Analysis Umpires

[gbatman]

Disagree completely. What you are describing is a throw, with the most perfunctory of gestures in the direction of a handpass.

What I am describing is a handball according to the AFL rules book. It's only a throw in your opinion of what you think the rule for a handball should be.

The guiding hand nearly always contributes to some of the momentum of a handball. There is nothing in the rule book about just how much or how little is allowed, the only thing stated is that the ball needs to be struck with a fist.

This is a clear case of "they didn't do it in my day so it must not be allowed". The game is higher pressure and due to that the players are better skilled. They can do these things quite easily.

As the rules go, if the fist makes contact, it's a handball. Those "throws" you think you are seeing, you might want to watch them again in slow motion, You will find that there is a fist in there and the umpires are mostly getting it right.

It's a newish skill, it's legal, it's time to get used to it. If the players are good enough to do it legally then play on.

Imagine if they ruined the rule and changed the handball rule so the guiding hand could only contribute so much to the momentum on the ball. Great, another grey area rule left to interpretation that changes from week to week and quarter to quarter and we start seeing legitimate handballs called as throws. More grey areas of the game. Maybe we should just ban the overhead handball even though it's completely legal, we could also go and ban the drop punt because it's new and we don't like it and all kicks should be drop kicks and torpedos.

The game changes, players come up with new skills to combat pressure tactics, this is a good one. As far as I am concerned, players executing high skills manoeuvres is a good part of the game and good for the game.

 

[sbwan]

In my junior footy days, if you took the ball directly from a teammate's arms, or he placed it in yours, it was called a throw.

Has the rule changed, or was it never an actual rule?

The latter is a free kick, you can't hand the ball to someone. More of a grey area if it's taken out of your hands by a teammate in the middle of a tackle or something, I'm not sure that's a free kick.

 

[agro]

What I am describing is a handball according to the AFL rules book. It's only a throw in your opinion of what you think the rule for a handball should be.

The guiding hand nearly always contributes to some of the momentum of a handball. There is nothing in the rule book about just how much or how little is allowed, the only thing stated is that the ball needs to be struck with a fist.

This is a clear case of "they didn't do it in my day so it must not be allowed". The game is higher pressure and due to that the players are better skilled. They can do these things quite easily.

As the rules go, if the fist makes contact, it's a handball. Those "throws" you think you are seeing, you might want to watch them again in slow motion, You will find that there is a fist in there and the umpires are mostly getting it right.

It's a newish skill, it's legal, it's time to get used to it. If the players are good enough to do it legally then play on.

Imagine if they ruined the rule and changed the handball rule so the guiding hand could only contribute so much to the momentum on the ball. Great, another grey area rule left to interpretation that changes from week to week and quarter to quarter and we start seeing legitimate handballs called as throws. More grey areas of the game. Maybe we should just ban the overhead handball even though it's completely legal, we could also go and ban the drop punt because it's new and we don't like it and all kicks should be drop kicks and torpedos.

The game changes, players come up with new skills to combat pressure tactics, this is a good one. As far as I am concerned, players executing high skills manoeuvres is a good part of the game and good for the game.

If you check out a film clip of the earliest surviving film of VFL (I believe it was the 1909 VFL Grand Final - Carlton v South Melbourne) you’ll see handballs which look like overhand volleyball serves which appear to have been allowed- so the game does and has evolved.

 

[Sector 7G]

What I am describing is a handball according to the AFL rules book. It's only a throw in your opinion of what you think the rule for a handball should be.

The guiding hand nearly always contributes to some of the momentum of a handball. There is nothing in the rule book about just how much or how little is allowed, the only thing stated is that the ball needs to be struck with a fist.

This is a clear case of "they didn't do it in my day so it must not be allowed". The game is higher pressure and due to that the players are better skilled. They can do these things quite easily.

As the rules go, if the fist makes contact, it's a handball. Those "throws" you think you are seeing, you might want to watch them again in slow motion, You will find that there is a fist in there and the umpires are mostly getting it right.

It's a newish skill, it's legal, it's time to get used to it. If the players are good enough to do it legally then play on.

