Is it time to allow throwing?

[swingdog]

It's noticeable how much more often it happens in finals games, mainly little chucks in close to get the ball out.

It's near impossible to officiate so umpires don't seem to bother in the name of keeping the game flowing. Why not just let it happen? A handball is still a longer offensive weapon, but the throw happens for those short passes anyway. Time to phase out that rule?

 

[AFDogs]

What? No.

 

[swingdog]

What? No.

If it can't be policed, why not?

 

[Tatts22]

No. They just need to call it more and it will stop - or reduce a lot at least. Obviously they aren't going to pick every single one but there are so many blatant ones that are let go, and all teams are doing it.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

It's becoming very difficult to police as teams are getting better at it, especially in close. Need to start paying more of the obvious ones though.

 

[asanque]

Don't mind considering it.

Was interesting in International Rules.

How will they differentiate between throwing and dropping?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Umpires need to return to umpiring by the wording of the rules. Do that, and it would eliminate a number of problem areas.

 

[Reppie]

Seems to be escalating almost weekly now.
Umps just ignore it.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

Yeah, they already do allow it and occasionally pick one out when they feel like it. Same with every other damn rule.

 

[kickazz]

Ok you are going to get a lot of s**t for this suggestion, and I'll admit that all things considered I do not believe it should be allowed. But it makes for a good discussion and I've thought of it before.

If it were to be trialled, I'd like to see a massive simplification of the holding the ball rule:

If you are tackled in possession, regardless of prior opportunity, it is a free against you unless you either A) kick the ball; or B) your throw is caught on the full by a team mate; or C) the throw is touched in transit or intercepted by an opponent; or D) you throw or rush a behind for your own team.
In the first three cases it is play on, in the fourth you score a point.

It gets rid of just about all interpretation / mind reading.

Yes, the tackler would try to pin the ball, but the ball carrier could mitigate this by fending off with one arm and dishing of with the other.

No need to interpret prior opportunity.
No need to interpret if the ball broke free in the tackle or the ball carrier deliberately fumbled it.

One negative is that it almost eliminates ball ups, which are a facet of the game requiring particular skill that is interesting.

I could also see a bit of the 1950s Style of tapping the ball in front of you a bit until you are confident you can take possession, especially in one on one chases of the ball out on the wing where you do not have a team mate close by.

 

[kickazz]

Umpires need to return to umpiring by the wording of the rules. Do that, and it would eliminate a number of problem areas.

Indeed, and it starts by paying frees early on in finals to set the standard. The Friday night non calls on Burton rushed behind and Duncan at the opening bounce seemed to smack of umpires that had been instructed to put the whistle away.

 

[kickazz]

You could even extend my above suggestion to say that any throw, regardless of whether you are tackled or not, that is not caught on the full by a teammate, is a free against.
Would mean that the handball would still have a place in the game, particularly when you are open and/or going for more distance

 

[Mudeo]

Lets make it so they can only throw backwards and call it 'no offside rugby'

 

[M Malice]

my pet bugbear ATM is the disguised deliberate dropping of the ball to advantage. they players/coaches are just so good at taking advantage of rules that require interpretation.

prior opportunity/genuine attempt/knocked out in the tackle are on a lot of occasions very much up for debate, especially the genuine attempt and knocked out in tackle interpretations. eg. player takes possession feels a tackle coming and drops the ball "accidentally" to the advantage of his teammate.

the OPs suggestion is definitely worth a trial in the NAB IMO.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

God

 

[swingdog]

God

Yes?

 

[swingdog]

I could also see a bit of the 1950s Style of tapping the ball in front of you a bit until you are confident you can take possession, especially in one on one chases of the ball out on the wing where you do not have a team mate close by.

Noticed this a lot in the Geelong-Hawthorn game, lots of tapping or knocking or kicking it forward to gain territory rather than pick up the ball and look for a pass. Perfectly understandable, given the tightness and tempo of the game.

 

[shumo]

my pet bugbear ATM is the disguised deliberate dropping of the ball to advantage. they players/coaches are just so good at taking advantage of rules that require interpretation.

prior opportunity/genuine attempt/knocked out in the tackle are on a lot of occasions very much up for debate, especially the genuine attempt and knocked out in tackle interpretations. eg. player takes possession feels a tackle coming and drops the ball "accidentally" to the advantage of his teammate.

the OPs suggestion is definitely worth a trial in the NAB IMO.

Bulldogs were very good at this on Thursday night

 

[kickazz]

Noticed this a lot in the Geelong-Hawthorn game, lots of tapping or knocking or kicking it forward to gain territory rather than pick up the ball and look for a pass. Perfectly understandable, given the tightness and tempo of the game.

Indeed, moreso from the Hawks I thought. Makes sense given their superiority on the ground and inferiority in the air up that end of the ground

 

[shumo]

The VFA used to allow throwing back in the day, was fairly popular I believe.

 

[Spook]

If it can't be policed, why not?

It can be and is policed, wtf the * are you on about? Ok sometimes with huge congestion the umps won't see it but so bloody what?

 

[Spook]

Bulldogs were very good at this on Thursday night

Examples please

 

[basashi]

VFA had this for 12 years.

Throws were permitted if you used both hands together and neither hand reached shoulder height in the process.

 

[swingdog]

VFA had this for 12 years.

Throws were permitted if you used both hands together and neither hand reached shoulder height in the process.

Do they still do it? If not, why did they change back?

 

[basashi]

Do they still do it? If not, why did they change back?

roughly 1936 to 48

I think a few other leagues adopted it briefly - Tassie? maybe?

They got rid of it for national uniformity, not because they thought it was faulty.