Studs/Sprigs up rule

[Mattman93]

So Riewoldt and Hardwick have a tantrum, impartial and wise media sages like Matthew Richardson are outraged, and the AFL completely backflip. Really is unbelievable.

Let's take stock of how this went down. AFL: "Here's the rule, it's a safety thing. And this is how it will be interpreted". [incident occurs invoking the rule]. "Well the umpire was correct to pay those as per our stipulated interpretation. But oh, you're unhappy, coach of the penalised team and parochial fans? We'll change the interpretation immediately".

It really is an indefensible line of reasoning for a sports organisation to run with.

And what even is the interpretation now? Let me posit a hypothetical. Suppose in the exact same contest, Barrass turned side on and stuck his boots out to stop Riewoldt's run at him. Where does that fall now?

Why is AFL culture allergic to sensible rules with clear cut interpretations? We had a good thing going - no studs. Can't kick people with your studs. Why is that a problem.

 

[OhhDeledio]

So Riewoldt and Hardwick have a tantrum, impartial and wise media sages like Matthew Richardson are outraged, and the AFL completely backflip. Really is unbelievable.

Let's take stock of how this went down. AFL: "Here's the rule, it's a safety thing. And this is how it will be interpreted". [incident occurs invoking the rule]. "Well the umpire was correct to pay those as per our stipulated interpretation. But oh, you're unhappy, coach of the penalised team and parochial fans? We'll change the interpretation immediately".

It really is an indefensible line of reasoning for a sports organisation to run with.

And what even is the interpretation now? Let me posit a hypothetical. Suppose in the exact same contest, Barrass turned side on and stuck his boots out to stop Riewoldt's run at him. Where does that fall now?

Why is AFL culture allergic to sensible rules with clear cut interpretations? We had a good thing going - no studs. Can't kick people with your studs. Why is that a problem.

lol this has nothing to do with riewoldt or richmond or anything. people who bring this s**t up are clearly just salty against richmond for no good reason.

again the interpretation by the rule is to pay a free when the player uses the studs in a manner likely to cause injury. none of those instances were in a manner likely to cause injury. the umpire was wrong to pay a free against riewoldt twice.

also most people in here are arguing that it should be illegal because its basically a push in the back. well thats not against the rules and it never has been.

 

[Mattman93]

again the interpretation by the rule is to pay a free when the player uses the studs in a manner likely to cause injury. none of those instances were in a manner likely to cause injury. the umpire was wrong to pay a free against riewoldt twice.

He literally injured Sheppard doing it in the same game.

 

[HairyO]

lol this has nothing to do with riewoldt or richmond or anything. people who bring this s**t up are clearly just salty against richmond for no good reason.

again the interpretation by the rule is to pay a free when the player uses the studs in a manner likely to cause injury. none of those instances were in a manner likely to cause injury. the umpire was wrong to pay a free against riewoldt twice.

also most people in here are arguing that it should be illegal because its basically a push in the back. well thats not against the rules and it never has been.

He injured a player.

He did exactly what the rule was brought in to stop.

 

[theyellowsash]

He injured a player.

He did exactly what the rule was brought in to stop.

And some eagles player injured grimes because he ran in to contest a mark and landed on his ankle instead of allowing grimes to take it uncontested.

 

[bzparkes]

Richmond fans doing their best to prove what utter numpties they are.

Plenty of players pinged for exactly the same thing yet you don't see others coaches sooking it up in their press conferences over it.

 

[RAPPA]

Jack was worthy of an Oscar when he realised the umpire paid the free against him.

 

[HairyO]

And some eagles player injured grimes because he ran in to contest a mark and landed on his ankle instead of allowing grimes to take it uncontested.

Did he run in to him deliberately?

Otherwise why are you mentioning it?

Riewoldt used his foot to shove his opponent out of the way. It wasnt incidental or accidental contact.

 

[MemoryLane]

The AFL are so *ing out of touch and unprofessional.

What other code changes the rules mid-season?

What other code has so many dumb* rules that they can choose week-to-week which ones to "focus on".

They need to simplify their playbook, not change until the following season and stop *ing bowing to supposedly big clubs.


Amateur hour.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

They have got me f’ed aswell because this is the interpretation

"The studs up rule was brought in to ensure players did not employ their studs in marking contests in a manner likely to cause injury,"

Even though they came out and said they were correct calls, the 2 pinged against Riewoldt were cleary a joke under that interpretation which is why they needed to 'change' it, even though they shouldnt have been frees in the first place. I guess what they mean by change is they will make it clearer to the umpires on what constitues a studs up free. Ones like Greene on Daniel or Hipwood on Myers (which wasnt even a free) were the reason this rule was brought in. Not these 2 against Riewoldt.

Is that the same Matthew Richardson who suggested a team should concede a goal so they could get the ball back to the centre. That Matthew Richardson with an amazing understanding of the game.

 

[theyellowsash]

Did he run in to him deliberately?

Otherwise why are you mentioning it?

Riewoldt used his foot to shove his opponent out of the way. It wasnt incidental or accidental contact.