Imagine if they ruined the rule and changed the handball rule so the guiding hand could only contribute so much to the momentum on the ball. Great, another grey area rule left to interpretation that changes from week to week and quarter to quarter and we start seeing legitimate handballs called as throws. More grey areas of the game. Maybe we should just ban the overhead handball even though it's completely legal, we could also go and ban the drop punt because it's new and we don't like it and all kicks should be drop kicks and torpedos.

The game changes, players come up with new skills to combat pressure tactics, this is a good one. As far as I am concerned, players executing high skills manoeuvres is a good part of the game and good for the game.

Comes down to the definition of Struck/Strike and whether brushing, touching as you put it a fist being "in there" can be classified as a Strike. Certainly isn't at the tribunal.

In the past the strike had to provide the vast majority of the propulsion of the ball. Never used to be a problem adjudicating this.

 

[Gethelred]

What I am describing is a handball according to the AFL rules book. It's only a throw in your opinion of what you think the rule for a handball should be.

I don't see what pointing this out achieves you. We were talking about what the rules should be, not what they are.

I'm left sitting here, asking, "... and???"

The guiding hand nearly always contributes to some of the momentum of a handball.

It shouldn't be the determining factor of where the ball goes. That's the crux of the problem.

There is nothing in the rule book about just how much or how little is allowed, the only thing stated is that the ball needs to be struck with a fist.

And there should be.

Great. We're all on the same page now. You've accurately described the entire argument, without really arguing against it.

This is a clear case of "they didn't do it in my day so it must not be allowed". The game is higher pressure and due to that the players are better skilled. They can do these things quite easily.

The game is not better skilled than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. AFL has preferenced endurance and power over skill pretty consistently for the last 20-22 years, and this has had a wide variety of effects. One of those effects is the decrease of dual skilled players, and the decrease of players who can handpass with both hands.

You don't go a banana handpass if you can handpass with your left.

If you're going to make an 'old man shouts at cloud' argument, let's get our cards on the table, shall we?

As the rules go

I think I'm beginning to see the difficulty. You see the rules as authority, when the argument is that the rule should be changed. Asserting what the rules are does not affect the argument that they should be changed because the current status quo is contrary to the ideal.

if the fist makes contact, it's a handball.

... according to the current rules, but the problem comes from the fact that these are not real handballs. These are disguised throws.

Australians, in case you haven't noticed, rather like calling a spade a spade.

Those "throws" you think you are seeing

This one bothers me.

I'm seeing throws. I don't think I'm seeing them; I'm seeing them.

Do not try to gaslight another person in an argument. If I see you do it again, I will be rather unhappy.

... you might want to watch them again in slow motion, You will find that there is a fist in there and the umpires are mostly getting it right.

No, they are not. They're throws, because the hand holding the ball is determining the trajectory.

It's a newish skill, it's legal, it's time to get used to it. If the players are good enough to do it legally then play on.

This isn't an argument, it's a dismissal.

Imagine if they ruined the rule and changed the handball rule so the guiding hand could only contribute so much to the momentum on the ball. Great, another grey area rule left to interpretation that changes from week to week and quarter to quarter and we start seeing legitimate handballs called as throws. More grey areas of the game. Maybe we should just ban the overhead handball even though it's completely legal, we could also go and ban the drop punt because it's new and we don't like it and all kicks should be drop kicks and torpedos.

Slippery slope, and a shit one.

The game changes, players come up with new skills to combat pressure tactics, this is a good one. As far as I am concerned, players executing high skills manoeuvres is a good part of the game and good for the game.

It takes less skill to throw the ball than it does to handpass it.

 

[thylacine60]

2 of my fave posters throwing snowballs, the odd one with a stone in it.............loving it.............

 

[gbatman]

I don't see what pointing this out achieves you. We were talking about what the rules should be, not what they are.

I'm left sitting here, asking, "... and???"

It shouldn't be the determining factor of where the ball goes. That's the crux of the problem.

And there should be.

Great. We're all on the same page now. You've accurately described the entire argument, without really arguing against it.

The game is not better skilled than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. AFL has preferenced endurance and power over skill pretty consistently for the last 20-22 years, and this has had a wide variety of effects. One of those effects is the decrease of dual skilled players, and the decrease of players who can handpass with both hands.

