Please someone tell me how umpires interpret this rule?

[AdamE89]

The most frustrating rule I believe right now is the one when a player is running back not watching the footy but spoils the ball in the marking contest and then the umpire always seems to pay a free kick, even though the player that spoiled did not touch the other one. It seems like the umpire just pays the free coz the guy was not watching the footy.

Seems as though the umpires either cannot interpret it properly or there is something we have not been told? Just frustrates me sooooo much, a player does all that hard work to get back into the contest and gets pinned for it.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

The most frustrating rule I believe right now is the one when a player is running back not watching the footy but spoils the ball in the marking contest and then the umpire always seems to pay a free kick, even though the player that spoiled did not touch the other one. It seems like the umpire just pays the free coz the guy was not watching the footy.

Seems as though the umpires either cannot interpret it properly or there is something we have not been told? Just frustrates me sooooo much, a player does all that hard work to get back into the contest and gets pinned for it.

It's to protect the player with the eyes on the ball, let's face it, if you don't have your eyes on the ball what is your main objective?

The guy watching the ball is defenceless, and needs to be protected given he has the right intentions

 

[MR]

The most frustrating rule I believe right now is the one when a player is running back not watching the footy but spoils the ball in the marking contest and then the umpire always seems to pay a free kick, even though the player that spoiled did not touch the other one. It seems like the umpire just pays the free coz the guy was not watching the footy.

Seems as though the umpires either cannot interpret it properly or there is something we have not been told? Just frustrates me sooooo much, a player does all that hard work to get back into the contest and gets pinned for it.

I believe if the player running back makes any sort of body contact with a player going for the mark, it is immediately deemed a free-kick.

 

[AdamE89]

I believe if the player running back makes any sort of body contact with a player going for the mark, it is immediately deemed a free-kick.

I do agree but I constantly find they pay the free kick even when there has been no contact

 

[MR]

I do agree but I constantly find they pay the free kick even when there has been no contact

If there is no contact made with the player then there shouldn't be a free-kick.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

If there is no contact made with the player then there shouldn't be a free-kick.

If contact is made with the ball first, a free kick should not be awarded (IMO) even if there is contact - unless any incidental contact is high.

I don't think the OP is right in saying free kicks are ("constantly") being awarded where no contact is made - only where the umpire believes contact must've been made because they have an obstructed view, etc.

 

[yeahmate]

Amen to the OP. Seems to be paid even when contact is minimal. Not even sure what the actual free kick is for. Is there even a rule for "making contact in a marking contest without your eyes on the ball"? seems like it just got made up in the last couple of years..

 

[master bate]

A look away handball isn't a throw. Eyes are just a guide.

Salem ran back last night and only made marginal hip to hip contact (with Gordon I believe) when the ball was already over the back of the contest. There was no contact to his arms, torso or particularly his head. It didn't impede his ability to mark the ball any differently to if he was defending from the side or behind.

Umpires relying too much on the eyes which are a guide and not on the action as to what if any contact occurs and if that contact is against the rules.

 

[master bate]

That said it still isn't half as bad as the slide rule!!!!

 

[Balance]

if you don't have your eyes on the ball what is your main objective?

To have your eyes on the player who has a knee heading for your ribs.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

To have your eyes on the player who has a knee heading for your ribs.

If you don't want to get hurt then don't go the contest, simples

Or better yet, don't play football

 

[Blackas87]

It's to protect the player with the eyes on the ball, let's face it, if you don't have your eyes on the ball what is your main objective?

The guy watching the ball is defenceless, and needs to be protected given he has the right intentions

Just because you're looking at you opponent doesn't mean you're going to run in and crunch him.

 

[ziad]

the AFL is in the entertainment business - umpires are AFL employees and their instructions (from the AFL) change as the entertainment value of a situation is interpreted.

don't bother reading the actual Laws they are ignored by the AFL in many cases.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Just because you're looking at you opponent doesn't mean you're going to run in and crunch him.

I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying that it's a good rule, but that's what it's for

 

[Underdog]

The laws are distinctly different to the interpretations.

I think they're generally spot on with this. If he's going back and makes a valid spoil prior to contact, fantastic. If he makes contact without a clear spoil, it should be a free kick. You just have to protect the bloke under the ball from front on contact.

 

[Wild Bill]

I do agree but I constantly find they pay the free kick even when there has been no contact

I disagree - if contact is only to the ball they call play on. It only takes the slightest touch and its a free. This rule is fine.

 

[Underdog]

The free kick against Fyfe was wrong IMO. Running back with the flight he makes a great spoil before crashing into the Sydney player. The Sydney player receives a free kick. It should be judged as incidental contact IMO like how you're able to jump in the back of an opponent or make high contact in a marking contest.

 

[Love the Drake]

What about the player with the ball who launches himself head first at the opposition player and forces head high contact. Seen it paid at least 3 times in the last two weeks.

So f&@$! frustrating. I thought they were stamping that out. Someone will get seriously hurt..

 

[Pusswah]

What about the player with the ball who launches himself head first at the opposition player and forces head high contact. Seen it paid at least 3 times in the last two weeks.

So f&@$! frustrating. I thought they were stamping that out. Someone will get seriously hurt..

And I hope it's the guys notorious for doing it.


Yes, I realise this makes me a bad person.

 

[ThirtyThr33]

The free kick against Fyfe was wrong IMO. Running back with the flight he makes a great spoil before crashing into the Sydney player. The Sydney player receives a free kick. It should be judged as incidental contact IMO like how you're able to jump in the back of an opponent or make high contact in a marking contest.

Yep, that is exactly how I would like it ruled.

 

[The Swans Blog]

The rule was brought in place as a blanket rule to protect those under the ball without vision of oncoming players and unable to properly protect themselves before impact. Think of Riewoldt and Brown charging head first into packs, regardless if they mark the ball, then throw in defenders who'll charge at the players and throw up an arm and sometimes make incidental contact with the ball, but totally take out the opposition player in the process.

The first case, a player running back with the ball, not facing the contest and splitting it open, compared to the second case, a player running straight at another player, no eyes on the ball at point of contest, running straight into the contest and splitting it open.

Which would you like to see? Courage or cowardice?

I still remember Nietz kneeing Goodes in the back from a mile back when he had no chance of marking the ball. He just did it because he could and the rules allowed it at the time.

Anyone remember Milburns high hit on Silvagni? Or the countless others? The tunneling fiasco of the mid-naughties, targeted specifically at Riewoldt... etc. so forth.

 

[blitzer]

I actually think its fair enough how the umpires interpret this rule. If you are looking away from the ball you don't get the benefit of doubt so you need to make absolutely sure you only contact the ball (which is really hard). Basically you're out of position to begin the contest so of course you're going to lose most of those contests.

If you're close enough you can always turn around mid air when you jump so your facing the ball (similar to going back with the flight of the ball) but that may not be possible depending on the circumstances. The afl however is doing it right in protecting the person who is making the ball their sole focus as opposed to the person who is focused purely on their opponent about to take a mark.