Of course he ran into him deliberately, unless you think he was running around with his eyes closed and just happened to contact grimes while he was trying to take a mark

 

[Banyo Bloods]

I'm ok with this change if it protects the best aspect of the game and that is taking speccies. They actually changed the rule in the 90's that if you attempted a speccie and didn't take it then it was an immediate free kick and that killed the speccie and they quickly changed the rule on that.

If you are holding position under a high ball and your opponent is running backwards towards the contest rather than risk the push in the back you could just lift your leg and plant it towards his bum to hold him out. Don't mind the studs up but they need to clarify what is ok and what isn't before they start interpreting. Not just to the clubs but the general public.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Haha wow what a bunch of sooks. You should be glad the has changed. Now we just need the below the knees rule gone.

 

[Astro35]

Regardless if the rule is right or not, to have Hocking make changes mid-season is just amateurish. Suck it up and come out in the preseason with 'yep, we stuffed it with another hasty rule so were relaxing the interpretation ' but whike the seasin is still going - FFS#$#!!!

 

[OhhDeledio]

He literally injured Sheppard doing it in the same game.

He injured a player.

He did exactly what the rule was brought in to stop.

Im talking about the other 2 instances. If you realy think those were likely to cause injury then i dont what to say to you

 

[OhhDeledio]

Did he run in to him deliberately?

Otherwise why are you mentioning it?

Riewoldt used his foot to shove his opponent out of the way. It wasnt incidental or accidental contact.

what are you on about. you are allowed to do that and theres no rule to say you cant. whats the difference if your using your foot or your knee?

 

[Coach_Required]

If you analysed each and every contest in a game of footy, you would have 1000 feet getting near a face, this one stands out as it’s a great photo from a great mark.

He didn’t lead with his studs, and to try and link it to doing so, I might as well claim Gawn was trying to leg Ryan with his face.

Doesnt matter, no where in the rule does it quote "it's ok as long as you don't lead with the studs first" the bottom of his boots still end up in his face so if we are playing the "oh it's the rules" game it still should have been a free kick to Gawn up until yesterday.

Thank god the AFL used some common sense and changed this stupid interpretation of the rule yesterday.

 

[Coach_Required]

Hardwick will pi**ing himself of laughter tonight. Had a little whinge and bingo rule change done and dusted. Thing is Reiwoldt, will be doing this illegal pushing of his opponents out of the contest more often. Its going to drive fans to tipping point. On the other side Hardwick better shut his mouth if opposition sides now use this against them.

It's never been illegal to take a mark this way for 100+ years and it's only ever been a free kick if you failed to touch the ball or if the attempt is unrealistic, not sure how old you are but I'm guessing you never watched any footy prior to 2000.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Riewoldt deliberately put his leg up, extended it and planted his boot straight into Barrass’s back/bum with some force. Definitely a free kick for such a premeditated act, and should remain so. Weak as p..s from the AFL to cave in to the confected outrage from Richmond and some commentators.

 

[Couch Coach]

tells you everything you need to know about the league

a Vic club sooks, the VFL immediately flips

Pretty sure they didn't change the rule after Howe did it in the backline and a free shot at goal resulted for Melbourne

 

[Mattman93]

Im talking about the other 2 instances. If you realy think those were likely to cause injury then i dont what to say to you

So the one that did cause injury doesn't count. Does "likely to cause injury" just mean "does cause injury"?

Because I feel that's how these always go in the AFL. Same with contact below the knees. A rule is brought in to prohibit a dangerous action, and then whenever the rule is invoked without someone actually being injured, cue the cries of "that's not what the rule was brought in for".

 

[4tone]

It's never been illegal to take a mark this way for 100+ years and it's only ever been a free kick if you failed to touch the ball or if the attempt is unrealistic, not sure how old you are but I'm guessing you never watched any footy prior to 2000.

Reiwoldt clearly used his foot / leg to push out his opponent.That was his intention, the knobhead umpire was calling the wrong free kick rule. The studs up rule is not the issue here. And please dont assume age experience or knowledge to the poster your replying too, its immature and so Richmond.

 

[blckcaviar]

So many people on here defending a ridiculous interpretation of a rule that should never have been brought in (just penalize Toby Greene when he does it, no need for a game-wide rule), simply because they personally dislike the player and/or team. BF at its blinkered best.

If you defend those free kicks on Sunday as being good for the game in any way, you have absolutely no feel for the game of footy.

 

[HairyO]

what are you on about. you are allowed to do that and theres no rule to say you cant. whats the difference if your using your foot or your knee?

So 2 of the 3 would have been In The Back rven after this urgent rule revision ??

As to the difference, about 40cm or 50cm more reach and double or triple the force from extending your leg fully, over using your knee.

 

[jackenny]

We didn't even need this rule. When Greene did it in a way that was dirty, he usually got the person high. Just give a free against him for "high contact". No new rule being necessary. In any case, the only time I really disliked this from Greene wasn't even in a marking contest... he was receiving a handball...



And the umpire pinged him for it for being "high". Job done.