Just implement the rules please.

[Strawbs]

Jeff Kennett is spot on regarding "un-miking" the umps. It simply makes it more frustrating to watch a game. A classic example in the Crows/Cats game tonight was where a Crow marked unopposed and was then grabbed by Cameron Mooney. He was not in the marking contest. The umpire called, "Let him go Cam." Nah. It's 50 metres. What's with the instruction? There are plenty of grey areas in our game. The cut and dried ones don't require "interpretation" or "feel for the game." Just IMPLEMENT THE RULES - please.

 

[polly63]

Sounds to me like a bit of intelligent umpiring for a change - EXACTLY what we want and need right now. The pedantic and over-technical umpiring (not necessarily the fault of the umps) is currently a blight on the game.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Sounds to me like a bit of intelligent umpiring for a change - EXACTLY what we want and need right now.

How do you figure that? I've seen 50m be given for this offence on countless occasions, because that's what the rule is. By paying it on some occasions
and not on others, an unnecessary level of inconsistency is introduced into the game. What's the point of having the rule, if the umpires are simply going to ignore it?

Can you name another sport where those officiating have such a record of deliberately and knowingly ignoring clear cut rules like this? And only when it suits them?

The OP is dead right. Implement the rule. If the umpires did that, everyone would be better off.

 

[Tormented Tiger]

After going to the game today and watching useless Richmond players being pinged for dropping the ball or illegal dispatch of the ball. I got home to see the end of the telecast. Melbourne player was grabbed and slung and the ball comes free. All you here from an umpire "he tried to kick it, play-on". WTF Just IMPLEMENT THE RULES - please.

 

[polly63]

How do you figure that? I've seen 50m be given for this offence on countless occasions, because that's what the rule is. By paying it on some occasions
and not on others, an unnecessary level of inconsistency is introduced into the game. What's the point of having the rule, if the umpires are simply going to ignore it?

Can you name another sport where those officiating have such a record of deliberately and knowingly ignoring clear cut rules like this? And only when it suits them?

The OP is dead right. Implement the rule. If the umpires did that, everyone would be better off.

My point is simple - I don't want umpires penalising every possible infraction of the rules (so called 'technical umpiring') only those that are clear, have an obvious effect on the opposition - ie they are earned, not soft free kicks (like the soft 50m paid to Steve Johnson when a Crow came within 2m of him as he was taking his kick). The same applies for hands in the back, taking the arms in marking contests, etc. Players need to be given some leeway (eg tackling a player who ducks his head) and umpires should use common sense - that way we get a contest, which surely is what we all want to see. The game has gone backwards since technical umpiring overtook common sense umpiring - and penalising every tiny infraction is OBVIOUSLY not pleasing the fans, coaches or players at the moment.

Oh - referees/umpires in EVERY sport interpret rules by what they see in front of them and the better ones also take into account whether an infraction is significant. Otherwise they'd be blowing the whistle every 30 seconds and pizzing off even the most hardened fans.

Perhaps you like the new ping pong, over-officiated football. I don't and I'm clearly not alone in that view. Everyone would be better off if umpires let games flow more and swallowed their whistles to some extent.

 

[Bone Crusher]

My point is simple - I don't want umpires penalising every possible infraction of the rules (so called 'technical umpiring') only those that are clear, have an obvious effect on the opposition - ie they are earned, not soft free kicks (like the soft 50m paid to Steve Johnson when a Crow came within 2m of him as he was taking his kick). The same applies for hands in the back, taking the arms in marking contests, etc. Players need to be given some leeway (eg tackling a player who ducks his head) and umpires should use common sense - that way we get a contest, which surely is what we all want to see. The game has gone backwards since technical umpiring overtook common sense umpiring - and penalising every tiny infraction is OBVIOUSLY not pleasing the fans, coaches or players at the moment.

Oh - referees/umpires in EVERY sport interpret rules by what they see in front of them and the better ones also take into account whether an infraction is significant. Otherwise they'd be blowing the whistle every 30 seconds and pizzing off even the most hardened fans.

Perhaps you like the new ping pong, over-officiated football. I don't and I'm clearly not alone in that view. Everyone would be better off if umpires let games flow more and swallowed their whistles to some extent.

