Hands in the back rule set to be axed

[Shane Heard]

My fellow nutcase footy fanatic punters,

Make no mistake about this miracle happening next year..a reverse rule change that will ripple through all levels of footy around the country and bring sanity and peace of mind to players, coaches and spectators alike.

The ‘hands in the back rule’ has been a blight on the game like no other in the history of our great game and frustrated us all to the point of madness.

According to bobble head McClure writing in everyone’s favourite rag ‘The Age’ ..it’s been in force since 2006.

Is that correct?...have we been putting up with this ridiculous rule for 12 torturous seasons?

Anyway..common sense has prevailed and defenders can get back to what the footy gods created them for...to nudge forwards off balance in marking contests without blatantly pushing them in the back.

‘Touch and feel’ is back for forwards as well. The right to reach out and balance themselves when caught behind an opponent is a wonderful thing.

Ill be flabbergasted if anyone is against this ‘rule change’.

I will sleep well tonight and dream of Jake Stringer’s forearm once again driving into the shoulder blades of unsuspecting opposition defenders and taking the grab..playing on and banging another one through the big sticks.


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...lished-by-afl-commission-20180917-p504c1.html

 

[Mr Ripper]

Elephant stamp to the first person who can find the ‘hands in the back’ rule in ‘ere. http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723)

 

[Ron]

Should have gotten rid of it after that disgusting call on Richo against the Bombers in 06 or 07.

 

[Shane Heard]

Elephant stamp to the first person who can find the ‘hands in the back’ rule in ‘ere. http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723)

The phantom rule is what it’s been.

Interesting that some Tiger fan added this marvellous piece of football history to the ‘ hands in the back’ Wikipedia page. One of the most tragic moments in world sport.

“In Round 9, 2007, with the scores tied between Essendon and Richmond and with about three minutes to go, Matthew Richardson nudged Mal Michael out of a standing one-on-one marking contest, using his right hand on Michael's right shoulder blade. Michael, who was in front but slightly out of position, jumped to take the mark exactly as he was pushed, but missed the ball; Richardson took the mark and played on immediately, kicking the ball between the goal posts from 50m out, but was penalised for a push in the back, plus fifty metres for wasting time.[1] The Tigers lost the game, and widespread debate about the hands in the back interpretation followed in the next week.”

 

[Tarkyn_24]

James Clement you can unretire now!

 

[Thrawn]

Good. They can get rid of the deliberate rule while they're at it.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Heard someone say on one of the footy shows last night that they're looking to do away with a number of unnecessary rules, so this could all be a very big positive for footy and make it much easier to umpire.

 

[mike123]

The leg rule needs to go not this one

 

[Gone Critical]

Think you will find this is more of an interpretation than a rule change. I thought what they bought in back when you are talking about was great.

I love the modern game and think it has incrementally improved as a spectacle since I 1st starting watching in the late 60's. One of the few areas that declined for mine was the grappling between forwards and backs. Go back to the 60's and 70's and players flew for the ball in packs without the same sort of holding and pushing out. Of course the game allowed many more contested marking situations as kicking skills were miles off what they are now and the floating kick to the next contest promoted contested marking. There were also nearly twice as many frees paid in those days and the game was very stop start.

As the game became quicker, the whistle put away and kicking more pin point defenders reverted to more hanging on and pushing in contests. By the early 00's it was just a wresting match. While the modern game with its rapid precise kicking means defenders are still looking to hang on and push and forwards do the same back e.g back with arm around the forward going into a marking contest in the old days just didn't exist, the reinterpretation of hands in the back at least cut out some of this wrestling and gave the player going for the mark a better chance of contesting.

Hopefully it stays like it is.

 

[Blackhawk42]

If we lose a bunch of silly rules (hopefully contact below the knees is next too), will it be enough to offset the potentially ridiculous ones they are planing on bringing in?

I would make the 'contact below the knees' rule just a 'sliding' rule. Incidental contact or a bloke putting his head over it to play the ball shouldn't be penalised.
I'd allow the third man up and get rid of ruck nominating.
I'd go back to paying holding the ball if the bloke does a 360. Since you can't really dump tackle anymore, there should be no excuse to be turned a full circle within a tackle with an arm free without getting rid of the footy.

 

[HTT]

I thought it already was back to the old interpretation. Anyway, this shows one positive, and that’s a willingness to clean up the current rules.

 

[kickazz]

I thought it already was back to the old interpretation. Anyway, this shows one positive, and that’s a willingness to clean up the current rules.

Yeah they have not been nearly as strict on it as in the mid 2000s.

I'm with Gone Critical in that it does stop some of the grappling and made players go for the ball more. Unfortunately such a hard and fast rule led to some ridiculous situations though. It was tough if a player was backing into you

 

[ManOfClay]

Get rid of the third man up rule. It’s not a basketball jump ball, if a team wants to committ an extra in the air let them. Just means an opponent free on the ground

 

[markr]

I seem to remember back in the day there was a rule about incorrect disposal, and if you didn't correctly dispose of the ball after being tackled it was a free kick? They should look at bringing that one back in, it was pretty good.

