Umpires don't know the rules...

[Bob_vic]

If he knew the rules like you say, how was his explanation in relation to the free paid, incorrect?

I've played something like 13-14 years of footy. Basically all of it at full back, full forward and centre half forward. I can't think of one time I've been paid a free against, or for, something almost identical. The only time I can think of is if I'm being shepherded, or shepherding out of a contest...

So yeah, I do not buy your spin about nothing changing in the last 30 years.

No spin, just fact. Do the research for yourself, like I have, if you want make sure. A good place to start is RMIT University library, if you're really that interested... It's always been a free kick for a push/bump in the side in the marking contest. Now, pure use of the body, that's completely different - two player leaning against each other.

The umpire had a side on view, the camera had a front on view. Even though the ump got it wrong, it probably looked a lot different from his angle. An incorrect judgement doesn't mean the umpire doesn't know the rules. You can only apply the rules based upon what you interpret you see with your eyes. Then based on what you believe are the facts, you then apply the rules. An error in the facts, not an error in knowledge.

 

[Strawbs]

the thing i find the most annoying is that fans think the free kick count should be about level at the end of a game...wot a heap of rubbish that is!!!!!! i hear too mant people whinge...for example" the free kicks were 9 to 3 that quarter". So what??!! free kick counts mean nothing to an ump as they call they call it as they see it. get to the ball first and youll have nothing to worry about...

Sadly, now, more than ever, this is not true. Prior opportunity is denied too often.

 

[james_omahoney]

Umpires do so know the rules. They have to know the rules to get the job.

Brilliant.

 

[Chops_a_must]

No spin, just fact. Do the research for yourself, like I have, if you want make sure. A good place to start is RMIT University library, if you're really that interested... It's always been a free kick for a push/bump in the side in the marking contest. Now, pure use of the body, that's completely different - two player leaning against each other.

Ok genius.

Tell me how you can lean on someone in a marking contest, with either hand or shoulder, and not "push" or "bump" when making a play for the ball?

It's basic physics and bio-mechanics FFS! Leaning on someone, then moving away towards the ball will always be a "push" or a "bump". Equal and opposite reactions and all that.

Like I said, I can NEVER remember giving away a free kick for a well timed bump/ nudge in a marking contest, or having one paid to me for the same. It has always been regarded as skill, and is umpired as such! I can remember specifically training for it! Stepping inside the flight of the ball, making contact with the player and therefore guarding the space the ball will fall into.

Now, according to what you are saying, and how it was interpreted, that should always be a free kick.

Nah, sorry mate. It's just not the same game that I've played.

 

[Arecsa]

Maggots! We're getting killed by them in Tassie. ****ing useless maggots.

 

[Bob_vic]

Ok genius.

Tell me how you can lean on someone in a marking contest, with either hand or shoulder, and not "push" or "bump" when making a play for the ball?

It's basic physics and bio-mechanics FFS! Leaning on someone, then moving away towards the ball will always be a "push" or a "bump". Equal and opposite reactions and all that.

Like I said, I can NEVER remember giving away a free kick for a well timed bump/ nudge in a marking contest, or having one paid to me for the same. It has always been regarded as skill, and is umpired as such! I can remember specifically training for it! Stepping inside the flight of the ball, making contact with the player and therefore guarding the space the ball will fall into.

Now, according to what you are saying, and how it was interpreted, that should always be a free kick.

Nah, sorry mate. It's just not the same game that I've played.

I'll do my best to explain this in words, although it will be lengthy. It's much easier to explain by looking at it. Although knowing physics helps, it makes things seem more technical than what it really is.

a. If the push/bump/block is in the the same action as "legitimately" (realistically) contesting the mark (or spoiling), then it's a "play on" call" - incidental contact.

b. Two players leaning, pushing, (call it what you like) each other is not a free kick. It's when ONE player pushes, THEN attempts to mark, it's a free kick.

Of course,a lean is technically a "soft, slow push with the body, arms or hands". A push is usually (in a marking contest) when you extend the arms quickly or a apply a constant force with the body. A bump is with the body and is with a quick, forceful action. A lean isn't a free kick. The umpire is there make the call between what's a blatant push/bump and what isn't. It's obvious it comes down to the amount of force applied (and technically also the direction) the velocity of the players at the time (if any), the time over which the force is applied, the weight (mass) of the players and also whether the opponent is pushing back at the same time.