In certain situations, you do want to penalising every possible infraction of the rules. The reason why this rule was brought in was to stop the defending player from preventing the player who took the mark from playing on quickly. If you ignore the minor infractions, then the rule is useless. If they paid them every time, then you'd increase the chance of a contest, because it you don't contest the mark, then you can't hold the player up a little after it.

The problem I have with umpiring is when they pay this one, but not that one. It's far too inconsistent ATM. By making this rule clear cut, if you're not in the contest, then you can't touch them at all, and interpreting it that way every time, you eliminate inconsistency, without preventing a contest at all.

NOTE: I don't consider holding onto a player after he takes a mark to be a contest.

 

[Strawbs]

My point is simple - I don't want umpires penalising every possible infraction of the rules (so called 'technical umpiring') only those that are clear, have an obvious effect on the opposition - ie they are earned, not soft free kicks (like the soft 50m paid to Steve Johnson when a Crow came within 2m of him as he was taking his kick). The same applies for hands in the back, taking the arms in marking contests, etc. Players need to be given some leeway (eg tackling a player who ducks his head) and umpires should use common sense - that way we get a contest, which surely is what we all want to see. The game has gone backwards since technical umpiring overtook common sense umpiring - and penalising every tiny infraction is OBVIOUSLY not pleasing the fans, coaches or players at the moment.

Oh - referees/umpires in EVERY sport interpret rules by what they see in front of them and the better ones also take into account whether an infraction is significant. Otherwise they'd be blowing the whistle every 30 seconds and pizzing off even the most hardened fans.

Perhaps you like the new ping pong, over-officiated football. I don't and I'm clearly not alone in that view. Everyone would be better off if umpires let games flow more and swallowed their whistles to some extent.

Clear cut rules such as "hands in the back," "chopping the arms" and "50m penalty for holding after an uncontested mark" should ALWAYS be paid. That way the players know what they can and can't do. If it's paid consistently, then you will see fewer frees/50s paid because players will know that they will be penalised.
As for that old favourite call, "let them game flow" - unpaid frees can have as much, if not more effect on a game than paid frees. So often you hear people bemoan the fact that, "defenders can't do anything these days." Go for the ball! Chopping the arms should never have been a legitimate means of spoiling an opponent. It's certainly not "technical."

 

[polly63]

Clear cut rules such as "hands in the back," "chopping the arms" and "50m penalty for holding after an uncontested mark" should ALWAYS be paid. That way the players know what they can and can't do. If it's paid consistently, then you will see fewer frees/50s paid because players will know that they will be penalised.
As for that old favourite call, "let them game flow" - unpaid frees can have as much, if not more effect on a game than paid frees. So often you hear people bemoan the fact that, "defenders can't do anything these days." Go for the ball! Chopping the arms should never have been a legitimate means of spoiling an opponent. It's certainly not "technical."

Your comment is simplistic. Clear cut rules (aren't they all, or are you suggesting that some rules should be ignored in certain circumstances?) does NOT EQUATE to clear cut infractions. For example, a defender touching the arms in a marking contest is now often seen (by 'technical' umpires) as equivalent to a chop of the arms (which I agree should always be penalised). Every incident is different - some are clear cut and clearly deserve a penalty while others should simply be 'play on'. If any doubt exists, play on. If the infraction is insignificant (eg a light touch over the shoulder), play on!

You seem to believe that umpires should be blowing the whistle far more than they currently do (the only possible outcome if umpires penalised every infringement). I certainly don't - that would ruin the game as a spectacle and contest in my opinion.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Your comment is simplistic. Clear cut rules (aren't they all, or are you suggesting that some rules should be ignored in certain circumstances?) does NOT EQUATE to clear cut infractions. For example, a defender touching the arms in a marking contest is now often seen (by 'technical' umpires) as equivalent to a chop of the arms (which I agree should always be penalised). Every incident is different - some are clear cut and clearly deserve a penalty while others should simply be 'play on'. If any doubt exists, play on. If the infraction is insignificant (eg a light touch over the shoulder), play on!

You seem to believe that umpires should be blowing the whistle far more than they currently do (the only possible outcome if umpires penalised every infringement). I certainly don't - that would ruin the game as a spectacle and contest in my opinion.

Clear cut means the rule isn't open to interpretation. Some rules are. Like having to control the ball in order for a mark to be paid, or having prior opportunity. Others, like not being able to chop the arms in a marking contest or hold onto a player after a mark, are far less open to interpretation.

