If the public's view did count...

[samthemanlonergan]

What would you like done with the new 'hands in the back rule'?

A) Scrap it, bad for the game.

Or

B) Keep it, punishes the man trying to play from behind.


Sensible responses please. If we get an emphatic response either way we might just be able to forward it to the AFL.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

Can it, unless the push is excessive. The game is becoming more and more like netball. I have also noticed this pre season that with the new rules, players feel contact and are playing for free kicks. Leave that to Italy and Soccer

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Keep it, largely because it SHOULD make it more consistent for umpires. They merely have to see contact, rather than make a split second decision on whether the contact constituted a push.
Of course, with Darren Goldspink considered a senior member of the umpiring ranks nothing will really do much to help them.

 

[exe ex machina]

I believe that Australian Football needs to go this way instead with it's rules regarding physical contact....

1. No push in the back at all, ever. Marking or tackling contests.
2. Can tackle below the knees.
3. Can shirt-front and take people out 5 meters within the ball in a shepherd.
4. In marking contests, players taking a mark can be hit (shirt-fronted etc) as long as they're in the act of catching it, where the ball is approx 5 meters in range. Think NFL when Wide Receivers attempt to catch the ball.
5. No 'incidental' head-high infractions. Meaning, if a hand comes up and wraps someone around the shoulders or slaps him across the neck.
6. If you duck into a tackle or bump, it's your bad luck.
7. Revision around the 'holding the ball' or 'incorrect disposal rule'.....basically, if you get tackled and drop the ball it's play-on, even if you incorrectly dispose of it as long as you're making a proper attempt via handpass or kick. However, the emphasis is on being tackled to the ground or pinned around the arms or fall over the ball dragging it in. So, if you get tackled and brought to the ground, without having released the ball, then it is a Free-Kick. If you get pinned around the arms in possession, whereby the ball gets trapped into you, but you haven't been brought to the ground, just held up long enough, perhaps even in a gang-tackle/hug then it is Free-Kick, even if you had no prior ability. If you dive on the ball on the ground and hold it in, a Free-Kick is awarded. Think Rugby Union kind of, where a tackle means immediate release of the ball. The incentive being if you tackle someone, they have to immediately release the ball giving the advantage to your team being able to take possession of it. Due to the huge open spaces of Australian Football, and the difficulty in actually being able to tackle someone with 360 degrees of freedom, then a lot of leeway must be given to allow for more physicality. The only way to create more physicality is by making the playing field smaller to congest it, (which isn't good), or by giving players more freedom (or less rules) to make contact and hard like Ice Hockey up to a certain threshold that outlaws sniping, or forceful head-high tackling etc.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

A push is a push, it shouldn't matter whether the hands are used or not. Scrap the rule.

 

[samthemanlonergan]

I think it should be scapped. It makes the umpires interfere to much, which supporters hate.

 

[The Zebra]

Won't it give less scope for umpire interpretation - which everyone always whinges about?

Doug Wade was on radio the other day and said Matty Scarlett was worried about it and how it will affect his game, but after two hitouts he had adjusted and has it covered.

 

[FixterFan]

Won't it give less scope for umpire interpretation - which everyone always whinges about?

Doug Wade was on radio the other day and said Matty Scarlett was worried about it and how it will affect his game, but after two hitouts he had adjusted and has it covered.

Just because players can adjust to it doesn't mean that it was right to introduce it in the first place.

 

[The Zebra]

Just because players can adjust to it doesn't mean that it was right to introduce it in the first place.

If Matty Scarlett can beat his opponent without putting his hands on his back - how is it a bad rule?

 

[exe ex machina]

Just because players can adjust to it doesn't mean that it was right to introduce it in the first place.

Excellent point. I think you'll find all athletes/sportstars able to adjust to new rules etc. As they are highly skilled at what they do. But, very true, just because they can doesn't make it right to introduce.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

A push is a push, it shouldn't matter whether the hands are used or not. Scrap the rule.

You know that commonsense isnt welcome at the AFL.

 

[Richo83]

Scrap it. Encourages forwards to whenever they get touched to call the free, ala strikers whenever they get fouled they run around saying I've been fouled. It creates this soccer style which I don't like.

 

[jackcrowe]

If the umpires were able to tell the difference between someone pushing out and someone holding there ground last year we wouldnt have had to introduce this new rule into the game.
Just teach the umpires to interpret the old rule properly and all will be fine.

 

[Smell The Glove]

I believe that no player should be allowed to physically touch another player on the field whatsoever. When they apporaoch the player, they should politely ask for the ball and if the other player says no, the umpire come in a flips a coin to decide the outcome.

Seriously though, the AFL is fast becoming a joke. The umpteen rules changes in the last five years are just pathetic and you really have to wonder who is pulling the strings nowadays. I dont really care if little seven year old Johnny or Jenny dont want to see the biff, it is a contact sport and not for little kids, so get over it.