In the Back!

[domus]

It's not an earth-shattering observation, but the change in interpretation of what constitutes a push in the back during the past two weeks has been truly astonishing. For months players have been allowed to push their opponents under the ball with both hands in the small of their opponent's back without any penalty. Darcy Moore

30

Darcy Moore

Age

28

Ht

203cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.1

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

169.1

3star

D

13.9

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

0.7

1star

MG

182.0

3star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.2

2star

HB

2.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

87.4

2star

has done it a number of times but Hawkins has been blatantly shoving his opponents for years and getting away with it.

Now we have umpires returning to the VFL days when any push in the back region however subtle sees the whistle blown and the call "in the back!" loud and clear with absolutely no comment from any commentator about the huge turnaround in the interpretation of this rule.

The umps have clearly been called into a meeting where they decided the in the back rule was in a state of chaos and decided to return to the tiggy touchwood application of the rule. What annoys me is that the AFL would simply deny this has happened and the media are in lock step with the administration.

I can't believe there have not been incensed players approaching umps during a break to ask what the hell is going on. The endless re-interpretation of rules on the run is truly exasperating. There used to be a "rule of the week" focus which the AFL also denies but nothing could be more obvious with this latest dramatic change.

 

[Horaceg]

It's not an earth-shattering observation, but the change in interpretation of what constitutes a push in the back during the past two weeks has been truly astonishing. For months players have been allowed to push their opponents under the ball with both hands in the small of their opponent's back without any penalty. Darcy Moore has done it a number of times but Hawkins has been blatantly shoving his opponents for years and getting away with it.

Now we have umpires returning to the VFL days when any push in the back region however subtle sees the whistle blown and the call "in the back!" loud and clear with absolutely no comment from any commentator about the huge turnaround in the interpretation of this rule.

The umps have clearly been called into a meeting where they decided the in the back rule was in a state of chaos and decided to return to the tiggy touchwood application of the rule. What annoys me is that the AFL would simply deny this has happened and the media are in lock step with the administration.

I can't believe there have not been incensed players approaching umps during a break to ask what the hell is going on. The endless re-interpretation of rules on the run is truly exasperating. There used to be a "rule of the week" focus which the AFL also denies but nothing could be more obvious with this latest dramatic change.

Some blame has to rest with the Mayo spreaders and divers, we all know who they are.

 

[Markfs]

It's not an earth-shattering observation, but the change in interpretation of what constitutes a push in the back during the past two weeks has been truly astonishing. For months players have been allowed to push their opponents under the ball with both hands in the small of their opponent's back without any penalty. Darcy Moore has done it a number of times but Hawkins has been blatantly shoving his opponents for years and getting away with it.

Now we have umpires returning to the VFL days when any push in the back region however subtle sees the whistle blown and the call "in the back!" loud and clear with absolutely no comment from any commentator about the huge turnaround in the interpretation of this rule.

The umps have clearly been called into a meeting where they decided the in the back rule was in a state of chaos and decided to return to the tiggy touchwood application of the rule. What annoys me is that the AFL would simply deny this has happened and the media are in lock step with the administration.

I can't believe there have not been incensed players approaching umps during a break to ask what the hell is going on. The endless re-interpretation of rules on the run is truly exasperating. There used to be a "rule of the week" focus which the AFL also denies but nothing could be more obvious with this latest dramatic change.

I'm all with you on this one, domie. This rule has been butchered ever since kevin barlett pulled on a jumper. It's been forgotten for last few years and we've been seeing blatant push in the backs ignored by umpires, only for irrelevant frees to be given in ruck contests. Players have been clearly pushed out of contests in the pasts, and debatable shepherding frees have been given. Players have deliberately run head first into opponents and got frees but cant get one if they are pushed in the back in a marking contest. It's open season on pushing players in the back when they are running into goal, but you cant put your arm around an opponent. None of it made sense....and now they've decided to fix it.

There is no common sense left in umpires. The result of analytics where backroom boys are counting up all the frees and assigning various levels of accuracy to them, and then determining whether an umpire gets a game the next week based on the figures.

 

[domus]

I'm all with you on this one, domie. This rule has been butchered ever since kevin barlett pulled on a jumper. It's been forgotten for last few years and we've been seeing blatant push in the backs ignored by umpires, only for irrelevant frees to be given in ruck contests. Players have been clearly pushed out of contests in the pasts, and debatable shepherding frees have been given. Players have deliberately run head first into opponents and got frees but cant get one if they are pushed in the back in a marking contest. It's open season on pushing players in the back when they are running into goal, but you cant put your arm around an opponent. None of it made sense....and now they've decided to fix it.

There is no common sense left in umpires. The result of analytics where backroom boys are counting up all the frees and assigning various levels of accuracy to them, and then determining whether an umpire gets a game the next week based on the figures.

Your point about ruckmen is spot on. They pluck random in the back frees from nowhere in those wrestling contests while ignoring some shockingly blatant ones. It is a dog's breakfast.

