O/T - The New Hands in the Back Rule

[Cap]

Just wondering what people think of the rule, I see there are many threads and posts on it but many posters are people who don't seem to understand it.

Talk to the majority of old timers who aren't too anti-umpire and they tell you that they all learnt the play football without touching the back of their oppostion, I guy I know who played League for South even said in the 70's (considering you could belt guys out!!) a hand in the back was a free kick. The rule seemed to be relaxed in the 80's and 90's to the point where you could push someone over as long as you look the mark.

I think the issue lies in the fact that the umpires weren't given enough time to get their skills correct to make consistent calls and the same goes for the players. However I have decided that I am coverted to the new rule and it does promote one on one football.

Thoughts ?

 

[samdaman_2]

i really dont see the rule as being too bad... yes supporters are getting frustrated with it but i see the rule as just a cop out as something to blame... you never have been able to "push" someone in the back, yes in the past it has seemed you are able to but the rule has always said you cannot. you are however allowed to use your forearm and body which is the way it should be... thats how most of the great full forwards of the past has done it and thats the way it should be... i just wish ppl would get over it and except it, i hope the afl keep the rule cos if they do in a year or so most players wont be putting their hands in the back anyway

i think the real thing that is actually frustrating ppl is the umpires in general... there has been only a few games this season i have watched and not thought that the umpires made way too many stupid calls... i wish they would just let the game run, let it be free flowing and put their whistle away... yes ppl will still be frustrated with the frees they miss but the game would be much more enjoyable if they are missing free kicks rather than paying way too many and ones that arent there.

 

[AAMI]

I don't always agree with Robert Walls but he is correct on this topic. A free kick should only be paid when there is a "push to disadvantage", not when someone simply places their hands on an opponent's back.

It is a ridiculous over the top interpretion bought in with no trial in a pre-season, simply because in recent years umpires weren't paying free kicks that should have been paid.

The current intrepretation is a blight on the game.

 

[Fergus]

I don't always agree with Robert Walls but he is correct on this topic. A free kick should only be paid when there is a "push to disadvantage", not when someone simply places their hands on an opponent's back.

It is a ridiculous over the top interpretion bought in with no trial in a pre-season, simply because in recent years umpires weren't paying free kicks that should have been paid.

The current intrepretation is a blight on the game.

Spot on.

 

[Cap]

I don't always agree with Robert Walls but he is correct on this topic. A free kick should only be paid when there is a "push to disadvantage", not when someone simply places their hands on an opponent's back.

It is a ridiculous over the top interpretion bought in with no trial in a pre-season, simply because in recent years umpires weren't paying free kicks that should have been paid.

The current intrepretation is a blight on the game.

that just adds another grey area

why not just leave your hands away from the back to avoid any issues with umpires trying to work out how much of a push it to disadvantage

 

[glengowan]

that just adds another grey area

why not just leave your hands away from the back to avoid any issues with umpires trying to work out how much of a push it to disadvantage

The AFL are trying to make everything black and white, when commonsense should be used in judging whether a player is being disadvantaged in a contest. The umpires are there for a reason.

The rule is deplorable. The amount of contests that have been ruined by an umpire awarding a pathetically soft free kick is a disgrace.

Same with the rule rewarding the player hanging back to pounce on a tackle with holding the ball instead of giving the player who gets in there a fair chance.

The rules committee should be put on a live 60 minutes style debate with the people that actually play or coach the game. I wonder how they'd argue their point?

 

[Cap]

The AFL are trying to make everything black and white, when commonsense should be used in judging whether a player is being disadvantaged in a contest. The umpires are there for a reason.

The rule is deplorable. The amount of contests that have been ruined by an umpire awarding a pathetically soft free kick is a disgrace.

Same with the rule rewarding the player hanging back to pounce on a tackle with holding the ball instead of giving the player who gets in there a fair chance.

The rules committee should be put on a live 60 minutes style debate with the people that actually play or coach the game. I wonder how they'd argue their point?

but they have made it black and white - if your hands are on the opponents back its a free kick - pretty simple. The umpires are yet to get it 100% (or even 90%) right yet but I think the rule works.

