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

[Hawkers]

http://www.afl.com.au/laws
Check out the marking contests video. Basically, so long as your actions (that are legal in the game: this excludes arm chop, high contact, push in the back etc) are a part of a genuine contest to mark the ball, it's fine. If your actions are to stop a player contesting the ball, then it's a free kick for interference.
If you're not looking at the ball, it's a dead giveaway that you're not making a genuine attempt to mark and are instead trying to impede a player from contesting the mark. Free kick for interference results. Umpire explanation is "eyes weren't on the ball".
If you keep you're eyes on the ball, incidental contact in the contest is allowed as both you and you're opponent are able to contest the mark. Umpires will generally allow some holding if both players are doing it (i.e. nobody is gaining an advantage).

There is nothing that says I have to be looking at the ball to be determined to make a genuine attempt.
As I said in a previous post, almost always the player with his back to the ball will take more care to avoid contact with a player facing the ball. The player with his back to the ball is still going to make a genuine attempt to mark the ball, and in doing so he may make contact with player facing the ball.

Why shouldn't a player be allowed to jump into another player and then mark the ball?
The answer is that he is allowed to jump into another player. Happens all the time. But for some reason we punish the guy that doesn't look at the flight of the ball the whole way and brushes the arm or shoulder or, the umpires favourite, FRONT ON CONTACT (another thing that doesn't exist in the laws).

I can still be making a genuine attempt at the ball without looking at the ball. Harder to get the ball, but it's still a genuine attempt. Also I don't believe 'genuine attempt' is in the laws of the game either.

The law lists things I can and can't do while in a marking contest. None of it says I must be looking at the ball

 

[AstonSouffle]

The smartarses saying 'where's the rule???'

OP quoted soccer, the definition of a foul in that sport is so heavily interpretational it's ridiculous. I mean for heavens sake entire countries differ in what they deem a foul, see England/Spain for evidence.

It's not a rule, it's a process umpires must use to ensure that it's fair between the players going for the ball. That's one of the umpires edicts, Protect the Ball Carrier.

 

[Badesumofu]

I can still be making a genuine attempt at the ball without looking at the ball. Harder to get the ball, but it's still a genuine attempt. Also I don't believe 'genuine attempt' is in the laws of the game either.

I suppose you could, I can't imagine why you would, though. Sure you might look at the opponent as you prepare your jump, but once you leave the ground I'd expect your eyes to go to the ball so that you could actually mark it. In a sport where intent is adjudicated, the umpires need to have some way to make that determination. Your eyes give a good clue to what your intent is.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

There is no need to have an 'unwritten law'.
The current laws deal with a marking contest, and all contests, effectively. It's because of this 'unwritten law' that inconsistencies are introduced and we are left with the farcical situation where a player with his back to the ball is trying harder to not make contact with a another player and just play the ball than a player who is facing the ball.

Why should a player who is facing the ball get more rights to bump and hit and hassle the body of a player (effectively playing the man) over a player who isn't facing the ball?
Quite often the, and I'd almost go as far to say that almost always, the player with his back to the ball is more intent on just hitting the ball than the man over the player facing the ball. Because he knows that there is this 'unwritten law' that you must have eyes on the ball.

There is no where in the laws where it says you must have eyes on the ball. The current laws are satisfactory to interpret every contest, eyes on the ball or not. There is no need for an 'unwritten law'.

Because of 'unwritten laws' we have incorrect disposal running rampart along with players running too far and marks where the ball doesn't travel far enough.

I started playing juniors in the mid 70s and you had to have eyes for the ball then, it's not a new interpretation of anything. There is no unwritten law for must have eyes on the ball, it's just a reason for being penalised.

The whole idea of the game is to compete for the ball, if you're not watching it, how are you competing? The most obvious one is at centre bounces. If your opponent is looking at the ball going for the tap and your looking at him and jump into him with no idea where the ball is and basically try to impede him enough that it affects the tap or his ability to tap then it's an obvious free kick.

