Analysis The hands/push in the back (non) rule

[Ricky90]

I'm sure this was mentioned at some point during match day or autopsy thread, but there surely needs to be questions asked about this?

I counted three Geelong on Collingwood pushes in the back that resulted in shots on goal (for one return) last night that I just could not figure out. There may have been more, I got distracted by my dogs multiple times, can attach photos if anyone wants them.

My understanding of the rule is you cannot push, the arm must not extend if hands are in the back. Is that incorrect? Is it now just a free for all, mark at all costs? Is it because the whistle doesn't work as well in finals?

For what it's worth I saw Darcy Moore do one also in the third quarter but because it was in general play and he wasn't taking a shot, it wasn't replayed so I can't be sure he infringed. But Hawkins must have known he got away with a couple because his shots on goal afterwards all missed.

Do we mark this down as missed calls by the umpires? Were we on the wrong end of some calls that should have been made? Or is there an interpretation issue here that leaves our players vulnerable? Because we can't give away marks i50 so easily going forward.

 

[frizzle]

They should have left the hands in the back free kick alone. They just opened it up to umpires interpretation now.

 

[Scodog10]

Umpires handled that one well last night. It’s finals so they should be putting the whistle away aside from clear free kicks. If anything it was over umpired.

 

[jimmy35]

Thought Hawkins got away with a couple.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Hawkins started early with a shove on Roughead on the wing and when no whistle came, he realised he had diplomatic immunity like the South Africans in Lethal Weapon 2. Very frustrating.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The push on Greenwood to get the first of his two excellent behinds was blatant.

 

[Mooresome]

Imo its just another way umpires can keep games close, i noticed way more than three ,also holding the ball rubbish ,there needs to be a set rule for both
because this shit we are getting now is going to affect game outcomes.Hawkins pushes players out all the time gets away with it,

 

[Aishole]

I don’t like it, but its semantics at the end of the day.

If we perform, and play our game, the rest takes care of itself, regardless of whether the umpires call these or not.

One thing i will say - Our defence was impenetrable, a lot of Geelongs goals/shots were flukey - shanks falling into their arms, missed free’s, etc. Absolutely no easy opportunities... we defend like that ... the rest will take care of itself regardless of free’s/non-free’s

 

[Aishole]

Imo its just another way umpires can keep games close, i noticed way more than three ,also holding the ball rubbish ,there needs to be a set rule for both
because this s**t we are getting now is going to affect game outcomes.Hawkins pushes players out all the time gets away with it,

I will say, there were 3 outstanding tackles we laid, i think in the 3rd Quarter where the geelong player were caught dead and just completely dropped the ball. They were on Rohan, Kolojaswhatever his name is and Ablett if i remeber correctly.

Remember hearing the umps call ‘no prior’... i reckon if a tackle is so strong that you cause them to drop the footy, you should reward the tackler.

 

[Chameleon75]

The one decision that perplexed me was when adams(I think) tackled someone high, the ball spilled and Geelong took advantage and kicked it deep and then the umpire payed down the field, he clearly stated on the mic that it was for the high tackle. Now surely it’s either a free at the point of infringement or advantage, it cannot be both.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I don’t like it, but its semantics at the end of the day.

If we perform, and play our game, the rest takes care of itself, regardless of whether the umpires call these or not.

What if both sides perform, and play their games?

This “umpires don’t affect the result” stuff is a logical fallacy. If they didn’t affect the results of games, there would simply be no need for umpires. The AFL could save money, and we would all have one less thing to complain about.

 

[Aishole]

What if both sides perform, and play their games?

This “umpires don’t affect the result” stuff is a logical fallacy. If they didn’t affect the results of games, there would simply be no need for umpires. The AFL could save money, and we would all have one less thing to complain about.

Our best footy does not allow the opposition to play theirs. Thats my point. We play & defend like we did yesterday and the rest will take care of itself

 

[Ricky90]

Umpires handled that one well last night. It’s finals so they should be putting the whistle away aside from clear free kicks. If anything it was over umpired.

Mmm I think after half time I didn't notice it, except for the Moore one which I think was in the third but 'over umpired'? Were there any even paid?

I don't normally give a toss about the umps because generally we get a good ride despite what this forum would have you believe. But I can't agree here. Reckon it was umpired poorly first half.

 

[BoxMatrix]

I hate that they got rid of the hands in the back rule. Now it's up to the umpire to decide if a player pushed or not, which can be real tough. Imagine that in a Grand Final...

The hands in the back rule means that you just can't put your hands in someone's back. Black and white. Simple.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I hate that they got rid of the hands in the back rule. Now it's up to the umpire to decide if a player pushed or not, which can be real tough. Imagine that in a Grand Final...

The hands in the back rule means that you just can't put your hands in someone's back. Black and white. Simple.

It also meant you could push in the back providing you used a forearm, or a shoulder, which is completely against the spirit of the rule.

 

[TradeDraft]

Watching Dawkins do it every time made me think there is no such rule anymore

 

[kickitolachie]

Hawkins has always pushed players in the back as part of his marking technique.
As soon as the rule was changed, most understood that players who do this would have a field day, and so it has been.
At the start of the year, all pushes in the back during marking were allowed. Some balance has been achieved as the year has worn on, but I agree with the initial post. Accepting hands in the back as evidence of a push was clear and unambiguous. A grey area that had been greatly reduced has been recreated. A retrograde move, and Hawkins took full advantage of it.