Sides that constantly throw the ball

[CharlieMortdecai]

Wrong

How do you interpret "dispose of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand"?

 

[noise36]

Libba is being allowed to play the game like a scum half in Union.
Is being blatantly allowed to throw the ball out from a stoppage.
It‘s not quick hands, it’s simply throwing under the rules of the game.
He‘s not the only one, just the most blatant.
And it’s being sanctioned by the AFL in their efforts to control the product (The Game) to avoid stoppages and keep the game “moving”

And dropping it when tackled. throw, drop ball, throw, drop ball, he isn't the only one though, rife in the sport these days.

The funniest part is when the umpires randomly ping a player for the above, often its not even the worst examples of dropping or throwing.

 

[Maylandsman]

As it stands you can use the momentum of your ball hand, just so long as the other fist hits it as it goes through. They are all legal handballs.

What would the rule change be? That the ball hand has to be stationary?

Correct. Lots of punters have missed this new interpretation. More dumbing down of the game.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

And dropping it when tackled. throw, drop ball, throw, drop ball, he isn't the only one though, rife in the sport these days.

The funniest part is when the umpires randomly ping a player for the above, often its not even the worst examples of dropping or throwing.

Spot on. Footscray and Grubba may be the worst but the rest of the comp is not far behind.

I see Shocking is also threatening more rule changes.

**less than good times**

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This.
If we had a big crackdown on it the stoppage numbers for games would go through the roof when that’s something the AFL are trying to move away from
All teams do it and can’t see it changing any time soon

Although I agree this is exactly why the AFL allow blatant throwing - I disagree with them. All they'd need to do to to counter it would be the adjudicate other existing rules correctly (Too High, In the Back, HTB amd HTM etc.) and it would be fine in terms of stoppages.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Correct. Lots of punters have missed this new interpretation. More dumbing down of the game.

Yeah, I've missed it too. Can you point me to where the AFL said this was a new interpretation of the rule? Because they haven't rewritten the rule, and such an interpretation is not possible in any ordinary way of reading the rule as it stands.

 

[Maylandsman]

Yeah, I've missed it too. Can you point me to where the AFL said this was a new interpretation of the rule? Because they haven't rewritten the rule, and such an interpretation is not possible in any ordinary way of reading the rule as it stands.

Go figure it out for yourself. It’s a thing…I’ll leave you to it rather than get on your merry go round.

 

[volcboy]

Didn't realise how often the Dogs throw the ball until watching last night's game. They're the worst I've seen.

Every team does it (us included), but the Dogs seem to have trained in it as they 'flick' (i.e. throw) it around.

I'd hope that at the end of the season clubs are put on notice that the interpretation will be changed next year, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[finn]

Yeeeeah I think it’s just a byproduct of a poorly policed holding the ball rule. The old ‘illegal disposal’ is rarely paid unless utterly obvious - and ‘legitimate attempts to dispose’ are generally accepted as legal, mostly I assume to keep the game moving.

This is the key. Between the AFL being obsessed with the game being in constant motion and the rule of dropping the ball seemingly going the way of dinosaurs, any attempt to get rid of the ball seems to be acceptable.

Players tackled can miss their hand or foot in the first tackle but are deemed to have at least tried; “no prior opportunity” as I’ve heard umpires say while often a legitimate handball in the second tackle is ignored.

it seems that umpires have no real feel for the game. Partly due to there being so many rules that they have to make decisions (including whether to not pay frees) that they second guess themselves and partly due to there being no real incentive for past players to move from playing to umpiring. Having umpired at Amateur level, the constant introduction of new rules and interpretations robbed enjoyment of the game flow as you’re more worried about what you missed.

I personally believe that if you simplified the rules ie holding, dropping, throwing the ball, push in the back, above the shoulder, tripping, kick length, shepherding, acts of violence (I’m sure I’ve forgotten one or two) you’d have a much easier game to umpire.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Go figure it out for yourself. It’s a thing…I’ll leave you to it rather than get on your merry go round.

What you mean is throws are being allowed therefore this must be the interpretation. There is no actual verbal or written support of this position though.

