Marking Contest Rule Changes

[newlander77]

Marking contest rule changes
01 December 2006 Herald-Sun
Mike Sheahan

MIKE Sheahan writes: A week ago, it was said to be nothing more than a stricter interpretation in marking contests.

Marking contest
Rule changes: former Brisbane Lion midfielder Jason Akermanis in a marking contest with Collingwood's Leon Davis. Mike Sheahan explains the rule changes. Picture: George Salpigtidis
Yesterday, it was exposed as a fundamental shift in the rule relating to contact in a marking contest.

From next season, a player who applies his hands to the back of an opponent, even if only to hold his ground, will be penalised.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said last night: "As soon as a player puts his hands in the back of an opponent in a marking contest, the umpire shall award a free kick."

It is a major change, one that will impact heavily on the style of many players including elite defenders James Clement and Darren Glass, and Sydney's star forwards, Barry Hall and Michael O'Loughlin.

Clement was genuinely shocked when told yesterday.

"That's ridiculous. If you're just laying your hands on someone, that's not pushing in the back," the Collingwood star said.

"As I read the news, they were just saying it's a stricter interpretation.

"I just can't help but feel the game is definitely being slanted the way of the forward."

He said he was saddened by the change, but understood it "because people want more goals".

Anderson indicated the change had been driven by the game's governing body, the AFL Commission, which traditionally confines itself to matters of policy.

"It's been an issue they've raised from time to time.

"The commission noted it wasn't permissible in the 1960s and '70s." (Commissioners Graeme John and Mike Fitzpatrick played in the VFL in those times.)

"It (the change) has received strong support from the commission."

Anderson said the change was "designed to assist the umpires by making the rule more black and white".

"There was concern over inconsistency in the application of the old interpretation," he said.

The announcement of the change was tucked away in a media release last Friday headed: "AFL Commission approves change to the Laws of the Game."

The biggest change relates to protection of a player with his head over the ball, and has met with almost universal approval.

Buried in the release was a sentence that said: "There will also be stricter interpretations . . . of two aspects of the game for the 2007 season, including stricter policing of hands in the back in marking contests . . ."

In truth, hands in the back are outlawed.

Clement said: "We're yet to be told as a playing group precisely what this means."

He admits to often laying hands on opponents, without pushing.

"I'm definitely one for using your hands. I'll just have to go back to the drawing board and find a new way to go about it.

"You can rant and rave . . . it's too bad."

Asked if he might content himself by having a rule named after him, as Matthew Lloyd has since the crackdown on the time players are given to kick for goal, he said: "They might call it the Darren Glass rule."

Reasoned as ever, Clement said: "If we're going back to a purer form of football, and everyone agrees, then I'm comfortable."

Not sure the umpires will be as comfortable early next season when they penalise Clement, Glass and Co. for what has been acceptable for at least 20 years.

How will this affect our forwards and more specfically Pavlich? Introducing Tarrant will already give him more of a chance up forward and create a nightmare for the opposition, but Pavlich in particular is forever getting those borderline decisions go against him. Pavlich as expected will move closer to goal and given his pace off the Mark and endurance defenders do whatever they can to stop him from taking a mark.

What's it worth to him? A further 10 goals a year? Depending on how the umpires enforce the ruling?

Farmer too would have to be one player that gets a hard run by the umpires. The number of times he gets a push in the back or something else done to him and the umpire will just turn a blind eye to it. The umpires have no real excuse to continue ignoring these.

Defense wise I think it will be Scotty too hotty and Dodd that will be penalised most because of this rule change. I think the new defense coach has some work ahead of him!

 

[Cameron_K]

McPharlin is in trouble

 

[dominguez]

Agree Cameron, McPharlin will be one of the most penalised players in the comp with the new rule, unless he changes his style dramatically.

Sam Newman is a clown but he makes a good point about the umpires. It's not the free kicks that they don't pay, it's the free kicks that they do pay that are a problem. I'd prefer to see them not pay 20 soft frees a game that are technically there than pay 10 that are soft. This rules change will just see more soft free kicks paid, and bring our game farther away from the one we grew up with. The umpires cop the brunt of the criticism (which will increase with rules like this one), when infact the problems stem from the games administrators who love to tinker with the rules each off season.