 

[domus]

Some blame has to rest with the Mayo spreaders and divers, we all know who they are.

Nope. There have been many very obvious double handed shoves which the umps have simply ignored. When you are in the air with both feet off the ground and you get shoved your momentum forward is exaggerated but no due to acting by players. The have no where to plant their feet or resist.

I harp on about the Guthrie push on Ginnivan in the qualifying final because it was so blatant and clearly prevented his ability to contest the ball yet an ump side on to that action waved play on! It was every bit as bad as the headlock on Jack last year against Essendon.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

Your point about ruckmen is spot on. They pluck random in the back frees from nowhere in those wrestling contests while ignoring some shockingly blatant ones. It is a dog's breakfast.

Usually in the ruck contests it’s one hand squarely on the back and one in the side, yet the umpires don’t pay it. Rule should be any form
Arm or forearm in the back should be a free kick and remove the grey area. Different players get umpires differently with in the back as well.

 

[sr36]

Usually in the ruck contests it’s one hand squarely on the back and one in the side, yet the umpires don’t pay it. Rule should be any form
Arm or forearm in the back should be a free kick and remove the grey area. Different players get umpires differently with in the back as well.

I'm someone who doesn't really care about the interpretation as long as it's consistent, so I don't like midseason interpretation changes as it'll be applied inconsistently and then not applied at all come the finals.

Deliberate out of bounds is the only rule interpretation that really annoys me, as it varies so much depending on what part of the ground it's in and which skill has led to it going out of bounds. A defender or midfielder miskick it out of bounds and it's deliberate, whereas they don't even pay the actual deliberate ones against forwards, let alone the miskicks. And it's nonsensical that you're allowed to turn away from a tackler and just walk out of play and it's a throw in, but if you try to kick it forward and it goes out of bounds it's a free kick.

 

[Markfs]

I saw a free for in the back this past weekend where the player just kept the player in front of him from pushing back.....which was the "change" to the rule a couple of years ago. I was actually shocked to see it given a free kick again, like the old days. And then a bit later, the umpires gave another for "in the back" and I said to myself that they have obviously been told to award them again. No announcement. Do they tell the clubs?

Actually, I'm glad that they have decided to pay the frees again. The problem will be that the emphasis from head office will fall away, and the umpires will stop paying them.

 

[Markfs]

I'm someone who doesn't really care about the interpretation as long as it's consistent, so I don't like midseason interpretation changes as it'll be applied inconsistently and then not applied at all come the finals.

Deliberate out of bounds is the only rule interpretation that really annoys me, as it varies so much depending on what part of the ground it's in and which skill has led to it going out of bounds. A defender or midfielder miskick it out of bounds and it's deliberate, whereas they don't even pay the actual deliberate ones against forwards, let alone the miskicks. And it's nonsensical that you're allowed to turn away from a tackler and just walk out of play and it's a throw in, but if you try to kick it forward and it goes out of bounds it's a free kick.

I agree with walking over the line. It's far more "deliberate" than a lot of rushed kicks. I think they need to go further and say anything untouched off the boot is deemed "deliberate".

I think the eagles supporters would love to see anything that goes into touch given as a free, and the player bringing the ball back in needs to throw it with two arms extended with both hands on the ball.....it would remind them of home

 

[Fat Jesus]

I saw a free for in the back this past weekend where the player just kept the player in front of him from pushing back.....which was the "change" to the rule a couple of years ago. I was actually shocked to see it given a free kick again, like the old days. And then a bit later, the umpires gave another for "in the back" and I said to myself that they have obviously been told to award them again. No announcement. Do they tell the clubs?

Actually, I'm glad that they have decided to pay the frees again. The problem will be that the emphasis from head office will fall away, and the umpires will stop paying them.

I know mate. Perhaps if the kick is more than 30 metres or so it should never be seen as deliberate. Dunno

 

[soreplums]

Has to be an extension of the elbows to be a push.

it is “push in the back”. Taking the first word out makes the interpretation different

 

[sideswipe]

I'm someone who doesn't really care about the interpretation as long as it's consistent, so I don't like midseason interpretation changes as it'll be applied inconsistently and then not applied at all come the finals.

Deliberate out of bounds is the only rule interpretation that really annoys me, as it varies so much depending on what part of the ground it's in and which skill has led to it going out of bounds. A defender or midfielder miskick it out of bounds and it's deliberate, whereas they don't even pay the actual deliberate ones against forwards, let alone the miskicks. And it's nonsensical that you're allowed to turn away from a tackler and just walk out of play and it's a throw in, but if you try to kick it forward and it goes out of bounds it's a free kick.

Agree - the ole “immabout to get tackled so I’ll step out” should be pinged every time.

The rule is framed as “insufficient intent to keep the ball in play” so rather than “deliberate” it only needs to be “didn’t try enough”.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Horaceg]

Nope. There have been many very obvious double handed shoves which the umps have simply ignored. When you are in the air with both feet off the ground and you get shoved your momentum forward is exaggerated but no due to acting by players. The have no where to plant their feet or resist.

