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

[MC Extra Dollop]

Plenty of players turn and run back with the flight.

After it's already gone over their head (which is what you're saying)??

Yeah, nah.

 

[Hawkers]

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

Apply the law as it reads.

There is no law that says if I don't have my eyes on the ball that I automatically give away a free if I make contact while contesting the ball

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

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"

The best way to tell where the ball is would be to look at the ball. I can't believe this is a discussion.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The best way to tell where the ball is would be to look at the ball. I can't believe this is a discussion.

Not when running to make a contest

 

[yodellinhank]

The best way to tell where the ball is would be to look at the ball. I can't believe this is a discussion.

Not when the footy is behind you and over your head.

 

[The_Wookie]

Apply the law as it reads.

Laws require interpretation. thats why we have umpires, and umpires coaches. See also Judges.

There is no law that says if I don't have my eyes on the ball that I automatically give away a free if I make contact while contesting the ball

The rules forbid you from undue interference in a marking or rucking contest, which is what this would constitute - the umpire will call it that and/or tell you you didnt have eyes on the ball. Again, if you dont make any contact you wont get a free paid. The minute you make contact, its interference in the contest. its not a case of look away and get pinged. Contact has to be made in such a way that a player is prevented from a fair crack at the contest by your playing the man, instead of the ball.

 

[Hawkers]

Laws require interpretation. thats why we have umpires, and umpires coaches. See also Judges.



The rules forbid you from undue interference in a marking or rucking contest, which is what this would constitute - the umpire will call it that and/or tell you you didnt have eyes on the ball. Again, if you dont make any contact you wont get a free paid. The minute you make contact, its interference in the contest. its not a case of look away and get pinged. Contact has to be made in such a way that a player is prevented from a fair crack at the contest by your playing the man, instead of the ball.

The only reason I'm replying is because it's you Wookie

Again, I don't understand why I player is allowed to and get away with, running into an opponent, hitting his side, taking his arms, all in a marking contest (we know his intent is to stop the other bloke taking the mark) over a player making the slightest contact because he is facing the 'wrong' way.

Your last sentence can be applied to all marking contests, regardless of where the players came from and which way they are facing, but it's not. I'm asking that it is

 

[Kummerspeck]

Apply the law as it reads.

There is no law that says if I don't have my eyes on the ball that I automatically give away a free if I make contact while contesting the ball

It's mentioned under the principles that guide the application of the law. Eyes on the ball is specifically mentioned.

 

[The_Wookie]

The only reason I'm replying is because it's you Wookie

Again, I don't understand why I player is allowed to and get away with, running into an opponent, hitting his side, taking his arms, all in a marking contest (we know his intent is to stop the other bloke taking the mark) over a player making the slightest contact because he is facing the 'wrong' way.

Your last sentence can be applied to all marking contests, regardless of where the players came from and which way they are facing, but it's not. I'm asking that it is

It goes as to whether the Umpire believes that the player has a realistic expectation of making a fair contest - WHICHEVER WAY HE IS FACING. Allowances are made for harmless incidental contact in a marking contest where the opposing player has a realistic expectation of being able to protect himself

 

[Hawkers]

It goes as to whether the Umpire believes that the player has a realistic expectation of making a fair contest - WHICHEVER WAY HE IS FACING. Allowances are made for harmless incidental contact in a marking contest where the opposing player has a realistic expectation of being able to protect himself

Agree. But in reality the some players and plays get more leeway than others. That's wrong

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Not when running to make a contest

Not when the footy is behind you and over your head.

Well then you're odds on to be running at full tilt, head-on into a player that is setting himself to take a mark. If you take the mark, Nick Riewoldt/Jono Brown style, well, there will probably be some leniency. But if you do what invariably happens and just crash straight through the opponent (who is effectively defenceless), it's a free kick, every day of the week.