Hands in the back.

[hoody]

I always thought the rule was "push" in the back.

Anyway, as you would all be aware, there is no end of conjecture as to the merits of the interpretation of this rule in the 2007 season.
It stuns me that in every game, every week many offending players argue with the umpires after they have clearly transgressed in this area.
Of course the umpire might not see or pay it, so run the risk if you choose to, but wear the consequences either way.
I realize that footballers are just humans and may struggle to change old habits but.......
How smart do you have to be?
Put your hands in to the back of an opponent and chances are you will be free kicked.

 

[scottydeewah]

I tell you why, because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE not to do it sometimes. Case in point

If you are a backman and you are following a leading forward out of the goalsquare on the lead. Now imagine the ball is going high, over both of you so you have to do a quick u-bolt and run back onto the ball. It is impossible to turn around quickly without putting your hands in front of you for balance, but if the other player is there, your gawn. So what is your choice, well you dont really have one here, you have to put your hands out and if the player is to close, regardless of a push or any obstruction you are GAWN.

There are other examples as well when it becomes very hard not to make incidental contact.

 

[tiredcat]

Using your forearms is supposed to make it legal. I think this rule is basically good and most players will adapt as they have with the much more contentious holding/incorrect disposal of the ball which has now turned out that once a player has gone to ground anything goes as long as it dribbles out somehow.
Its interesting to see the how the players have adapted so far with Gehrig and Hall not adapting at all. Fevola is one who is now using his knees much more to stop a defender coming back on him which will be used much more as players adapt.
Anyway I like it and hope to see more vertical contests and not pushing contests

 

[GeeCat]

The rule itself had good intentions (of wiping out legitimate manhandling/push outs), but the interpretation and subsequant application of it has been atrocious.

 

[Generalissimo]

I agree with the basic philosophy behind it ie. to stop players from pushing their opponents under the ball, but it's been a nightmare to implement. My concerns are:

1) The umps aren't able to pay them consistently. How many have we seen them miss? And don't get me started on on introducing a fourth umpire to make it easier- there's enough maggots on the field already and, as someone in the paper today pointed out, if you have to bring in yet another rule to fix the new one, the new one's pretty crap.

2) This rule was brought in to promote marking contests. Well, for every push in the back that was being let go under the old rule I reckon at least three genuine contests have been spoiled by the new one. It's a failure. It defeats the purpose.

 

[Cattery]

Getting a lot of very soft free kicks paid at the moment but think this will drop off as players become more accustomed to the rule, not perfect by any means but would much prefer the way it is at present then go back to allowing players to blatantly use their hands to push opponents under the ball.

Always thought the golden rule was "get in front" but under the old interpretation it was more advantageous to take the back position and simply use your hands to push/hold your opponent out of the contest.

 

[BlueOyster]

the problem we have is our game is the most officiated game in the world and instead of simplifying it to reduce this, the rules committee add more rules to try and overcome it, therefore more decisions from people who need to be more invisible. the umpires dont have an easy task interpreting all the rules and the afl makes their job that much more harder. the hands in the back rule is here to stay as i have never seen the afl say "we were wrong" ever so we need to gert used to it!