If umpires were more diligent in paying these, then players wouldn't continue to attempt to get away with them.

BTW, there's no need to use a super large font simply because others diagree with you.

 

[Strawbs]

Polly you missed my point completely. I repeat, if the umps implemented the rules consistently, as Bonecrusher says above, the players would be less likely to infringe as they know they will almost definitely be penalised. Thus FEWER FREES WILL RESULT. And by "clear cut rules", again, as Bonecrusher points out, I mean rules that aren't grey areas. Examples of these grey rules would be the deliberate rule, the rushed behind, holding the ball. I want EVERY 50m penalty paid if a player infringes - you watch how few 50s will need to be paid thereafter. Oh, except for 50 for umpire contact or abuse - I have no idea why the opposition is rewarded for that.

 

[ManInWhite]

It's interesting to read through the threads on this page. About 50% seem to be pleading for umpires to "be more consistent" and pay everything equally - the other 50% of threads are saying umpires should take incidents into context more (e.g. try and judge whether a player is faking a free kick). And sometimes the same posters are asking for both!

 

[polly63]

....If umpires were more diligent in paying these, then players wouldn't continue to attempt to get away with them.

Er, ever played the game? In all but a handful of instances in any match players aren't trying to get away with anything, they are acting on instinct and trying their hardest to either get hold of the ball or shut down their opponent. In rare cases a player will quickly weigh up the odds, irrespective of whether the ump is 'whistle happy' or not, simply because it's a bet to nothing - ie don't infringe and his opponent likely marks or takes the ball away anyway. Umpire 'diligence' will not change this behaviour because it is actually coached into players from a very early age.

BTW, there's no need to use a super large font simply because others diagree with you.

I accept your apology because how could you know that BF went down as I was composing my reply and try as I might I could only get tiny or large font when I cut and pasted later.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Er, ever played the game? In all but a handful of instances in any match players aren't trying to get away with anything, they are acting on instinct and trying their hardest to either get hold of the ball or shut down their opponent.

Mate, I was a full forward for several years, and that is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time. I've lost count of the number of times I was deliberately held onto by an opponent. That's not instinct, it's just cheating.

In rare cases a player will quickly weigh up the odds, irrespective of whether the ump is 'whistle happy' or not, simply because it's a bet to nothing - ie don't infringe and his opponent likely marks or takes the ball away anyway. Umpire 'diligence' will not change this behaviour because it is actually coached into players from a very early age.

What I'm saying is that if the umps pay a free in this instance every time, then the probability of your opponent winning a clean possession is higher by infringing, so you're better off going the spoil. Those that continue to do so should give away a free kick. And in situations where you infringe on a players that you can't possible stop from taking a mark, I think a 50 should be paid. ie. player taking the make, and you give him a right royal shove in the back. If he still takes the mark, then give him a 50 as well. Lets see how many players want to continue with that practise then.

But what ever rules are applies, they need to be applied consistently. The rules in this case (held onto after uncontested mark) are quite clear. There's no ifs or buts with this one. You either are in the marking contest or you aren't. If you aren't, and you hold up the player after he marks, that's 50. What's the point in paying it sometimes, but not others?

As I said before, there's a reason for this rule. If you take an uncontested mark, you should have the right to play on unimpeded. If you rob a player of that right, he deserves to be compensated. This is the intention of the rule. How the hell can it be "intelligent umpiring" to simply ignore this rule when it suits?

 

[james_omahoney]

Er, ever played the game? In all but a handful of instances in any match players aren't trying to get away with anything, they are acting on instinct and trying their hardest to either get hold of the ball or shut down their opponent. In rare cases a player will quickly weigh up the odds, irrespective of whether the ump is 'whistle happy' or not, simply because it's a bet to nothing - ie don't infringe and his opponent likely marks or takes the ball away anyway. Umpire 'diligence' will not change this behaviour because it is actually coached into players from a very early age.

I'm sure we've all played the game a lot mate, so no need to pull that one out on him. It's ridiculous to suggest that being strict on particular behaviours has no effect on reducing it. If you watched One Week at a Time last week, Matthew Lloyd commented that it is possible to make decisions about what to do in a split second. He gave his incident where he and Judd crashed into each other last year as an example. He said he was going to shoulder bump him, realised that the movement of Judd's body was changing, and at the last second had to open his arms up and take the full force of the blow to his torso so that he wouldn't give away a free kick.