 

[Borry]

Agree Cameron, McPharlin will be one of the most penalised players in the comp with the new rule, unless he changes his style dramatically.

Sam Newman is a clown but he makes a good point about the umpires. It's not the free kicks that they don't pay, it's the free kicks that they do pay that are a problem. I'd prefer to see them not pay 20 soft frees a game that are technically there than pay 10 that are soft. This rules change will just see more soft free kicks paid, and bring our game farther away from the one we grew up with. The umpires cop the brunt of the criticism (which will increase with rules like this one), when infact the problems stem from the games administrators who love to tinker with the rules each off season.

Exactly.

 

[dockertor]

Agree Cameron, McPharlin will be one of the most penalised players in the comp with the new rule, unless he changes his style dramatically.

Sam Newman is a clown but he makes a good point about the umpires. It's not the free kicks that they don't pay, it's the free kicks that they do pay that are a problem. I'd prefer to see them not pay 20 soft frees a game that are technically there than pay 10 that are soft. This rules change will just see more soft free kicks paid, and bring our game farther away from the one we grew up with. The umpires cop the brunt of the criticism (which will increase with rules like this one), when infact the problems stem from the games administrators who love to tinker with the rules each off season.

I disagree completely. It’s the ones they don’t pay that can have a huge effect on a game. The ones they pay are usually there . But then they just ignore the same thing at the other end.

McPharlin will need to change his style a lot

 

[Borry]

I disagree completely. It’s the ones they don’t pay that can have a huge effect on a game. The ones they pay are usually there . But then they just ignore the same thing at the other end.

McPharlin will need to change his style a lot

No, from first hand experience I think there is too much interference with the rules from the top. Umpires can umpire a game properly and cop the full brunt of cirticism from the powers at the top for not paying certain soft free kicks and not interpreting the rules the way they want to, and so they are under pressure to apply the rules the way the administration want them too and with the constant chopping and changing of the rules and the soft free kicks that have been brought in, it has made umpiring increasingly difficult.
It is a big reason for the inconsistency that goes on with the umpiring.

I'd rather the umpires have full control of the game themselves, but gone are the days of those. Power freak Demetriou want it done his way.

 

[Slacker]

I was thinking about this rule change and I really haven't formed an opinion on it being good or bad.
I wouldn't imagine this would bring in too many soft frees, players will learn quickly as it is pretty clear cut.

I think it will expose Freo for our lack of a powerful fullback. Monster forwards such as Neitz will be able to bulldoze their way into position.

 

[ThePope]

Will they pay any wrestling between the forwards and backs? Think Parker vs Gehrig, Glass vs Hall etc. Is linking the arms OK, but touch the back and you are gone? completely unworkable, unless they solely use it in the ones they allow now as "holding your ground".

Could you learn to sucker in a free by being in front of your opponent and back back into him, hoping he'll raise his arms to protect him self?

 

[Scham]

Are you penalised if your apply an elbow or a forearm to the back, or is it just a hand?

Yeah, its very clear cut??

 

[YelloMit]

Man, this is getting ridiculous. Soon, we won't be able to touch the opponent in a marking contest at all!

 

[dominguez]

I disagree completely. It’s the ones they don’t pay that can have a huge effect on a game. The ones they pay are usually there . But then they just ignore the same thing at the other end.

There are probably a dozen frees a game that are soft and wouldn't have been paid 10 years ago. I even found myself turning to the person sitting next to me after watching the replay on the bigscreen and saying "gee, that was soft" after a few free kicks paid to us last season. When you notice your own team getting free kicks that aren't there then there must be a problem with either the rules or the interpretation. Rule changes like this make the game even softer. Each year Demetriou & co brings in new rules which reduce the physicality of the game.

 

[docker_johnno]

Some of the comments here are pathetic. This is a good rule, the player in front should be rewarded.


What is this 'soft free kick' crap, get a grip. There is no such thing as a soft free kick.

If you are saying the kick is soft, you acknowledge its existence.

I bet you think we don't get soft kicks and the opposition does?

Who gets the most kicks at Freo? Bell... A ball player.

Who gives away the most frees? McPharlin, Black... Not so much ball players, recievers and often chasing and contesting with opponents.




This will suit our team IMO.

McPharlin will have no problems as he likes to go over the top + he does not use arms to hold his ground.