 

[Gydafud]

Are they also going to get rid of the “falling on the back of someone laying prone on the ground” rule?

 

[basashi]

My fellow nutcase footy fanatic punters,

Make no mistake about this miracle happening next year..a reverse rule change that will ripple through all levels of footy around the country and bring sanity and peace of mind to players, coaches and spectators alike.

The ‘hands in the back rule’ has been a blight on the game like no other in the history of our great game and frustrated us all to the point of madness.

According to bobble head McClure writing in everyone’s favourite rag ‘The Age’ ..it’s been in force since 2006.

Is that correct?...have we been putting up with this ridiculous rule for 12 torturous seasons?

Anyway..sanity has prevailed and defenders can get back to what the footy gods created them for...to nudge forwards off balance in marking contests without blatantly pushing them in the back.

‘Touch and feel’ is back for forwards as well. The right to reach out and balance themselves when caught behind an opponent is a wonderful thing.

Ill be flabbergasted if anyone is against this ‘rule change’.

I will sleep well tonight and dream of Jake Stringer’s forearm once again driving into the shoulder blades of unsuspecting opposition defenders and taking the grab..playing on and banging another one through the big sticks.


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...lished-by-afl-commission-20180917-p504c1.html

- You have to be lightning fast if you want to exclude a player from any contest because its a free kick if the ball is more than 5m away. Speed of the incoming ball doesn't give you much time. And if its a marking contest its even tighter because your actions are only legal if they are incidental in your effort to take the grab.

(15.4.3 Permitted Contact Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player: (a) by using their hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; (b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; (c) by executing a Correct Tackle; (d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player; or (e) if such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.)

 

[DSL64]

Glad we are pissing off such a murky rule.
Like, you never knew when it was a free or not.

So glad we are going back to the clear-cut interpretation of two actions.
That'll make so much easier for the Umpires

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Let's just go back to whatever set of rules were used in the middle 90's.

 

[DSL64]

Elephant stamp to the first person who can find the ‘hands in the back’ rule in ‘ere. http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723)

I found it...
It's in the same section which goes on about two actions in a marking contest...

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Hands in the back was a great guideline. Players knew what they could do and umpires knew what constituted a free kick.

We now revert back to the old definition of push in the back. A system that worked so well and efficiently a guideline had to be brought in

 

[EasternTiger]

Back in the olden days before the internet and Stereosonic, they decided to improve on Coke. There was an uproar from the consumer and it only took a few months before the syrup boffins realised their mistake with New COKE and went back to the original recipe, calling it Coca Cola Classic.

Let us go back to Football Classic, and severely punish every boofhead who has ever tampered with our great game.

 

[Back One Out]

Terrible news. This is an utterly moronic decision by the AFL and anyone who applauds this decision is also a moron with NFI.

The hands in the back rule is the reason why we still have high marks in the game. It was a rule change which actually improved the game as a spectacle. Before the hands in the back rule, we had gorilla forwards with both feet planted, grappling with their opponents and holding them under the flight of the ball. Players simply stopped jumping for marks. Why bother when you could place your hands in opponent's back?

Umpires could no longer differentiate between a legitimate push in the back and players simply "holding their ground" with hands in the back. HENCE THE 'HANDS IN THE BACK' RULE INTERPRETATION.

Why do we want to roll this back to the previous sorry state of affairs and remove one of the few remaining good things about the game?

We have a bunch of idiots running the game. Just another nail in the coffin of AFL footy.

 

[kickazz]

Terrible news. This is an utterly moronic decision by the AFL and anyone who applauds this decision is also a moron with NFI.

The hands in the back rule is the reason why we still have high marks in the game. It was a rule change which actually improved the game as a spectacle. Before the hands in the back rule, we had gorilla forwards with both feet planted, grappling with their opponents and holding them under the flight of the ball. Players simply stopped jumping for marks. Why bother when you could place your hands in opponent's back?

Umpires could no longer determine what was a legitimate push in the back and what was a player "holding their ground" with hands in the back. HENCE THE HANDS IN THE BACK RULE INTERPRETATION.

We have a bunch of idiots running the game. Just another nail in the coffin of AFL footy.

Good to see someone actually back their position up with reason instead of just, well, no reasons.

I still think the rule can be problematic but the points you make are very good. I recall about ten years ago that high marking did improve.

 

[Andrew Mc]

I would make the 'contact below the knees' rule just a 'sliding' rule. Incidental contact or a bloke putting his head over it to play the ball shouldn't be penalised.

At the moment, the actual rule prohibits contact below the knees that has the potential to cause injury. So really, the correct rule is already there. They just need to change their interpretation. Honestly, even when it was first changed, it was only for people who were sliding in - it's only recently that it's become this ridiculous thing that it is (it's gotten increasingly worse this year).

 

[citizen-erased]

Should have gotten rid of it after that disgusting call on Richo against the Bombers in 06 or 07.

I remember that game. Cost the tigers the game
Never been a fan of this rule
Next, get rid of push in the back during tackles