal right ?

 

[JeffDunne]

There's a simple explanation.

The officiating in the AFL is utterly incompetent.

 

[sedders]

but under that a spoil is illegal right ?

what makes you think a spoil is illegal?

 

[master bate]

It's not a rule but a guide for an umpire to determine if a rule has been infringed.

It's mainly for shepherding, blocking or marking infringements.

If you spoil a players body whilst looking at the body it's a lot more likely that you've taking them out rather than spoiled the ball. But it's still the action that should be assessed not just the eyes themselves.

The umpires use it too much and it does annoy me. Just give the free and get on with it.

 

[Nomad12]

But the ump says "you didnt watch the ball" nothing else.

Yeah but they still would of infringed and then looked at the ump like what for?? In the end its an easy spot for the umps, if you have no eyes for the ball and still push or hold your man then your in strife and its an easy free to pay.

 

[Furn2]

I get there are unwritten rules like if you knee a guy in the head taking a screamer its fine, even though any contact with the head is a free.

but this is a rule both the umps and the commentators both quote , Eg he took his eye off the ball so its a free.

 

[Furn2]

what makes you think a spoil is illegal?

Reading that ruling alone it applies to an attempt to mark.

 

[master bate]

I get there are unwritten rules like if you knee a guy in the head taking a screamer its fine, even though any contact with the head is a free.

but this is a rule both the umps and the commentators both quote , Eg he took his eye off the ball so its a free.

The vision shows the players colliding and the player who gave the free away already knows they collided, so the umpire and commentator discuss the tell-tale sign rather than the contact.

This is a pretty crappy example but it's a bit like getting pulled over for being on your mobile phone whilst driving and the cop saying 'I saw you on the phone'. We all know it's not illegal to use a phone but it's illegal to drive whilst on the phone. But as you've been pulled over the cop doesn't have to say 'I saw you driving whilst on the phone' as it's pretty clear you've been driving! (that said I'm sure they have to include it in their paperwork).

Maybe a soccer example would be the penalties for handball for 'arms away from the body'. Well there's no rule that you have to superglue your arm to your sides to play soccer. Arms are moving everywhere in games. Pretty hard to throw in the ball without them or run efficiently etc etc. But the arms away from the body is a tell tale sign (is it not) of a player deliberately handballing. So when awarding the penalty the ref/commentators will often say 'arm was away from the body'.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

You seem to think the rule is 'he took his eyes off the ball therefore it's a free'. This might seem pedantic but that's clearly incorrect, the free comes when you're not watching the ball and you infringe on your opponent (eg front on in a marking contest, see it a lot with holding the man in marking contests also). Not watching the ball is fine so long as you don't infringe. When the umpire says 'you weren't watching the ball' he's just saying 'you weren't watching the ball AND you made front on contact/held the man/whatever infringement', just saying it in less words. I'm not sure if you're actually suggesting that players are being penalised for not watching the ball at all times during the game or if I'm just misreading, but there you go.

 

[Shane Hird]

I've never thought of this subject even after 30 years of watching and playing footy.
A very good question that has no solid answer unfortunately. It's really about how the individual umpire sees it. That's why we hate umpires so much.

 

[inbetween]

I get that its a different sport etc but its an oddity amongst all ball sports isnt it? imagine the NBA or NFL, NHL if there were penalties for simply not watching the ball ?

Where did this come from if its not a rule ?

Why cant you mark a man ?

What makes you think that?

 

[Furn2]

What makes you think that?

Because the umpires say those exact words

 

[Underdog]

The umpires make decisions based on two criteria, firstly the laws of the game and secondly the current interpretation of the laws. The laws are easy enough to find, and every club and media outlet is provided with the interpretations for the upcoming year prior to the season commencing.

The laws are the generic rules of the game and the interpretations are the dynamic amendments to cater for the current environment.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Because the umpires say those exact words

Taking it too literally. It's just a shortened way of them saying "you infringed, and based on the FA t you weren't looking at the ball it can't be said you were making a legitimate attempt to play the ball." Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

If an umpire says "you're all over his back mate" after a free, doesn't mean that's a separate rule to 'push in the back''. Anyway they'll usually say something like 'front on contact', the player says they were trying to spoil, umpire says you weren't looking at the ball. It's a justification of an interpretation, not a rule itself.

 

[CrowAboutIt]

To put it simply:

If you jump straight into someone but your watching/going for the ball it's fine.

If you jump straight into someone when watching them and attempting to take them out so they can't mark it's a free.

So the easiest way for the umps/commentators to explain the infringement is to say, "you weren't watching the ball."

Edit - this is mainly front on

 

[ydraw]

Unfortunately AFL's rules are mostly open to interpretation which makes it hard to understand.