As far as taggers / run with players go, they are not penalised nearly enough. How often do you see a negating player at a stoppage who has nothing on his mind other than stopping his opponent? They're the ones with their back to the ball, oblivious to where it is, no caring where it is, only that they stop their opponent. Maybe the only thing that saves them is the 5m rule and it could be classed as a shepherd.

As other's have said, it's just a simple explanation for the umpires rather than going into a long winded, technical spiel, it's a catch all.

I'd be quite happy for umpires to just use the simplest of explanations for giving frees, the players are well past juniors and don't need full explanations. No eyes for the ball is a perfect one to use. It's simple and covers so many situations.

 

[ConcreteWaters]

The law lists things I can and can't do while in a marking contest. None of it says I must be looking at the ball

The game moves so fast there isn't time for the umpire to explain everything to the player, nor does he have to. The player knows when the umpire says "eyes weren't on the ball" the long-winded explanation was "you weren't making a genuine attempt to mark the ball and at the same time you impeded the opposition player who was trying to mark the ball."

Quite a few people have pointed you to the interpretation and the rule...Although you can hear the short explanation, also watch for the umpires signals. The one below, signalling "illegally taking your man out of the marking contest/illegal shepherd" will come in a marking contest with the verbal direction "eyes weren't on the ball." The whistle will alert the players to an infringement, the signal will tell you what sort of free kick is being given and the verbal will be used to direct the players (and sometimes isn't the actual decision, but an explanation for what the player did wrong).

 

[Furn2]

The thing is the exact same action can be a free or not a free based solely on where you're looking which just seems wrong to me.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: (d) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

Umpires deam that if you aren't watching the ball, and are watching the player, you are "deliberately interfering in the act of Marking" because you are playing the man, not the ball.

I see zero issue with the wording of the rule and also how its interpreted

 

[Kummerspeck]

How are people still arguing about where it is in the laws? It's written in the section on the spirit of the laws on how the laws of the game are to be applied. It specifically mentions watching the ball.

 

[Psi-Roos]

If you have eyes purely on the ball you get leeway in infringing on your opponent because it is more likely seen as accidental. You were focused on the game.

If you were watching your man you have less actual reason to infringe upon your opponent because you are aware of where their person is the entire time.

Any attempt to spoil the boil withought having your eyes on it is infringing beacuse you have no way of knowing where the football is at the time. So you are being reckless.

That's my interpretation, anyway.

 

[Hoops]

In soccer does it state in the laws that you can't head butt another player? what if you were attempting to header he ball? how could tell, by looking at the players eyes.

It's just a way to interpret a players intentions?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

In soccer does it state in the laws that you can't head butt another player? what if you were attempting to header he ball? how could tell, by looking at the players eyes.

It's just a way to interpret a players intentions?

Bingo. If you're not looking at the ball, you're clearly making the opponent your focus. If you subsequently chop that opponent's arms to stop him marking, or crash into him, it's a free kick against. There's room for common sense.

 

[Hawkers]

I started playing juniors in the mid 70s and you had to have eyes for the ball then, it's not a new interpretation of anything. There is no unwritten law for must have eyes on the ball, it's just a reason for being penalised.

The whole idea of the game is to compete for the ball, if you're not watching it, how are you competing? The most obvious one is at centre bounces. If your opponent is looking at the ball going for the tap and your looking at him and jump into him with no idea where the ball is and basically try to impede him enough that it affects the tap or his ability to tap then it's an obvious free kick.

As far as taggers / run with players go, they are not penalised nearly enough. How often do you see a negating player at a stoppage who has nothing on his mind other than stopping his opponent? They're the ones with their back to the ball, oblivious to where it is, no caring where it is, only that they stop their opponent. Maybe the only thing that saves them is the 5m rule and it could be classed as a shepherd.

As other's have said, it's just a simple explanation for the umpires rather than going into a long winded, technical spiel, it's a catch all.

I'd be quite happy for umpires to just use the simplest of explanations for giving frees, the players are well past juniors and don't need full explanations. No eyes for the ball is a perfect one to use. It's simple and covers so many situations.