Justin Longmuir, Antoni Grover, Shane Parker are the men who will be most disadvantaged.

 

[Kapow!!!]

Some of the comments here are pathetic. This is a good rule, the player in front should be rewarded.


What is this 'soft free kick' crap, get a grip. There is no such thing as a soft free kick.

If you are saying the kick is soft, you acknowledge its existence.

I bet you think we don't get soft kicks and the opposition does?

Who gets the most kicks at Freo? Bell... A ball player.

Who gives away the most frees? McPharlin, Black... Not so much ball players, recievers and often chasing and contesting with opponents.




This will suit our team IMO.

McPharlin will have no problems as he likes to go over the top + he does not use arms to hold his ground.

Justin Longmuir, Antoni Grover, Shane Parker are the men who will be most disadvantaged.

Naievity in it's finest form

 

[dominguez]

Some of the comments here are pathetic. This is a good rule, the player in front should be rewarded.


What is this 'soft free kick' crap, get a grip. There is no such thing as a soft free kick.

If you are saying the kick is soft, you acknowledge its existence.

I bet you think we don't get soft kicks and the opposition does?

A soft free kick is one that is technically there but not in the spirit of the game. This is supposed to be a physical game, and that's what draws people in. Last year they changed the rule on chopping the arms, next season they are changing the rule on holding your ground in a marking contest. These 2 rules combined make it difficult for defenders.

Saying a free kick was soft isn't a criticism of the umpires, the problem is that the people who control the rules of the game get bored each year around this time and decide to tinker with the rules when there isn't a problem.

Quite often during marking contests and ruck duels the whistle is blown and the players look at each other because they aren't sure who has infringed. If the players don't know an infringement has been made against them, then a free kick definately shouldn't be paid.

 

[Ripper]

What we lose on the straights we will make up in the corners.

The new rule has to help
Pav - will be garder to stop with the new rule
Wiz - happens at least 4 times a game to him for no reward
211 - though I thought the same thing about arm chopping on him
Parker - as he usually has front posi but can get shoved under by the Halls etc.

The only one I can see it disadvantaging is Macpharlap in the short term but He is talented enough to adapt to anything.

Doddy and Scotty were mention earlier but they are excellent spoilers and don't get into body on body stuff that much.

 

[dominguez]

What we lose on the straights we will make up in the corners.

The new rule has to help
Pav - will be garder to stop with the new rule
Wiz - happens at least 4 times a game to him for no reward
211 - though I thought the same thing about arm chopping on him
Parker - as he usually has front posi but can get shoved under by the Halls etc.

The only one I can see it disadvantaging is Macpharlap in the short term but He is talented enough to adapt to anything.

Doddy and Scotty were mention earlier but they are excellent spoilers and don't get into body on body stuff that much.

But does the rule change improve the game of Australian rules footy as a spectacle?

 

[Ripper]

But does the rule change improve the game of Australian rules footy as a spectacle?

It will go some way towards removing a grey area that seems to have crept in over the last couple of decades which can only be a good thing.

 

[dominguez]

It will go some way towards removing a grey area that seems to have crept in over the last couple of decades which can only be a good thing.

Fair enough. I never thought this would happen, but I agree with Malthouse. Just leave the game alone.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/12/01/1164777792178.html

 

[Roundhouse]

Some of the comments here are pathetic. This is a good rule, the player in front should be rewarded.


What is this 'soft free kick' crap, get a grip. There is no such thing as a soft free kick.

If you are saying the kick is soft, you acknowledge its existence.

I bet you think we don't get soft kicks and the opposition does?

Who gets the most kicks at Freo? Bell... A ball player.

Who gives away the most frees? McPharlin, Black... Not so much ball players, recievers and often chasing and contesting with opponents.




This will suit our team IMO.

McPharlin will have no problems as he likes to go over the top + he does not use arms to hold his ground.

Justin Longmuir, Antoni Grover, Shane Parker are the men who will be most disadvantaged.

I agree with most of what you are saying.

People bemoan the fact that new interpretations are taking certain elements out the game, but is this new rule going to take out anything of value?

Putting you hands in someone's back, just like chopping the arms, is not so much a skill as something one does when they haven't been good enough to get into position or spoil effectively in the first place. It doesn't take great strength or skill, and it isn't one of the more attractive elements of the game.

