Gischens explaination of push in marking conest

[yeah-nah]

From The Giesch

"Clearly the Rocca one was a push based around the fact that one is going for the ball and one is not going for the ball, and he does all the pushing," Gieschen said.

"One of them their full intention is on the footy his eyes are on the ball and his hands are on the body. The other one's eyes are on the ball. If they are both pushing on each other we can't pay a free kick because it's a show of strength in that situation, it is whoever becomes the stronger.

"If we are on each other pushing against each other we won't penalise either of those guys. If there is a double action we consider that to be a push, but where it is a show of strength it needs to be both players engaged and that's play on."

Clear as mud. Heaven help the ump. FMD, this guy actually gets paid to come up with this s***.

Loads of pushes in tonights game. Toss a coin.

 

[Benno_900]

I was under the impression that a push in the side or in the chest is allowed in a marking contest no matter how forceful it is. That was until the Glass/Hill contest a couple of weeks back.

What a joke this 'rule' is, where'd it come from?

 

[ieasys00]

What a joke this 'rule' is, where'd it come from?

KB's poisoned mind?

 

[red+black]

I was under the impression that a push in the side or in the chest is allowed in a marking contest no matter how forceful it is.

Sensible people, such as yourself and I, would like to believe that is how football is played and officiated. Unfortunately, our great game is going down the gurgler and players are not allowed to touch each other at all. Jason Dunstall would not have kicked half of his 1299 goals if he played by "today rules".

 

[polly63]

Can't wait for his explanation about the 3 clear hands-in-the back (at least 2 of which were also pushes) not paid last night. Glad they weren't but that's beside the point - the AFL introduced the ridiculous rule and a huge number of really soft touches have already been pulled up this season. Change of policy? No fxxxing wonder fans are confused and annoyed.

 

[markr]

It has to be asked, would Zac Dawson have towelled Rocca up a couple of years ago? Every single contest would have resulted in a free kick to Dawson under this ridiculous interpretation.

 

[scottywiper]

I can't work out what Giesch said???

 

[james_omahoney]

Basically he's saying that to do what Rocca did is an infringement. They can't penalise it when both players are infringing because they both deserve a free, so the umpires let it go. It's not rocket surgery.

 

[red+black]

It's not rocket surgery.

Well, obviously it is, because many coaches, players and fans have no idea what is going on in football these days.

 

[bucksisbest]

Gieschen and Anderson are in a tight battle for the most incompetent AFL employee.

 

[CHBench]

Anyone see Goldspink on the Sunday Footy Show? Farcical.
Just outlined why umpiring/rules now days is a complete and utter joke.

 

[DNine]

Anyone see Goldspink on the Sunday Footy Show? Farcical.
Just outlined why umpiring/rules now days is a complete and utter joke.

It was PATHETIC. No wonder they're idiots out on the field. In a nice easy environment Goldspink was made look like an moron. If he can't come up with clear and not contradictory rule interpretation on the footy show, what hope has he got out there.

He has claimed that the game is changing, and someone has seen it in their wisdom, to reinterprete a rule that didn't need reinterpreting. Were the clubs fully informed about the re-interpretation, or do they just change things when ever they get it wrong. They change th rules to suite themselves, and to save face.

I have a new collective, I think we can refer to a group of umpires, as a moron of umpires. No wonder they are stuggling to get more umpires into the game, there is not enough people who are dumb on the same level. A new umpire that is smart, wouldn't last two mintues.

 

[james_omahoney]

Well, obviously it is, because many coaches, players and fans have no idea what is going on in football these days.

That's because of inconsistent umpiring decisions, which is a different, but massive, issue.

 

[Stenglein's a Champ!]

Anyone see Goldspink on the Sunday Footy Show? Farcical.
Just outlined why umpiring/rules now days is a complete and utter joke.

I honestly had no f**king idea what he was talking about.

BT looked like his head was going to explode.

 

[james_omahoney]

Anyone see Goldspink on the Sunday Footy Show? Farcical.
Just outlined why umpiring/rules now days is a complete and utter joke.

Goldspink is an imbecile. I've turned off SEN many times when he's talking because of the garbage coming out of his mouth. He is seriously dumb.

 

[Nardz]

I honestly had no f**king idea what he was talking about.

BT looked like his head was going to explode.

i dont think he had an idea what he was talking about.

It was actually quite funny.

First he explains the rocca incident, then they show him the two JA incidents to explain the difference.

He basically reiterated the rocca incident, then his woeful attempt at explaining how the JA incidents weren't free kicks when the rocca one was, was a complete and utter epic fail.

he was lost for words by the end. BT was also lost for words - somewhere along the lines of "how can this guy not see my point?"

i wish they had have pursued with that segment for another couple of minutes..

 

[Invigoration]

So unless you are both engaging in pushing/contesting it is a free?

