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

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,475
15,514
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
 

Nomad12

Team Captain
Nov 19, 2013
458
656
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
OKC
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.
 
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
 

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,475
15,514
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,475
15,514
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 26, 2003
6,531
2,357
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
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;
 

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,475
15,514
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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 ?
 
Aug 13, 2006
14,778
13,879
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
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

Team Captain
Nov 19, 2013
458
656
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
OKC
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,475
15,514
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
 
Aug 13, 2006
14,778
13,879
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
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'.
 
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

Cancelled
10k Posts A Star Wars Fan The Cult of Robbo Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
May 8, 2006
13,700
11,421
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
NYJ
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

All Australian
Aug 14, 2010
987
1,419
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Vikings
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?
 

Underdog

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 30, 2005
24,158
11,142
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
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.
 
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.
 
Apr 14, 2012
4,813
2,823
Los Santos
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Orlando Magic, Nick Diaz, Exers
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

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 27, 2015
5,515
6,325
AFL Club
Fremantle
Unfortunately AFL's rules are mostly open to interpretation which makes it hard to understand.
 
Back