You don't go a banana handpass if you can handpass with your left.

If you're going to make an 'old man shouts at cloud' argument, let's get our cards on the table, shall we?

I think I'm beginning to see the difficulty. You see the rules as authority, when the argument is that the rule should be changed. Asserting what the rules are does not affect the argument that they should be changed because the current status quo is contrary to the ideal.

... according to the current rules, but the problem comes from the fact that these are not real handballs. These are disguised throws.

Australians, in case you haven't noticed, rather like calling a spade a spade.

This one bothers me.

I'm seeing throws. I don't think I'm seeing them; I'm seeing them.

Do not try to gaslight another person in an argument. If I see you do it again, I will be rather unhappy.

No, they are not. They're throws, because the hand holding the ball is determining the trajectory.

This isn't an argument, it's a dismissal.

Slippery slope, and a s**t one.

It takes less skill to throw the ball than it does to handpass it.

I was talking about what the rules are, have been the whole time. You're saying they are throws, when they aren't, the rules would have to be changed for what you are seeing to be deemed a throw. You need to be saying that you think the rules should be changes so they are throws.

The guiding hand does determine largely where the ball goes if you handball correctly, you use it to aim.

I don't agree with there needing to be something in the rule book about how much or how little the guiding hand should contribute to the propulsion of the ball. It's not effecting the reason why we handball in the game at all. The last thing the rules of the game needs are more grey areas and rules left for the umpires to interpret. The current rule is black and white and is easy for the umpires to make a call, a change will bring about inconsistencies. What players are doing is not effecting the holding the ball rule which is the reason for the handball. The handball exists so that a player can be tackled and either dispose of the ball without being penalised or be unable to dispose of the ball legally and be penalise for a holding the ball. That's it, that is the purpose of the handball. It's not to make it more difficult to pass the ball or for it's aesthetics. As of this stage the handball is still maintaining it's purpose regardless of how players use it. I'm happy with that, it's doing it's job.

Reality is you aren't seeing throws, you're seeing, lets call them slick handballs and you don't like it. Regardless of how you would like the rules to be changed, until that happens, you're seeing handballs. You're not seeing throws, you're seeing handballs you don't like and believe the players should not be allowed to handball like that.

There is nothing in the rules about trajectory, it's still a handball if the ball is struck with a fist, unless of course the rule were to be change.

It's really simple, if there is a fist in there, which there is then it's a handball, that is all there has to be. I'm not keen on seeing the rule changed, we would be seeing a hell of a lot more umpiring mistakes, we ask our umpires to guess enough in this game and it just looks ugly when they guess wrong.

Changing the interpretation and bringing in a 'not enough fist' rule, that could get really interesting. IMO it opens the door to a real shitshow of umpiring calls.

To be honest, I like the over the head handball, keeps the ball alive, is a show of skill. I think you would find there is more fist in those handballs than there looks. As someone who uses that mauver in games from time to time, I can tell you when I do it and handball over my head, directly behind me, there is plenty of fist used and yes I am swinging the ball with my guiding arm and I can see how it looks a bit like I would be tossing it.

 

[gbatman]

Comes down to the definition of Struck/Strike and whether brushing, touching as you put it a fist being "in there" can be classified as a Strike. Certainly isn't at the tribunal.

In the past the strike had to provide the vast majority of the propulsion of the ball. Never used to be a problem adjudicating this.

Struck enough to leave the hand.

 

[My Hat]

So I know I dipped out of this discussion, but I can't let this one slide.

... according to the current rules, but the problem comes from the fact that these are not real handballs. These are disguised throws.

Australians, in case you haven't noticed, rather like calling a spade a spade.

OK, so you agree that under the current laws of the game, the actions we are talking about are legal handballs. But then you say they are not 'real' handballs.

But where does your definition of a 'real' handball come from?

It doesn't come from anywhere official in the AFL laws of the game. It's just, like, your opinion, man. You think they shouldn't be considered real handballs. Perhaps you believe that at some point in the past they would have been considered illegal. But according to another post in this thread, at an earlier point in the past something like a volleyball spike would have been considered fine.