 

[cat_fanatic]

What you mean is throws are being allowed therefore this must be the interpretation. There is no actual verbal or written support of this position though.

In what world would the AFL admit to that in any expressed way?

It's reasonable to conclude that it is being interpreted this way because:

a) the AFL have expressed clearly and made rule changes in recent years that they have an agenda to keep the game moving

b) The AFL instruct umpires on how rules should be interpreted to fit their agenda

c) allowing dubious handballs to be called play on fits this agenda

 

[Underdog]

AFL have their rules that don't neccessarily reflect the adjudications because they also has interpretations that are vague and not clearly defined. It's pretty absurd.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

In what world would the AFL admit to that in any expressed way?

It's reasonable to conclude that it is being interpreted this way because:

a) the AFL have expressed clearly and made rule changes in recent years that they have an agenda to keep the game moving

b) The AFL instruct umpires on how rules should be interpreted to fit their agenda

c) allowing dubious handballs to be called play on fits this agenda

Well, that's the thing as you said in (a) - they do make rule changes. I may not like the leeway given to incorrect disposal if you've had no prior, but it is there in the rules. HTB rule in particular has been changed multiple times in the last few decades.
But as far as I am aware the definition of a handball has not changed since the flick pass was outlawed in 1966. Certainly earlier in this thread somebody posted something from the 70s with the same definition.

 

[TheBont]

You idiots got any proof they actually throw it? I bet a slow mo replay would dispute about 90 percent of so called throws.

 

[PzBlinky]

I think last night's game well and truly dispels the myth that the Bulldogs throw it. I counted two free kicks for throws - BOTH against the Cats.

So if the Dogs with their 0 free kicks for throwing are the "worst", what does that make the Cats?

 

[Dangerousfield]

Watching the Dogs throw the ball really takes away the pleasure from a close game. Was glad for all their throwing they didn't get the points last night.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

As I've already explained, the OP is an Eagles supporter. Anything/everything wrong with the game is irrationally perceived as having been caused by Richmond.

Strong ironing from you there.

 

[Walter H White]

I think last night's game well and truly dispels the myth that the Bulldogs throw it. I counted two free kicks for throws - BOTH against the Cats.

So if the Dogs with their 0 free kicks for throwing are the "worst", what does that make the Cats?

Surely either irony or trolling. Libba's first touch of the game was a throw - you can't make this stuff up. He is an absolute cheat, at least with players ducking they are sometimes using it as a legitimate evasive manoeuvre (not condoning all instances of ducking mind you), but I can't see any instance where throwing is not blatant cheating - and it's even more difficult for the umpires to see (this is one instance where I don't blame the umpires, it's bloody hard to see in close).

 

[Pocket Terrace]

Has it occurred to anyone which position these ‘serial offenders’ play? Libba, Selwood, Cripps, Oliver, Kennedy, et al. Collectively, they are the most inside bunch of mids in the comp.

The way modern footy is played, these players are often first to the ball, but then have 2 players hanging off them. Dodgy disposal by hand is increasingly likely for these players as a result of the role they play. Same as key forwards and rucks are most likely to get away with the odd shove in the back compared to other positions.

The worst ones in recent times are actually when players get tackled, attempt to kick it but miss the boot and they call play on. That simply must be a free to the tackler if there has been an opportunity to already get rid of it.

PS. Call me old school, but all players I’ve listed above are absolute guns. Any team is better off by having them in the side and I would take them any day over some flanker who gets 100% legal stats out on his own.

 

[MF]

Wtf? I'll fully admit we have our fair share of divers, duckers and squibs but you can **** right off if you think we're anywhere near the worst offenders for throwing the ball. How can you not have the dogs at number one?

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Joel Selwood is shocking for it either ducks his head or throws the ball when tackled

 

[Grin]

Strong ironing from you there.

True. I could have said exactly the same thing about Geelong supporters.

 

[pineapple dee]

I thought this thread was started because the two biggest culprits, Geelong and Western Bulldogs were playing last Friday night.

 

[queensberryrules]

The Dogs dislike of contact includes an unwillingness to punch the ball.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Clayton Oliver owns this thread.