The umpire hasn't ruined any contests, the players have, kepp your hands off the oppositions back and you'll be fine, put your hands there and its a free kick.

as for the holding the ball rule - i've given up on that one

 

[Markthirtytwo]

but they have made it black and white - if your hands are on the opponents back its a free kick - pretty simple. The umpires are yet to get it 100% (or even 90%) right yet but I think the rule works.

The umpire hasn't ruined any contests, the players have, kepp your hands off the oppositions back and you'll be fine, put your hands there and its a free kick.

as for the holding the ball rule - i've given up on that one

Not quite right. Whereas all the attention has been in a marking contest, nothing is being done where a player is pushed in the back while they are in the process of disposing of the ball. Utter inconsistant bullship.

 

[AAMI]

but they have made it black and white - if your hands are on the opponents back its a free kick - pretty simple. The umpires are yet to get it 100% (or even 90%) right yet but I think the rule works.

The umpire hasn't ruined any contests, the players have, kepp your hands off the oppositions back and you'll be fine, put your hands there and its a free kick.

There's a game for you - check out a team called the Thunderbirds. They play at ETSA Park with lots of black and white rules.

 

[Cap]

Not quite right. Whereas all the attention has been in a marking contest, nothing is being done where a player is pushed in the back while they are in the process of disposing of the ball. Utter inconsistant bullship.

the rule works - the umpires haven't quite got it yet

my arguement is the rule is good

 

[CarnCrows]

I like the intent of the rule. Hands in back = free; simple. The umpirers positioning is sometimes wrong, but they can't get everything.

Those that want 'degrees' of pushing leave the door agar for all the actors out their to throw themselves forward ie if I am holding my position with my hands and someone is pushing back hard on me, all they have to do is go forward and my hands will naturally follow, which looks like a push in the back.

Again it is pretty simple, commentators are just making it a big deal as they always reminisce about 'the good old days'. The same good old days where s**t didnt smell.

The two rules I don't like are:
1. Holding the ball when on the ground
2. Chopping the arms.

 

[Cap]

I like the intent of the rule. Hands in back = free; simple. The umpirers positioning is sometimes wrong, but they can't get everything.

Those that want 'degrees' of pushing leave the door agar for all the actors out their to throw themselves forward ie if I am holding my position with my hands and someone is pushing back hard on me, all they have to do is go forward and my hands will naturally follow, which looks like a push in the back.

Again it is pretty simple, commentators are just making it a big deal as they always reminisce about 'the good old days'. The same good old days where s**t didnt smell.

The two rules I don't like are:
1. Holding the ball when on the ground
2. Chopping the arms.

I especailly agree with part 2.

 

[Fergus]

I like the intent of the rule. Hands in back = free; simple. The umpirers positioning is sometimes wrong, but they can't get everything.

Those that want 'degrees' of pushing leave the door agar for all the actors out their to throw themselves forward ie if I am holding my position with my hands and someone is pushing back hard on me, all they have to do is go forward and my hands will naturally follow, which looks like a push in the back.

Again it is pretty simple, commentators are just making it a big deal as they always reminisce about 'the good old days'. The same good old days where s**t didnt smell.

The two rules I don't like are:
1. Holding the ball when on the ground
2. Chopping the arms.

So should we go down the same path for all rules? High contact for example. Just about every stoppage with a few players on the ground has some degree of incidental high contact. If this was interpreted the same way the hands in the back rule is there would be a free kick every time.

How about listening to the players - forwards and backs. They want a push penalised, they don't want a non-push penalised.

The rule is a blight on the game.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I don't have a problem with the rule. What I do have a problem with is the inconsistent interpretations of the rule. At the start of the year, we were told that hands in the back were a No No but that forearm in the back was ok.

Well, what we are seeing now is umpires calling free kicks on what they think they see rather than what they do see. Players get pinged for something that is not there.

In theory, the rule is great but in practice there is just WAY too much margin for error and too big a grey area and as such, the rule has become a huge joke!

 

[Alex99]

I don’t have a problem with the hands in the back rule. The way the rule has been described via the media makes the interpretation a lot clearer.

In most sporting rules there is black area, white areas and grey areas; the wording of this rule takes a lot of the grey area of the rule. “If someone places there hand in the back of the opponent a free kick should be given”. If every single umpires abided by the wording of the rule and gave a free kick away every single time someone placed there hands in the back of there opponent the rule would be fine.