Fact is that at the moment, by the only available objective measure that is not grounded in opinion (i.e. the AFL laws of the game), they are not throws. They are real handballs.

I understand that you don't like this fact and would like to see it change. But that's the reality. Under the laws of the game as they currently stand, these action are handballs, not throws.

This one bothers me.

I'm seeing throws. I don't think I'm seeing them; I'm seeing them.

Do not try to gaslight another person in an argument. If I see you do it again, I will be rather unhappy.

And this one bothers me. You're seeing actions that you personally define as throws based on your own opinion, but which the AFL defines as handballs. It is perfectly reasonable for others to refer to these actions as handballs as objectively defined, and to use inverted commas to note that calling them a 'throw' is an alternative definition not currently supported by the governing authority. So maybe go easy on accusations of gaslighting?

 

[Gethelred]

So I know I dipped out of this discussion, but I can't let this one slide.



OK, so you agree that under the current laws of the game, the actions we are talking about are legal handballs. But then you say they are not 'real' handballs.

But where does your definition of a 'real' handball come from?

It doesn't come from anywhere official in the AFL laws of the game. It's just, like, your opinion, man. You think they shouldn't be considered real handballs. Perhaps you believe that at some point in the past they would have been considered illegal. But according to another post in this thread, at an earlier point in the past something like a volleyball spike would have been considered fine.

Fact is that at the moment, by the only available objective measure that is not grounded in opinion (i.e. the AFL laws of the game), they are not throws. They are real handballs.

I understand that you don't like this fact and would like to see it change. But that's the reality. Under the laws of the game as they currently stand, these action are handballs, not throws.

I approve of any mention of the Big Lebowski, but a throw is a throw. If you are throwing the ball, you're throwing the ball.

The rest of this is entirely semantics based sophistry.

And this one bothers me. You're seeing actions that you personally define as throws based on your own opinion, but which the AFL defines as handballs. It is perfectly reasonable for others to refer to these actions as handballs as objectively defined, and to use inverted commas to note that calling them a 'throw' is an alternative definition not currently supported by the governing authority. So maybe go easy on accusations of gaslighting?

The wording used made it gaslighting.

I'm always up for some antics, but do not tell me what I saw. That's dirty pool.

I was talking about what the rules are, have been the whole time. You're saying they are throws, when they aren't, the rules would have to be changed for what you are seeing to be deemed a throw. You need to be saying that you think the rules should be changes so they are throws.

The guiding hand does determine largely where the ball goes if you handball correctly, you use it to aim.

I don't agree with there needing to be something in the rule book about how much or how little the guiding hand should contribute to the propulsion of the ball. It's not effecting the reason why we handball in the game at all. The last thing the rules of the game needs are more grey areas and rules left for the umpires to interpret. The current rule is black and white and is easy for the umpires to make a call, a change will bring about inconsistencies. What players are doing is not effecting the holding the ball rule which is the reason for the handball. The handball exists so that a player can be tackled and either dispose of the ball without being penalised or be unable to dispose of the ball legally and be penalise for a holding the ball. That's it, that is the purpose of the handball. It's not to make it more difficult to pass the ball or for it's aesthetics. As of this stage the handball is still maintaining it's purpose regardless of how players use it. I'm happy with that, it's doing it's job.

Reality is you aren't seeing throws, you're seeing, lets call them slick handballs and you don't like it. Regardless of how you would like the rules to be changed, until that happens, you're seeing handballs. You're not seeing throws, you're seeing handballs you don't like and believe the players should not be allowed to handball like that.

There is nothing in the rules about trajectory, it's still a handball if the ball is struck with a fist, unless of course the rule were to be change.

It's really simple, if there is a fist in there, which there is then it's a handball, that is all there has to be. I'm not keen on seeing the rule changed, we would be seeing a hell of a lot more umpiring mistakes, we ask our umpires to guess enough in this game and it just looks ugly when they guess wrong.

Changing the interpretation and bringing in a 'not enough fist' rule, that could get really interesting. IMO it opens the door to a real shitshow of umpiring calls.