Why everybody hates the "hands in the back" interpretation used by the AFL/VFL (only) is because the force of the hands is being interpreted as a "push" instead of a "lean", or even worse on some occasions, "touching". "Touching/leaning" might feel like a push to a grasshopper, but not a human being. It's totally inconsistant with judging the amount of force without the hands being used.

Where the two players are pushing against one another and one player stops leaning/pushing, no free kick should be paid Notwithstanding, if one player stops pushing and the other player doesn't stop pushing within a reasonable time, then a free kick should be paid for a push. N.B. A player isn't expected to stop pushing within a split second. It when the player deliberately keeps pushing or is unaware that his opponent has stopped pushing against him.

Where one player is stronger/heavier than the other player, ie. the opponent is "out-muscled", no free kick should be paid, unless that stronger player isn't going for the ball and is pushing/blocking that player from contesting the mark (or spoiling), then it would be a free kick still. Physics - the lighter player would of course experience the greater change in momentum if the same force is applied in both directions, but it's all academic...

c. You would say "well-timed", the umpire would say "in the same action". I never said it was a free kick in that instance. The umpire will only pay a free kick where there's a blatant double action, or the player doesn't contest the ball. You're exactly right - it does all come down to timing. Whether the ball is within 5 metres isn't a consideration.

d. Deliberately stepping inside the flight of the ball to block an opponent without contesting the mark - always been a free kick. Although, you would probably get away with it most of the time if you didn't make it obvious. Merely holding your ground isn't a free kick and is different to a block. Again, there has to be an obvious action by the player.

When it comes down to it, I think you'll find what I've said is consistant with what you've experienced. You might have called it something different but the effect is the same. Umpires that umpired in the 70s say that marking contest free kicks are still the same (except for the HITB in the AFL). This is backed up by old rule books, old interpretions books/videos/films and archival footage.

Go and look at the footage. The umpires made just as many errors in judgment as they do now. We all tend to watch the grand finals instead of the H & A matches and other finals. The umpiring of yesteryear isn't so far above what is happening now. Some things I think they did better, but there were still some really bad decisions made too. I remember seeing a finals match in the 80s where the umps seemed to be paying a free kick at every marking contest, even worse than they do now.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Nah, I don't think you have a clue.

Your answer on stepping inside the flight proves that.

The tactic is to step inside the flight of the ball, bumping/ making contact with the opponent and then going for the ball. Jono Brown is a master of it. Watch him.

 

[Bob_vic]

Nah, I don't think you have a clue.

Your answer on stepping inside the flight proves that.

The tactic is to step inside the flight of the ball, bumping/ making contact with the opponent and then going for the ball. Jono Brown is a master of it. Watch him.

If I've agreed with you to a degree, then how do I "not have a clue"? Read what I wrote again. I could give all my experience and all my contacts/evidence, but a public forum is not the place to devulge such things. It's not about me, it's about the facts.

"Making contact" in itself isn't a free kick. The action needs to be blatant and obvious.

The art is doing it subtly enough to get away with it. That's where your practice and experience as a player comes in. It's usually the most experienced players that are better at knowing how much the rules can be pushed (no pun intended) before being pinged for a free kick.

The difference is "subtle" and "blatant".

A subtle action will usually result in a "play on" call.
A blatant action will usually result in a free kick.

I don't think anyone would agree that players have ever been allowed to blatantly push/bump/block an opponent first, then contest the mark as a second action, especially by taking your eyes off the ball. The only exception is where a player jumps too early and unrealistically but still manages to mark the ball. The umpire will pay the "screamer" as a mark, as if the attempt was realistic and in one action (even if it technically wasn't). If the player doesn't mark the ball, the umpire will always still pay the free kick for a "push in the back".

A push in the back - In this instances, a player's own significant body weight on the opponent's back is classified as a push.

 

[Feerits Elf]

I didn't see the incident, but it's definitely is a free kick if a player pushes or bumps in the side then attempts to mark the ball in a second action.

Whether the ball is within 5, 10, 15 metres doesn't come into it at all.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:

(a) ... ;
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(c) ... ;
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;

The language of Rule 15.4.5 would suggest that while a push in the back is always prohibited (excepting contact incidental to a marking contest - the "speccie" exception), pushing a player other than in the back is permitted where the ball is within five metres and the player is not attempting a mark.