Yes it is taking out some of the physical contact in a marking situation, but saying it is making the game softer is a bit dramatic. It's not like it takes great strength to push someone of the ball with two hands in the middle of the back. I'd argue that it takes greater strngth to move your opponent of the ball without using your arms.

We might even see more genuine forwardline marking contests because of the new interpretation.

 

[docker_johnno]

Naievity in it's finest form

Is that your contribution?

Go back to school buddy.

(Google) Naive: marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience; "a teenager's naive ignorance of life"; "the naive assumption that things can only get better"; "this naive simple creature with wide friendly eyes so eager to believe appearances"


Do you know the meaning of the word because it applies to you.

To suggest a lack of guile and experience is absolutely wrong. You are 16, living in Queensland do you watch in the the dockers on foxtel? On a small box with moving pictures? I am a member of both AFL teams and went to every game at Subiaco in 2006. Played 150+ games and also have umpired 250 + games.

The spirit of the laws allows the player playing the football (in front) every opportunity to get the footy. Do you want the donkey playing behind to dominate contests?

Darren Glass is a woeful footballer, he has poor skills. He can run and is strong yet he can dominate a skillful player in pavlich by playing behind and using dogy tricks to stop him. You support that crap?


Whats next? Daddy will come in here and start backing you up, happens on every one of your threads. Go back and play in the sandbox.

A soft free kick is one that is technically there but not in the spirit of the game. This is supposed to be a physical game, and that's what draws people in. Last year they changed the rule on chopping the arms, next season they are changing the rule on holding your ground in a marking contest. These 2 rules combined make it difficult for defenders.

Saying a free kick was soft isn't a criticism of the umpires, the problem is that the people who control the rules of the game get bored each year around this time and decide to tinker with the rules when there isn't a problem.

Quite often during marking contests and ruck duels the whistle is blown and the players look at each other because they aren't sure who has infringed. If the players don't know an infringement has been made against them, then a free kick definately shouldn't be paid.

Yes. Agreed.

What we lose on the straights we will make up in the corners.

The new rule has to help
Pav - will be garder to stop with the new rule
Wiz - happens at least 4 times a game to him for no reward
211 - though I thought the same thing about arm chopping on him
Parker - as he usually has front posi but can get shoved under by the Halls etc.

The only one I can see it disadvantaging is Macpharlap in the short term but He is talented enough to adapt to anything.

Doddy and Scotty were mention earlier but they are excellent spoilers and don't get into body on body stuff that much.

I think centre clearances will become more important as defences will under more pressure.

 

[theGav56]

In the end, if the umpires conistantly pay the free for hands in the back, then players will stop doing it, and that will be a clearer thing to interperet for them. Shouldn't lead to more free kicks or anything. They don't have to judge if the player is "pushing" or just "holding off". So from that perspective I think it is fine.

The problem is that too often with the new rules we see a burst of them being applied, then as the season wears on, the interpretation seems to soften.

It also surprises me that it is not trialled pre-season first, then assessed for the following year.

 

[Sailor]

The Pavlich rule!!!
Headlines
Freo win grand final 52.13 to 48.12.
Pavlich kicks record 35 goals: 30 from free kicks in front of goal.
Sailor dies of delight.

 

[dugrene]

The Worst said Darth was spitting.

With GHD and Clement no wonder he's not happy.

 

[dockers_bengals]

In the end, if the umpires conistantly pay the free for hands in the back, then players will stop doing it, and that will be a clearer thing to interperet for them. Shouldn't lead to more free kicks or anything. They don't have to judge if the player is "pushing" or just "holding off". So from that perspective I think it is fine.

The problem is that too often with the new rules we see a burst of them being applied, then as the season wears on, the interpretation seems to soften.

It also surprises me that it is not trialled pre-season first, then assessed for the following year.

Yes I also wondered what happened to that.The only problems I see is someone backing into someone and the reflex action to stop them is to put your hands up to protect yourself as said before and the fact no real time for players to adjust

 

[paccraig]

The 1st person negatively impacted i thought was David Mundy. He is the king of the deft push out and got penalised for it a few times late in the season. Even 1 time he was picked up with the umpires mircophone and said "but hey i've been doing it all year"