To be honest, I like the over the head handball, keeps the ball alive, is a show of skill. I think you would find there is more fist in those handballs than there looks. As someone who uses that mauver in games from time to time, I can tell you when I do it and handball over my head, directly behind me, there is plenty of fist used and yes I am swinging the ball with my guiding arm and I can see how it looks a bit like I would be tossing it.

At no point have I mentioned the over the head handpass. At no point have I mentioned anything other than the main force giving momentum to the ball being provided by the hand striking the ball.

I feel like you're arguing against a lot of things I'm not saying and not addressing the things I am. We're talking past each other.

 

[carlton_99]

#22

 

[gbatman]

I approve of any mention of the Big Lebowski, but a throw is a throw. If you are throwing the ball, you're throwing the ball.

The rest of this is entirely semantics based sophistry.

The wording used made it gaslighting.

I'm always up for some antics, but do not tell me what I saw. That's dirty pool.

At no point have I mentioned the over the head handpass. At no point have I mentioned anything other than the main force giving momentum to the ball being provided by the hand striking the ball.

I feel like you're arguing against a lot of things I'm not saying and not addressing the things I am. We're talking past each other.

True, that was someone else, that's how the whole discussion came about, from some posters dislike of the overhead handpass.

 

[agro]

View attachment 1446747
#22

Abandon all hope ye who enter.

 

[Skull Face]

Just on handballs, when did it get removed from the book the ball had to be hit from a stationary hand

 

[OldBlueFan]

This argument that tightening up the definition of a handball so that "only the fist can impart momentum" will cause more grey areas is a total red-herring.

If the holding hand is at the end of a swinging arm (either underarm, overhead or laterally) then it's a throw, not a handpass.

Apologies for the club colours here, but it can't be helped:



I don't see anything there that suggests these throws-disguised-as-handballs are legal.

 

[Arr0w]

Hand holding the ball still moves to the target often

 

[thylacine60]

Surely conversation belongs in "Come On, That Was A ******* Throw!" thread?

 

[Magruder]

View attachment 1446747
#22

aw, ****

 

[BlueGum]

View attachment 1446747
#22

Rodan will be grinning a lot at H and Charlie goals.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Hand holding the ball still moves to the target often

Of course it does, but the difference between "Hand holding the ball moving towards the target" and the Butters and Gresham "full swinging holding arm with the punching fist making glancing contact on the way past" is patently obvious.

In every example in the video I posted, when the holding hand is moving, it's still obviously the punching hand that is providing the vast majority of the ball's momentum (even the in-game examples). And given that this is the AFL's scripted "Skills Guide" for handballing, I think it's fair to interpret it as the preferred method of handball.

They even state that if the ball is not PUNCHED FROM THE HAND, then it is a throw. Of all the examples we're arguing here, the only type where the ball might still be punched from the hand is the over the head/shoulder one (though I would argue that it hardly ever is). In all other cases, the fist is just an incidental feature of the action.

Based on that, if we were having this discussion in 2012, then the throw-disguised-as-handball would be adjudicated as just that, a throw.

 

[Accidental genius]

If there is a thread on rules.... it would also be worthwhile discussing the bouncing of the ball when running.

Does the rule specifically say it has to be a bounce?

Is kneeling down and touching the ground with the ball really allowed? If so why? Not a good spectacle.

If you can’t do a proper bounce then maybe footy ain’t for you.

Thoughts?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

View attachment 1446747
#22

Oh god [emoji24]


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[RPCB]

This argument that tightening up the definition of a handball so that "only the fist can impart momentum" will cause more grey areas is a total red-herring.

If the holding hand is at the end of a swinging arm (either underarm, overhead or laterally) then it's a throw, not a handpass.

Apologies for the club colours here, but it can't be helped:



I don't see anything there that suggests these throws-disguised-as-handballs are legal.

“Make sure you practice with both your left and right hands.”

Can confirm.

 

[Sector 7G]

Struck enough to leave the hand.

The issue is that with many handballs today is the the ball is leaving the hand regardless of it being struck or not and is not going in the direction of the strike.

 

[ajb72]

Rodan will be grinning a lot at H and Charlie goals.

As the emergency, i'm sure he will be grinning a lot while sitting around with his feet up.