Words expressly permitting such a push would really be useful in removing any ambiguity, though. Oh hello:

15.4.3 Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player:
(a) ... ;
(b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player;

Pushing in the side looks legit to me.

 

[ManInWhite]

If a free has been paid in such an instance, it's probably been more as an illegal shepherd rather than a push in the side.

 

[dimmy]

Umpires in the AFL are a disgrace no other word for it. Just saw a 50m penalty awarded against Pavlich for being demonstrative and all he did was point with no malice in it. These little powderpuffs are making a great contact sport weak and creating divers and fakers like in soccer.
I would like to know how many afl umpires have experienced footy at a high level and not just from a rulebook.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Umpires in the AFL are a disgrace no other word for it. Just saw a 50m penalty awarded against Pavlich for being demonstrative and all he did was point with no malice in it. These little powderpuffs are making a great contact sport weak and creating divers and fakers like in soccer.
I would like to know how many afl umpires have experienced footy at a high level and not just from a rulebook.

I used to watch one of the umpires out there tonight get beaten up by the football players at school in the year below me.

He never played as far as I remember.

 

[Justcruzin]

Its a disgrace, Id go as far to say - that the umpire should get the
sack, because its enough to change the course of the game.

Also, he just called play on when Lynch marked it, went about 25 metres
and he calls play on, he likes WC about as much as Brian Taylor does..

Yep, you were pretty spot on there, it happend.....

 

[Inciting Violence]

I'm talking about the Glass side-push where Glass said 'it was in the side' and the ump says 'it doesn't matter'.[/quote]

Its all explained on the DVD, didnt you hear

 

[Bob_vic]

The language of Rule 15.4.5 would suggest that while a push in the back is always prohibited (excepting contact incidental to a marking contest - the "speccie" exception), pushing a player other than in the back is permitted where the ball is within five metres and the player is not attempting a mark.

Words expressly permitting such a push would really be useful in removing any ambiguity, though. Oh hello:

Pushing in the side looks legit to me.

Ok, perhaps the rules could be better written, but it wouldn't change the interpretation. If you do any umpiring course - designed and administered by the AFL, or read any interpretation videos/films/books released by the AFL/VFL or ANFC you wouldn't be arguing with me. (The Australian National Football Council administered the laws before they disbanded in 1993, not the AFL/VFL. The AFL then created their own rules commitee after 1993. Since then, that's when there's been an influx of rule changes, the first one being the change to the HTB rule to do with prior opp. It was a "play on" if the player made an attempt with prior opp, unless the ball was held to the player - free kick for HTB, prior opp; bounce, no prior opp. Now, the player has to make a successful disposal if there's prior opp. It wasn't until 2000 where the AFL completely rewrote the Laws of Australian Football. That's when they introduced the law on umpire contact, without publicising it. A few years later, the AFL started making their own umpires interpret that law more strictly, and that policy continues today.)

When a rule says "push", that's all it means. That's why it doesn't matter whether the push is in the back, front or side, a push is a push. Same as a bump or block.

Plain and simple: if you're in a marking contest and choose not to contest the mark and decide to push, bump, block an opponent in the side as your first objective, then it's a free kick.

I think we should be stop trying to classify things as only one category, ie. a push, bump or block. There is overlap in those categories. Whether an action is "only" push or a block doesn't matter, if the action could be put into to either category, that's what's important. One umpire might say "block", another might say "push". In the end, the free kick is still paid under the same rule.

Any rule to do with "5 metres" applies to general play. The other situations are marking contests, ruck contests and when the ball isn't in play. Each of these 4 situations has their own set of rules that apply.

These are the set of rules relating to marking contests and pushing/bumping/blocking:

15.4.2 Shepherd
A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(b) where such contact is otherwise not prohibited under Law 15.4.5.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of a Free Kick
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:-
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is indidental to a marking contest and the Player is legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football;
(d) pushes, bumps or blocks an opponent who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

15.4.3 Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player may make contact with another Player:-
(e) if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

(Attempting has always been interpreted to include a legitimate spoil. Don't ask me why the law makers don't put in in the rule, but they have always meant it to mean that and umpires have always paid it that way. This rule also should be read include ruck contests.)

(The other permitted contact laws don't apply to marking contests, as well as ruck contests and when the ball isn't in play, ie. free kick/mark, bounce/stoppage (up to when the ball is "tapped" in a ruck contest), OOB, score. Those laws are only intended to show what is allowed within 5 metres while the ball is in general play.)