I harp on about the Guthrie push on Ginnivan in the qualifying final because it was so blatant and clearly prevented his ability to contest the ball yet an ump side on to that action waved play on! It was every bit as bad as the headlock on Jack last year against Essendon.

I said some, Mayo speaders make it difficult for Umps. Tough job.

 

[Piestration]

Your point about ruckmen is spot on. They pluck random in the back frees from nowhere in those wrestling contests while ignoring some shockingly blatant ones. It is a dog's breakfast.

What about blocking at the centre bounces. I have no idea why some of these are paid. Usually it's a sh?t and inconsistent bounce by the ump and one of the rucks is standing flat footed under the drop and all of a sudden it's a block. Just let them battle for what we know is going to be a random ball drop.

 

[lyfsux]

What about blocking at the centre bounces. I have no idea why some of these are paid. Usually it's a sh?t and inconsistent bounce by the ump and one of the rucks is standing flat footed under the drop and all of a sudden it's a block. Just let them battle for what we know is going to be a random ball drop.

Even a better thought piss the bounce off altogether and throw it up

 

[sideswipe]

Even a better thought piss the bounce off altogether and throw it up

Yet to hear a solid reason for retaining it. Adds nothing other than inconsistency to ruck contests


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Markfs]

What about blocking at the centre bounces. I have no idea why some of these are paid. Usually it's a sh?t and inconsistent bounce by the ump and one of the rucks is standing flat footed under the drop and all of a sudden it's a block. Just let them battle for what we know is going to be a random ball drop.

Yes, I agree with this one a lot. The whole rucking situation is ridiculous including starting a metre apart at the boundary, to actually nominating a ruckman. Why not start again without any rules and see where that takes us.... It might surprise the people in charge but people might like to see big guys pushing and pulling each other to get to the ball. Keep the general rules intact like push in the back, and allow the ruckmen to shepherd their opponent off the ball just like you can do in a marking contest if the ball is within 5 metres and you're looking at the ball. The "extra" rules for the ruck just confuse everyone and they increase the number of free kicks which the people in charge dont want.

While I'm on this rules thing. We now have a situation where players are pulling out of contests so that they dont collide with opponents. The AFL is worried about concussion. How about being worried about encouraging a style of game where players pull out of contests? At the moment, players are willing to risk 3 game suspensions to tackle opponents. How long will that continue? The AFL has made us believe that players can tackle just as hard and never hurt an opponent. I would suggest that some professional footballers will choose to pull out of contests, rather than try to attain that impossible standard. The AFL should remember that it cant tell the umpires to award free kicks against players who dont go in hard enough....although it wouldnt surprise me if they changed the rules to do that.

 

[Markfs]

Yet to hear a solid reason for retaining it. Adds nothing other than inconsistency to ruck contests


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

tradition, wipey, but that didnt save the goalies in their white trench coats and hats.....

 

[Piestration]

Yet to hear a solid reason for retaining it. Adds nothing other than inconsistency to ruck contests


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Tradition is the only reason so how about we keep some of this tradition by just opening the game or even each qrt with a bounce and thats it.

 

[sr36]

Yet to hear a solid reason for retaining it. Adds nothing other than inconsistency to ruck contests


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I quite like the theatre of the bounce. But my view is that if you're going to go with it, don't recall them. It's an oval ball and the luck of how it bounces has a big impact on the game. Accepting that luck in the way the game re-starts is fine with me.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

Ours is a tough game to umpire. I had to umpire a few junior games back in the days of one umpire when rules were much fewer and simpler and found it difficult. Nowadays it’s even harder. We want consistency but it’s a big ask with four field umpires. We watch from the stands, the boundary or in front of a television with slo-mo analysis of decisions whilst umpires only have the perspective of where they are in the moment from eye level.
We comment with phrases like ” that was a soft free” or “it was there but **** let the game go” or “they’ve cracked down on that interpretation“ or “they’re letting that one go today”. Throw in players and coaches trying to exaggerate or bend the rules and god help the poor buggers.
I tend to approach it with a ”well they‘ll get some and we will get some” attitude mixed in with “ you’re kidding ump” or something a bit more expletive filled.
These days it’s throws and just dropping the ball that get me riled.

 

[sideswipe]

I quite like the theatre of the bounce. But my view is that if you're going to go with it, don't recall them. It's an oval ball and the luck of how it bounces has a big impact on the game. Accepting that luck in the way the game re-starts is fine with me.

I reckon if they slipped a game in with no bounces, most wouldn’t even notice


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sr36]

I reckon if they slipped a game in with no bounces, most wouldn’t even notice


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Agree. I don't really care either way. I just don't like the re-doing of the bounce when the oval ball isn't bounced perfectly. Either accept some crooked bounces or just throw it up.