Playing football, you should know that particular rules can and do have an effect on how you approach contests. Smart players will make sure to tackle around the waist so that if the player ducks there's be less of a chance he'd get pinged for it, for example.

You are right that a lot of infringements aren't intentional, however it's not really the point. Most of the time it's negligence, and in the instances that it's just bad luck, then bad luck - the other player still deserves a free kick.

Instinct can be changed. It may be painful for a while but over time, if an offender keeps getting penalised, he'll change his ways.

 

[polly63]

Okay, I obviously haven't been clear enough for some of you. The point of my posts is this: I have no interest in a game where 'just implement the rules' is the overriding policy. I don't want Australian Football turned into touch footy, I want the game returned to a place where free kicks are earned and contests rule. I am happy for umps to interpret whether an infringement is worthwhile and actually want them to err on the play-on style of umpiring. This is currently not the case, and what others are arguing in this thread can only lead to even more free kicks being paid, with commensurately more controversy. I'm happy to be at odds with that approach. Bring back the contest!

 

[james_omahoney]

Okay, I obviously haven't been clear enough for some of you. The point of my posts is this: I have no interest in a game where 'just implement the rules' is the overriding policy. I don't want Australian Football turned into touch footy, I want the game returned to a place where free kicks are earned and contests rule. I am happy for umps to interpret whether an infringement is worthwhile and actually want them to err on the play-on style of umpiring. This is currently not the case, and what others are arguing in this thread can only lead to even more free kicks being paid, with commensurately more controversy. I'm happy to be at odds with that approach. Bring back the contest!

I played footy as a defender, and I would pride myself on being able to shut down the full forward without resorting to cheating or negligent tactics such as pushing, chopping or late tackles, and likewise it used to drive me crazy when others would stoop to it.

It's a tough situation really. Strictly penalising infringements upsets some sections of the community, while the 'play on' style upsets others. Even an in-between style will still upset both parties to some degree. I personally prefer the 'short term pain/long term gain' approach to penalising infringements, as I believe it inevitably leads to a fairer and higher standard of football.

I think relaxing the standards would be the worst thing the AFL could do though - it would send the progress of fair and excellent football backwards. The major issue for me is consistency in applying the rules.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Okay, I obviously haven't been clear enough for some of you. The point of my posts is this: I have no interest in a game where 'just implement the rules' is the overriding policy. I don't want Australian Football turned into touch footy,

Who said anything about touch footy? Why do you believe this would be the result of implementing the rules as they are?

I want the game returned to a place where free kicks are earned and contests rule.

It's been explained to you that paying the 50m in the opening post would have encouraged a contest, not prevented one. You seem to have ignored that point.

I am happy for umps to interpret whether an infringement is worthwhile and actually want them to err on the play-on style of umpiring.

There's often no need for this. If all the boxes are ticked, there's no reason not to pay a free kick/50m. Was the mark uncontested? Yes. Was the player held onto after the mark? Yes. The only umpiring error in this situation is not to pay the 5om at all.

This is currently not the case, and what others are arguing in this thread can only lead to even more free kicks being paid, with commensurately more controversy. I'm happy to be at odds with that approach.

Controversy is born from inconsistency, and that's what you appear to be supporting.

Bring back the contest!

See above.

 

[polly63]

Okay you need me to spell it out one step at a time, hardly surprising given that you were a forward (just kidding, but really if you think holding on is 'cheating' you must have been a very unhappy footballer).

Who said anything about touch footy? Why do you believe this would be the result of implementing the rules as they are?

Simple really - in a large number of contests someone will invariably technically infringe a rule (as I explained before). An interventionist (technically correct) umpire would then be blowing his whistle every 60 seconds for a free kick. Since you seem to be advocating the 'implement the rules' policy that would ultimately lead to less contests (according to your own conclusions the players would learn that it is better not to enter any contest unless they were confident of perfect execution. Personally I think this penalise/learn not to infringe is largely nonsense).

It's been explained to you that paying the 50m in the opening post would have encouraged a contest, not prevented one. You seem to have ignored that point.