15.1 Interpretation
15.1.1 Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks
It is the spirit and intention of the Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:-
(a) ensure the that a Match is played in a fair manner;
(b) provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football his or her sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession;

Spirit of the Laws (published by the AFL, to be read in conjuction with the laws)

Marking contests
“ The player whose sole objective is to contest a mark shall be
permitted to do so.”

• Where there is incidental contact in a marking contest
when the ball is the sole objective (eyes on the ball), play
on will result.
• When a player leaps early, the attempt must be realistic
(i.e. he/she must be able to touch the ball).

 

[southwest bomber]

Does anyone know where i can get a copy of the rules??

Cheers

 

[Bob_vic]

Does anyone know where i can get a copy of the rules??

Cheers

2009 Laws are on the AFL website, minus the two new rules introduced in March.

 

[southwest bomber]

2009 Laws are on the AFL website, minus the two new rules introduced in March.

I looked for it there but couldn't find them.
Thanks.. i'll look again

 

[hcd199]

Double post, sorry. Look below.

 

[hcd199]

Yep, you were pretty spot on there, it happend.....

And yet the same thing that the Bombers got a free for last week wasn't paid to North this week. Strange...

Also, does anyone else think Nick Maxwell deliberately rushed the behind that put North on 68/69/whatever it was? And what about the Hawthorn v. Carlton match - surely that should have been 50 against Buddy?

 

[The Tigers Nuts]

can any umpires out there give me some sort of official rule on this one...
- player is awarded a free kick,
then plays on
the umpire then blows "advantage"
player kicks at goal (without being tackled or having any pressure applied)
resulting in a behind

This happened on Saturday at Bulleen and the umpire disallowed the behind, bought the ball ball for a set shot on goal (which resulted in a goal)

Was absolutley gobsmacked

From a local comp - any fieldies care to have a go at explaining it?

 

[Bob_vic]

There's two reasons why the decision is wrong.

1. If a player plays on from his own free kick, then no advantage can be paid, therefore the advantage cannot be cancelled.

2. If a player makes a skill error under no pressure, advantage cannot be cancelled.

 

[ManInWhite]

Key element in your example is that the kicking towards goal is the second act of play and is completely separate from the free kick. Lousy kicking is the players problem - not the umpires.

Bobvic - you sure about your point 1??? Advantage can be paid to a player from his own free kick...

 

[Bob_vic]

Key element in your example is that the kicking towards goal is the second act of play and is completely separate from the free kick. Lousy kicking is the players problem - not the umpires.

Bobvic - you sure about your point 1??? Advantage can be paid to a player from his own free kick...

It's a normal "play on" call. The player can immediately play on from his own free kick when he already has the ball, but can't then change his mind after being pressured or a skill error occurs; nor can he play on from in front of the mark. If he stops in front of the mark, then decides to run on again, the player must go back and kick over the mark. The AFL 2009 DVD says that this instance is NOT an advantage situation. I had a situation on the weekend where a player ran through a pack, got taken high, spun out of the pack and decided to keep running. I paid the free kick then immediately called "play on". If the player then decided to stop, I wouldn't have given him the free kick again, it's still "play on" - there's no advantage to cancel. (Although, especially in juniors, I have given the odd "second chance" where I believed the player didn't really know what was going on. The difference is consciously choosing to play on immediately, rather than not really being aware that a free kick is being paid.)

I think you're talking about the (rare) instance where the free kick is paid, the ball spills forward of the mark and the same two (or group of) players choose to keep contesting - continuously. If the player who was awarded the free kick managed to get a clear, advantageous disposal away (which is pretty damn difficult), I have called "advantage" even though the player was forward of the mark. 99% of the time, the player who received the free kick is under too much pressure for it to be considered advantage, or the opposing player stops on the whistle and stands the mark, therefore the play isn't continuous. The player who was awarded the free kick can't then gather the ball and keep running (getting an unfair advantage)while everybody else has stopped, and not play the ball from behind the mark. Most times I tried to pay this instance as advantage, I've ended up having to cancel it anyway and pay the original free kick. Technically, the VFL says that you cannot pay advantage to the same player who was awarded the free kick (which isn't how I read the law, btw), but I think that's should only apply when the player already has the ball and keeps it. It's a grey one.

 

[Spade]

It does bloody matter.