Rutten Rules

[jumpman5]

was listening to SEN today (melbourne) and David Schwarz was surprised to hear him say he thinks Nathan Carroll's influence will be significantly hammered from last year by the hands in the back rule....that coz of his physical style he will not be nearly as effective on the last line of defence as he was last year, big call considering he was being touted by some for AA...

this got me thinking of our big fella down back.

on what anyone has seen this pre-season how do u think Benny Rutten will fair with the new interpretations, how did he fair in the practice matches, particularly against Lynch (WC)...

I do know over here they question his ability in a one-out contest, many will not consider him the best full back because of the way we drop back in droves...

how does he go against Matty Lloyd rnd1...

 

[betterthanu]

the strength of rutten in that he was the body size to get into a good position without using his hands. I think he will adapt as well as anyone to the terrible disgraceful rule. I seriously couldn't be more angry at the AFL over this rule and most of the stupid rule changes they make.

 

[RooDog]

the strength of rutten in that he was the body size to get into a good position without using his hands. I think he will adapt as well as anyone to the terrible disgraceful rule. I seriously couldn't be more angry at the AFL over this rule and most of the stupid rule changes they make.

its actually probably one of the best rules ever brought in mate

 

[betterthanu]

There will be so many soft freekicks given in front of goal because of it and as a defender it makes the job twice as hard. I play in back lines but im sure the bigger forwards will love it as they can do what they want now

 

[RooDog]

There will be so many soft freekicks given in front of goal because of it and as a defender it makes the job twice as hard. I play in back lines but im sure the bigger forwards will love it as they can do what they want now

see i disagree they are not soft... if you have your hands in your opponents back you are taking him out the contest, hence its a free kick... it makes it clear and simple for the umpires, theres no more did he push or didnt he... its just theres hands in the back its a free... use your forearm, your body whatever just not your hands

 

[betterthanu]

using your hands to hold your ground is a natural action. it will be hard for people to adapt IMO

 

[RooDog]

using your hands to hold your ground is a natural action. it will be hard for people to adapt IMO

hasnt been so far in any games ive seen... what level do you play... only sanfl are bringing it in in sa im pretty sure

 

[betterthanu]

its not being brought into my league (sfl) but I'm just saying as a defender if it was brought in i would be very pissed off.

 

[RooDog]

its not being brought into my league (sfl) but I'm just saying as a defender if it was brought in i would be very pissed off.

why... you are essentially taking the player out the contest... its a very very good rule

 

[betterthanu]

im holding my ground so the forward cant just back into me and push me out of the contest.

 

[RooDog]

yer so use your fore arm not your hands... its much better than the old rule

 

[betterthanu]

i dont wanna and im happy that i dont have to

 

[RooDog]

i dont wanna and im happy that i dont have to

thats the problem with lower leagues... you cant bring it in... one the umpires arent a good enough standard and 2 players at that level just cant adapt

 

[WaynesWorld19]

using your hands to hold your ground is a natural action. it will be hard for people to adapt IMO

Only because you never had to learn an alternative.

Watch the games now and your starting to see the defenders turn their bodies and use their shoulders to fend the front position players off.

Just an opinion but players behind also used to jump at the ball and use their knees to push the front player out of position. Any rule that encourages players jumping at the ball rather than staying on the ground and using their hands IMO is a good rule.

 

[RooDog]

Only because you never had to learn an alternative.

Watch the games now and your starting to see the defenders turn their bodies and use their shoulders to fend the front position players off.

Just an opinion but players behind also used to jump at the ball and use their knees to push the front player out of position. Any rule that encourages players jumping at the ball rather than staying on the ground and using their hands IMO is a good rule.

i agree totally... i wasnt criticising the rule at all... im totally in favour of it... it protects the bloke going for the footy and it encourages the other player to go for the footy and last time i checked footy was about going for the ball

 

[WaynesWorld19]

i agree totally... i wasnt criticising the rule at all... im totally in favour of it... it protects the bloke going for the footy and it encourages the other player to go for the footy and last time i checked footy was about going for the ball

I know your supporting the rule and before hands were allowed players leapt early to knock the front player out of position.

I was never in favour of players defending simply by staying flat footed on the ground and using their hands ....did nothing for adding excitement to the game.

Bacline players used to always take front or side postions ....now they alawys talke the back position as it's too easy for a forward to lose a defender in traffic.
So that's why the rule supposedly disadvantages the backline player ...he could go back to taking front position and get more help from his co defenders.

Or he can JUMP .....oh how I lve players who jump in our game

Bruce Linder, Modra, Ablett all leapt to move an opponent ....maybe the defenders need to take note.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Or he can JUMP .....oh how I lve players who jump in our game

Bruce Linder, Modra, Ablett all leapt to move an opponent ....maybe the defenders need to take note.

Which raises an interesting point.

Would they have been penalised in todays game with this rule being enforced much more vigorously?

 

[RooDog]

Which raises an interesting point.

Would they have been penalised in todays game with this rule being enforced much more vigorously?

only if they put their hands in the back first

 

[Markthirtytwo]

only if they put their hands in the back first

Does the shoulders constitute the back then, because the players you named either placed their hands or knees on the shoulders or area around the shoulders of their opposition.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Does the shoulders constitute the back then, because the players you named either placed their hands or knees on the shoulders or area around the shoulders of their opposition.

Two different rules there Mark - anything on the shoulders comes under the rules relating to high contact, not this new in the back interpretation. Hands is a no no, but if they use a straight leap and their legs connect and take the mark then the mark stands. If they do all that but don't take the mark then it should be a free against them. If they use their hands to push up it is a free regardless of wether they take the mark or not. Those are the rules as they should be paid, but it's not paid as often as it should be.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Which raises an interesting point.

Would they have been penalised in todays game with this rule being enforced much more vigorously?

No not as long as your eyes are on the ball .......that's exactly what the smaller Moorcroft for Essendon did to beat a taller player and take mark of the season.

As I have said changes the game potentially to see players jump from behind ....

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Two different rules there Mark - anything on the shoulders comes under the rules relating to high contact, not this new in the back interpretation. Hands is a no no, but if they use a straight leap and their legs connect and take the mark then the mark stands. If they do all that but don't take the mark then it should be a free against them. If they use their hands to push up it is a free regardless of wether they take the mark or not. Those are the rules as they should be paid, but it's not paid as often as it should be.

True but then it comes back to interpretation from those..................fine men in technicolour outfits and dark glasses and a white cane.

Seen some might fine speccies taken and a free paid for in the back.

 

[NikkiNoo]

True but then it comes back to interpretation from those..................fine men in technicolour outfits and dark glasses and a white cane.

Seen some might fine speccies taken and a free paid for in the back.

Then they are signalling incorrectly (from when I was umpiring) - a push in the back is singalled by a motion of both hands pushing forward and those that you are talking about should be a free paid for interference too high, where they should signal with a tap on the shoulder. Although i do conceed that sometimes they still use the push signal but do it downwards indicating a push to get up in the marking contest.

It still does not matter if the mark was taken if they infringed beforehand to get up to take the mark. A perfect case of this (and I even got humprey-smith to agree with me on white line fever last year ) was Russell Robertson's mark over Bassett in the Melbourne game at Carrara. It won mark of the round but should never have been paid.