There's often no need for this. If all the boxes are ticked, there's no reason not to pay a free kick/50m. Was the mark uncontested? Yes. Was the player held onto after the mark? Yes. The only umpiring error in this situation is not to pay the 5om at all.

The ump obviously thought it insignificant and that being the case ruled, as I would like them always to rule, with common sense/intelligence. Perhaps he was technically wrong but as I've said I don't agree with technical umpiring.

Controversy is born from inconsistency, and that's what you appear to be supporting.

Ho hum, wrong conclusion. Here's a piece of elementary logic for you. Umpires rarely make mistakes in their adjudications, despite what we like to think. Their biggest mistakes are in not awarding free kicks in similar situations (ie inconsistency). When they 'swallow the whistle' their consistency improves since they let most minor infringements go and only penalise significant transgressions. Ergo the more technical they get the worse their performance.

Funny isn't it that commentators and fans always talk about that terrific passage of play or game almost always when the umps let the game flow. Now why is that?

 

[Bone Crusher]

Okay you need me to spell it out one step at a time,

Don't mistake disagreement for incomprehension. Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I don't understand it.

hardly surprising given that you were a forward (just kidding, but really if you think holding on is 'cheating' you must have been a very unhappy footballer).

Put it this way. When I was held on to, and I knew the umpire saw it, I expected to get a free kick. More often than not I did, although it didn't happen that often, esp when I was younger, as I had a huge size advantage and could easily dispatch most defenders. I was an early sprouter. In the seniors though, it was a different story.

Simple really - in a large number of contests someone will technically infringe a rule (as I explained before). An interventionist (technically correct) umpire would then be blowing his whistle every 60 seconds for a free kick.

I'm not asking for this. I'm asking that the AFL umpires follow the guidelines put out by the AFL at the start of each season. According to those guidelines, the holding of a player after an uncontested mark is worth a 50m penalty. So again, why would the umpire be "intelligent" by refusing to pay such a decision?

The ump obviously thought it insignificant and that being the case ruled, as I would like them always to rule, with common sense/intelligence. Perhaps he was technically wrong but as I've said I don't agree with technical umpiring.

Which has a tendency to create inconsistency, as all umpires will have their own opinion on what is and isn't significant. Only by saying "holding a player after an uncontested mark is always significant" can inconsistency be reduced.

Besides, as a forward I know, the only way an umpire could tell whether or not it's significant would be to know what the forward was thinking at the time. If there was a player down field that the forward was looking to get the ball to, and the illegal tackle prevented that, then that's significant. If the umpire was unaware of this, then he may rule decide that it was insignificant.

Ho hum, wrong conclusion. Here's a piece of elementary logic for you. Umpires rarely make mistakes in their adjudications, despite what we like to think. Their biggest mistakes are in not awarding free kicks in similar situations (ie inconsistency). When they 'swallow the whistle' their consistency improves since they let most minor infringements go and only penalise significant transgressions. Ergo the more technical they get the worse their performance.

You've assumed a linear relationship between technicality of decisions and consistency. As there is no such linear relationship, your conclusion is meaningless. You've also assumed they rarely make mistakes. If that was the case, we wouldn't be discussing it.

If your solution is for umpires to swallow the whistle and pay nothing, then that would make them rather redundant. And what happen on a regular basis when they do this? They end up paying some soft free kick, often that wasn't there at all. This cancels out any consistency gained by swallowing the whistle

Funny isn't it that commentators and fans always talk about that terrific passage of play or game almost always when the umps let the game flow. Now why is that?

I think this is another false assumption. Is there a direct correlation between swallowed whistle and terrific passage of play? Do we not see terrific passage of play when the whistle hasn't been swallowed, but no infringements are occurring? It appears you're arguing for the dispensing of free kicks all together.

 

[polly63]

You've assumed a linear relationship between technicality of decisions and consistency. As there is no such linear relationship, your conclusion is meaningless. You've also assumed they rarely make mistakes. If that was the case, we wouldn't be discussing it.

Any meaningful ananlysis will show they get it right most (a very large majority) of the time.

Have another look - I said/implied that most annoyance is caused by umps being too technical and then not consistently awarding soft free kicks.