Thanks HHH. I was waiting for this.
This is what I hope everyone understands.

The one thing I don't agree with though is the bolded. It shouldn't be an automatic free for any contact if my eyes aren't on the ball as it is interpreted at the moment. That's wrong

 

[Hawkers]

If you're not looking at the ball, you're clearly making the opponent your focus.

This I whole heartedly disagree with

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

This I whole heartedly disagree with

Well, it seems pretty watertight to me. You might have to expand on your objections.

If anything, I think it should be expanded, i.e. to taggers that line up facing their opponent, instead of the umpire at a stoppage.

 

[The_Wookie]

Thanks HHH. I was waiting for this.
This is what I hope everyone understands.

The one thing I don't agree with though is the bolded. It shouldn't be an automatic free for any contact if my eyes aren't on the ball as it is interpreted at the moment. That's wrong

Its only a free at the moment if you are preventing a player from interfering directly with a player when not going for the ball yourself. When i played it was specifically for marking and ruck contests where accidental high contact used to be explained away as "he had eyes on the ball". Saying "you took your eyes off the ball" these days is basically shorthand for illegal shepherding or interference where you prevent a player from getting a run at the ball in a ruck or marking contest.

its been this way for decades.

 

[2Knights]

How are people still arguing about where it is in the laws? It's written in the section on the spirit of the laws on how the laws of the game are to be applied. It specifically mentions watching the ball.

Exactly. There is no 'unwritten rule' in operation.


15.1.1 Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks


It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall

be awarded to:

(a) ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner;

(b) provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of

the football their sole objective, every opportunity to

obtain possession;

(c) protect Players from sustaining injury; and

(d) a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results

in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in

accordance with these Laws.

 

[Hawkers]

Well, it seems pretty watertight to me. You might have to expand on your objections.

If anything, I think it should be expanded, i.e. to taggers that line up facing their opponent, instead of the umpire at a stoppage.

I could be leading for the ball, it goes over my head so I blind turn and start running with the flight, head down. I look up and there is my opponent jumping up for a mark, I also jump up for the ball but I collect him at the same time. I'm 100% going for the ball and at the way the law is interpreted I'm 100% going to give away a free kick

That's wrong. Why should I be allowed less contact with a an opposition player just because my body is facing a different way AS LONG AS my intent is the ball?

Its only a free at the moment if you are preventing a player from interfering directly with a player when not going for the ball yourself. When i played it was specifically for marking and ruck contests where accidental high contact used to be explained away as "he had eyes on the ball". Saying "you took your eyes off the ball" these days is basically shorthand for illegal shepherding or interference where you prevent a player from getting a run at the ball in a ruck or marking contest.

its been this way for decades.

See bolded.
Yeah, but you could say exactly the same thing for a marking contest with two blokes looking the same way.
Who is to say that I'm not contesting the ball legitimately just because my back is facing the ball?

There are more reasons to give a free kick in a "legitimate" marking contest (both players facing the ball) than there is for a players facing opposite directions.
I don't see why you can say that a player running with the flight of the ball to make a contest to contest the ball isn't allowed to make contact with the player facing the ball. If the intent is to get the ball then surely the same rules should apply

 

[The_Wookie]

See bolded.
Yeah, but you could say exactly the same thing for a marking contest with two blokes looking the same way.

No you cant. If they are looking the same way, then its generally goiing to be in the direction of the ball they are contesting

Who is to say that I'm not contesting the ball legitimately just because my back is facing the ball?

[/QUOTE]

For one, the umpire is to say. Secondly, You arent getting this. If you can make a realistic and legitimate attempt to mark the ball going to wrong way, then thats perfectly fine. marks like that are paid all the time. You can even spoil going the wrong way. Whats not acceptable is running with your back to the ball in a manner that prevents another player reaching the contest, and its usually only paid on contact with the player.