So what they are saying is if you are smart, you should just stand there and watch the ball in a contest, then as soon as someone touches you, you should launch yourself to the ground and get the free kick for being pushed (regardless of whether it was in the side/front/back).
As soon as your opponent touches you, because you didn't contest back, then "one is not going for the ball, and he does all the pushing" and you just had your eyes on the ball.


Wake up Jeff.

 

[Stenglein's a Champ!]

i dont think he had an idea what he was talking about.

It was actually quite funny.

It's also pretty sad though, don't you think?

First he explains the rocca incident, then they show him the two JA incidents to explain the difference.

He basically reiterated the rocca incident, then his woeful attempt at explaining how the JA incidents weren't free kicks when the rocca one was, was a complete and utter epic fail.

His justification was something like; "The Rocca one was a push, whereas JA was doing it to keep the space between himself and his opponent."

Who gives a f**k why they're doing it?! It's still a f**king push!

 

[Nardz]

It's also pretty sad though, don't you think?



His justification was something like; "The Rocca one was a push, whereas JA was doing it to keep the space between himself and his opponent."

Who gives a f**k why they're doing it?! It's still a f**king push!

it really makes me wonder - do they actually think there's a difference between the incidents and that the rocca incident was a free and that the others weren't - or are they just trying to save face and refuse to admit a mistake?

Anyone here who watches the EPL or any soccer league will know that quite often the referee will speak directly to the media to admit mistakes - sometimes penalties that decide the game, red cards that completely change the game, incorrect offsides that allow or disallow the winning goal - but the point is the refs have the balls to admit their error and everyone can accept that they are humans and make mistakes - as much as you still dont like it its somewhat reassuring to see them admit their error.

The AFL and its umpiring department treat the public with contempt - and must think we're all a bunch of idiots that believe their crap.

 

[yeahmate]

Something needs to be done

The "pushing in a marking contest" free kick is clearly a new interpretation of a rule that, although it is technically in the rule book, it certainly has never been enforced in this manner since I have watched football.

I'm not even sure originally there was an AFL directive to umpires to start interpreting the rule in this way. To me, it seems like one umpire paid it in the Glass marking contest and then, in order to justify and protect that umpire, the umpires department came out and pointed out this strange rule in the rule book.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, other umpires are starting to pay this free kick, although it is not being applied consistently. Its already had a a big impact on the result of game ala the Rocca free kick.

Even if all umpires starting applying the rule consistently, it would represent a massive change to the way the game has been played for many years where pushing in the side or in the front in a marking contest has not been penalised.

An even bigger worry for mine is the potential for the rule to be applied even more literally. If you read it, it also prohibits not only pushing but any bumping in a marking contest. Goldspink said as much on the Sunday Football show. If umpires start paying free kicks for bumping or other body work in marking contests, as the literal text of the rule seems to require, then this is no longer the game I was brought up watching.

I imagine that players are incredibly confused at the moment about what they can and can't do in marking contests.

 

[Nardz]

Something needs to be done

The "pushing in a marking contest" free kick is clearly a new interpretation of a rule that, although it is technically in the rule book, it certainly has never been enforced in this manner since I have watched football.

I'm not even sure originally there was an AFL directive to umpires to start interpreting the rule in this way. To me, it seems like one umpire paid it in the Glass marking contest and then, in order to justify and protect that umpire, the umpires department came out and pointed out this strange rule in the rule book.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, other umpires are starting to pay this free kick, although it is not being applied consistently. Its already had a a big impact on the result of game ala the Rocca free kick.

Even if all umpires starting applying the rule consistently, it would represent a massive change to the way the game has been played for many years where pushing in the side or in the front in a marking contest has not been penalised.

An even bigger worry for mine is the potential for the rule to be applied even more literally. If you read it, it also prohibits not only pushing but any bumping in a marking contest. Goldspink said as much on the Sunday Football show. If umpires start paying free kicks for bumping or other body work in marking contests, as the literal text of the rule seems to require, then this is no longer the game I was brought up watching.

I imagine that players are incredibly confused at the moment about what they can and can't do in marking contests.

it also completely contradicts what the umpires have said in the past.

if you wind the clock back to when the hands in the back rule was introduced, im sure the explicitly mentioned a push in the side as OK, but once contact is made to the back then its a free kick.

 

[HongKongRoo]

I really feel for the players, Benny Warren who has played less than a handful of games watches the collingwood forwards do it and get marks paid so he tries the same thing and gives away a free. I'm not saying it had a major impact on the game but in terms of developing younger players it's just confusing if the umpires are not consistent.

 

[Nardz]

I really feel for the players, Benny Warren who has played less than a handful of games watches the collingwood forwards do it and get marks paid so he tries the same thing and gives away a free. I'm not saying it had a major impact on the game but in terms of developing younger players it's just confusing if the umpires are not consistent.

that incident was also rubbish. lol

 

[Juddy88]

From The Giesch


"One of them their full intention is on the footy his eyes are on the ball and his hands are on the body. The other one's eyes are on the ball.

Wtf does this mean. Marking contest your not allowed to touch the other person?