If your solution is for umpires to swallow the whistle and pay nothing, then that would make them rather redundant. And what happen on a regular basis when they do this? They end up paying some soft free kick, often that wasn't there at all. This cancels out any consistency gained by swallowing the whistle

You've pulled the 'pay nothing' bit from your hat. Noone has ever advocated that from what I've seen, read or heard. Clutching at staws old chum.

I think this is another false assumption. Is there a direct correlation between swallowed whistle and terrific passage of play? Do we not see terrific passage of play when the whistle hasn't been swallowed, but no infringements are occurring?

Wrong again on both accounts (see below). I've said here and eslewhere that the best footy occurs when umps don't intervene 'unnecessarily' (read 'are involved minimally'). But, although I love sweet passages of 'pretty football' (I'll never forget one particular passage Geelong put on against the Roos in 2007 semi-final) I generally prefer a combination of tightly contested and quality open play.

It appears you're arguing for the dispensing of free kicks all together.

Did I say 'hat' above, I meant ar..

 

[Bone Crusher]

Any meaningful ananlysis will show they get it right most (a very large majority) of the time.

Have another look - I said/implied that most annoyance is caused by umps being too technical and then not consistently awarding soft free kicks.

Is see infringements that go unrewarded as mistakes just as much as soft free kicks that are rewarded. However, I wouldn't describe a 50m penalty for holding after an uncontested mark as soft. You don't have to hold on much to prevent the player from playing on.

You've pulled the 'pay nothing' bit from your hat. Noone has ever advocated that from what I've seen, read or heard. Clutching at staws old chum.

Sorry, I thought that's what you were getting at. In any case, your logic is still flawed. Swallow the whistle doesn't equate to consistency, if one team infringes a lot more than the other.

Wrong again on both accounts (see below). I've said here and eslewhere that the best footy occurs when umps don't intervene 'unnecessarily' (read 'are involved minimally').

Well, you were talking about swallowing the whistle. Letting the game flow, what does that mean? I thought you were referring to swallowing the whistle. Now it appears you meant not paying soft free kicks. I'm not suggesting they should. I just have a different opinion of what constitutes a soft free kick than you do. You must be a defender.

 

[Strawbs]

I'm with you Bone Crusher. Pay 'em consistently and very quickly, you won't have to pay many. The more you let go, the more players will get away with and continue to try to get away with. They used to let blokes push opponents in the back and take the mark and the commentators always said he'd been "worked under the ball." No he hadn't. He'd been pushed in the back. Now they've clamped down on it and what do we see more often now? A CONTEST. Not a situation where you're better off not taking front position.

 

[james_omahoney]

I'm with you Bone Crusher. Pay 'em consistently and very quickly, you won't have to pay many. The more you let go, the more players will get away with and continue to try to get away with. They used to let blokes push opponents in the back and take the mark and the commentators always said he'd been "worked under the ball." No he hadn't. He'd been pushed in the back. Now they've clamped down on it and what do we see more often now? A CONTEST. Not a situation where you're better off not taking front position.

Worked under the ball. Haha . Doublespeak at its best. Good work strawbs

 

[Bone Crusher]

Worked under the ball. Haha . Doublespeak at its best. Good work strawbs

The problem I have with that is, it prevents something I used to my advantage a lot. If my opponent managed to get in front of me, I'd use my hands to prevent him from backing up into me. I wasn't pushing him, just holding him where he was. Then my team mates feeding the ball in would kick it a little longer and higher, allowing me back up at the last minute and mark it. I never got pinged for a push in the back, because I made sure not to propel my opponent forward. But under the new hands in the back rule, I'd get done every time, which is a shame, as the rule was primarily designed to protect forwards from being "worked under the ball".

The other problem I have with it is obviously the inconsistent way it's paid. I've seen far too many games where there are many obvious in the back infringements let go (possibly through so called "intelligent" umpiring, I can't be sure), only to have a hands in the back paid, where there is clearly no actual push involved. One player resting his hands on his opponent's back, or simply using his hands to locate his opponent while watching the ball.

I think the better solution would have been to stamp out the "worked under the ball" scenario, where there is obviously a push. But that would be harder for the umpires to get right every time.

 

[polly63]

Umpires get green light to be pedantic

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/umpires-to-be-pedantic/2009/04/16/1239475000998.html

Interesting comment, compulsory reading for the 'just implement the rules' brigade on BF.