 

[Hawkers]

No you cant. If they are looking the same way, then its generally goiing to be in the direction of the ball they are contesting

For one, the umpire is to say. Secondly, You arent getting this. If you can make a realistic and legitimate attempt to mark the ball going to wrong way, then thats perfectly fine. marks like that are paid all the time. You can even spoil going the wrong way. Whats not acceptable is running with your back to the ball in a manner that prevents another player reaching the contest, and its usually only paid on contact with the player.[/QUOTE]

Yet I can do that if we're both running towards the ball. Why is one a free but not the other?

All I'm saying is this;

In a marking contest (I don't care who is facing whom or from where they came from or which way they are facing), as long as their intent is the ball then the same rules should apply.

At the moment, the way the law is interpreted this isn't the case


We're not going to agree. I think it's wrong. There are plenty of laws I think are wrong and also interpreted wrong

 

[dct66]

I could be leading for the ball, it goes over my head so I blind turn and start running with the flight, head down. I look up and there is my opponent jumping up for a mark, I also jump up for the ball but I collect him at the same time. I'm 100% going for the ball and at the way the law is interpreted I'm 100% going to give away a free kick

That's wrong. Why should I be allowed less contact with a an opposition player just because my body is facing a different way AS LONG AS my intent is the ball?

How do you know you are going for the ball if you can't see it/aren't looking at it. What if your opponent is jumping thinking he can mark the ball but it is intercepted by a player coming across from the side meaning that you are no longer 'going for the ball' 100% because the ball isn't there anymore.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I could be leading for the ball, it goes over my head so I blind turn and start running with the flight, head down. I look up and there is my opponent jumping up for a mark, I also jump up for the ball but I collect him at the same time. I'm 100% going for the ball and at the way the law is interpreted I'm 100% going to give away a free kick

That's wrong. Why should I be allowed less contact with a an opposition player just because my body is facing a different way AS LONG AS my intent is the ball?

So, in your scenario, the ball has gone past the player, who then turns around and outruns the ball while it's in the air to make a genuine attempt to mark?

I guess if I ever saw that happen, I might have to reconsider.

 

[Hawkers]

How do you know you are going for the ball if you can't see it/aren't looking at it. What if your opponent is jumping thinking he can mark the ball but it is intercepted by a player coming across from the side meaning that you are no longer 'going for the ball' 100% because the ball isn't there anymore.

Of course I'm going for the ball. I've said this in plenty of posts in this thread.
I'm going for the ball more than in any other contest because I know I'm going to get a free against me for extremely slight contact.

I ask again

Why should I be allowed less contact with a an opposition player just because my body is facing a different way AS LONG AS my intent is the ball?

 

[The_Wookie]

Of course I'm going for the ball. I've said this in plenty of posts in this thread.
I'm going for the ball more than in any other contest because I know I'm going to get a free against me for extremely slight contact.

I ask again

Why should I be allowed less contact with a an opposition player just because my body is facing a different way AS LONG AS my intent is the ball?

Because there is no way you are making a reasonable attempt at the football if you cant see the damn thing. Its that simple.

 

[Hawkers]

So, in your scenario, the ball has gone past the player, who then turns around and outruns the ball while it's in the air to make a genuine attempt to mark?

I guess if I ever saw that happen, I might have to reconsider.

Plenty of players turn and run back with the flight.

Either way, regardless, I think I'm done.

See my last reply to Wookie. It has what I think succinctly. Whether we agree or disagree, whatever

 

[yodellinhank]

Bingo. If you're not looking at the ball, you're clearly making the opponent your focus. If you subsequently chop that opponent's arms to stop him marking, or crash into him, it's a free kick against. There's room for common sense.

Except for the fact the best way to tell where the ball is to watch your opponents eyes. And its this scenario I think the OP is driving at. Rather than running with the flight and getting disorientated craning your neck searching for the ball, if you watch your opponents eyes you can figure out where it is. The trouble is even the most minor contact, even when it is initiated by your opponent, results in a free against. And the umpire says "you took your eyes off the footy"