The problem I have with this rule is the inconsistency and how liberal the umpires are with giving the free kick away.

Where I sit, I have a very good veiw of the 50 metre area and so many times during a game I can see a player push and use there hands to move the forward under the ball. Most of the time the umpire is either out of position or will not give a free kick away with 180 degree of goal. The ball goes down the other end and a different umpire sees it differently (because he has worked a bit harder to get in the correct position) and gives hands in the back free kick away, the inconsistency of the rule sucks.

The inconsistency of the rule sucks, not the rule itself.

 

[Alex99]

I don't have a problem with the rule. What I do have a problem with is the inconsistent interpretations of the rule. At the start of the year, we were told that hands in the back were a No No but that forearm in the back was ok.

Well, what we are seeing now is umpires calling free kicks on what they think they see rather than what they do see. Players get pinged for something that is not there.

In theory, the rule is great but in practice there is just WAY too much margin for error and too big a grey area and as such, the rule has become a huge joke!

Snap

 

[Cap]

Snap

so you both agree the rule is correct but the umpires need to work on its execution

 

[NikkiNoo]

Like with most rules these days the problem is the interpretations and not the rule perse. The fact that these interpretations are changing on a weekly basis (obviously no one told Goldspink that the side is not actually a part of a back....) makes the umpires job very difficult.

My main issue is the idiots that are in charge of the Umpiring department that are forcing the umps to view contests from the wrong positions on the field. The main decisions and directions are coming from people that have not umpired and that is what is really worrying me at the moment.

 

[Alex99]

so you both agree the rule is correct but the umpires need to work on its execution

Since when has the wording of the rule changed?

When have you ever been allowed to place your hands in someone back and not give a free kick away, it’s only the inconsistency of how the umpire interprets it and decides when to give that free kick away?

So to answer your question, IMO yes the rule is correct and it’s about how the umpire executes the rule.

 

[AAMI]

Any rule that is good in theory but crap in practice is a crap rule! The umpires will never be able to get this one right.

By the way, check out the rule book. The AFL have not made any changes to it this year and it still describes a free being paid for a "push" in a marking contest. Who says placing your hands on an opponents back without pushing them is actually a "push"???

The AFL is going against its own rules with this crap interpretation.

 

[Fergus]

Since when has the wording of the rule changed?

When have you ever been allowed to place your hands in someone back and not give a free kick away, it’s only the inconsistency of how the umpire interprets it and decides when to give that free kick away?

So to answer your question, IMO yes the rule is correct and it’s about how the umpire executes the rule.

You've always been allowed to place your hands in someones back, you just haven't been allowed to push. It's a fundamental difference that has a significant impact on the game.

 

[Cap]

Since when has the wording of the rule changed?

When have you ever been allowed to place your hands in someone back and not give a free kick away, it’s only the inconsistency of how the umpire interprets it and decides when to give that free kick away?

So to answer your question, IMO yes the rule is correct and it’s about how the umpire executes the rule.

your right - it never has

 

[King Elvis]

Hands ON the back - fine.

Hands IN the back - a free if they push them to disadvantage them.

Bodying out of the contest, should be fine.


I don't like the rule, but I think the major issue is the inconsistency in interpretation.

And, once again, the fact that Umpires are so often umpiring based on the players reaction, not on what they actually see.

 

[Cap]

Hands ON the back - fine.

Hands IN the back - a free if they push them to disadvantage them.

Bodying out of the contest, should be fine.


I don't like the rule, but I think the major issue is the inconsistency in interpretation.

And, once again, the fact that Umpires are so often umpiring based on the players reaction, not on what they actually see.

thats the point

eventually any contact with hands and backs is a free kick, players will stop putting there hands near the opposition backs and things will be fine

 

[NikkiNoo]

eventually any contact with hands and backs is a free kick, players will stop putting there hands near the opposition backs and things will be fine

This is the problem I have with it. The natural reaction for any human is when you are standing under a ball, someone backs into you, you are going to put your hands up to protect yourself.

What do you expect people to do Cappy? stand there with their arms by their side while someone cannons into them?