Hands in the back

[cormick]

This new descisions bugging me
exactly whats it sposed to be?
one day its clear and next its black
The new rule, hands in the back
So come on and let me know
should it stay or should it go?

thanks to clash.

I watched the replay of Richmond vs Essendon rd 9, and realised that the rule that cost richo the game...had died out almost entirely now.
Have a look at richos, then have a look at Lloyds back heal goal rd 20 vs carlton...Have the umpires gone soft, or has the AFL very quietly gotten rid of it, to save embarrasment?

If its still around...should ti stay o should it go?

[RoosyRocks]

If you watch footy 20 years ago they never touched each other in the back. The forward would try to mark it and the defender would swing a roundhouse ensuring he hit either A) The ball, B) The arms, or C) The head. This is how it was.
Then they started to report you for belting someone in the head, so you had to get closer to the forward so you hit the ball or hands, not head, this got you closer to the back, and it soon became obvious that knocking them in the back was just as effective as it moves the hole body, including the hands off the line of the ball, Just ask the Carlton full back if he ever pushed someone in the back!
Footballers were men back then and the forward would take the nudge and still try and mark it.
Then show ponies like Llyod were allowed into the game as the AFL pulled the biffo out. Boom, as soon as the guy touches you in the back just take a huge dive forward and you will get a free.
So then we had a situation where "sissy" forwards were getting frees for minimal impact, and real men like Hall and Tredrea and Brown were getting climbed all over and not getting a thing for it.
Clairty on the rule had to come in. Players were reacting differently to different levels of force making it too hard for the ump in a fast moving game to guess from 30m away how hard the push was.
So the rule was simplified to simply touch the back and its a free. Very easy.
Like always it takes some getting used to, but sooner or later the players learn that they will get pinged, the umps are better at picking it up, the crowds get used to it and stop booing it, and soon we are back to the forward going for the ball not diving, and the defender trying to spoil, not nudge.

Leave the rule in as it is now.

RR

[cormick]

Originally Posted by RoosyRocks

If you watch footy 20 years ago they never touched each other in the back. The forward would try to mark it and the defender would swing a roundhouse ensuring he hit either A) The ball, B) The arms, or C) The head. This is how it was.
Then they started to report you for belting someone in the head, so you had to get closer to the forward so you hit the ball or hands, not head, this got you closer to the back, and it soon became obvious that knocking them in the back was just as effective as it moves the hole body, including the hands off the line of the ball, Just ask the Carlton full back if he ever pushed someone in the back!
Footballers were men back then and the forward would take the nudge and still try and mark it.
Then show ponies like Llyod were allowed into the game as the AFL pulled the biffo out. Boom, as soon as the guy touches you in the back just take a huge dive forward and you will get a free.
So then we had a situation where "sissy" forwards were getting frees for minimal impact, and real men like Hall and Tredrea and Brown were getting climbed all over and not getting a thing for it.
Clairty on the rule had to come in. Players were reacting differently to different levels of force making it too hard for the ump in a fast moving game to guess from 30m away how hard the push was.
So the rule was simplified to simply touch the back and its a free. Very easy.
Like always it takes some getting used to, but sooner or later the players learn that they will get pinged, the umps are better at picking it up, the crowds get used to it and stop booing it, and soon we are back to the forward going for the ball not diving, and the defender trying to spoil, not nudge.

Leave the rule in as it is now.

RR

The macho forwards still get walked over, for nothing, and the sissy ones get frees for nothing.
It was sposed to bring clarity...but its too inconsistent

[Plugg3r]

I still say put it back as it was in 98'.
The rules were good and the brawls were still around

Men like Lockett and Dunstall were getting climbed on for a decade but they still have 1000+ goals under there big belts.
I remember seeing Frasier Gehrig on Plugger once hanging of his left arm trying to reproduce and Plugger marked one handed

[cormick]

Originally Posted by Plugg3r

I still say put it back as it was in 98'.
The rules were good and the brawls were still around

Men like Lockett and Dunstall were getting climbed on for a decade but they still have 1000+ goals under there big belts.
I remember seeing Frasier Gehrig on Plugger once hanging of his left arm trying to reproduce and Plugger marked one handed

I agree...bring back 98'

[smileatme]

Nothing generally wrong with that rule, most problems come because one umpire see's it and pays it one end of the ground. Because of poor positioning the other end of the ground the same offence is missed and they might only be a few minutes apart. This goes for all offences:

The rule they need to get right is holding the ball, or holding the man this changes every quarter and is usually thrown away for the last.

[GreaT SourcE]

I think the rule is OK, but the umpires must be consistent.
Just hope they let the game flow. I don't like stop/start footy that much.

[year of the hawk]

Originally Posted by cormick

This new descisions bugging me
exactly whats it sposed to be?
one day its clear and next its black
The new rule, hands in the back
So come on and let me know
should it stay or should it go?

thanks to clash.

I watched the replay of Richmond vs Essendon rd 9, and realised that the rule that cost richo the game...had died out almost entirely now.
Have a look at richos, then have a look at Lloyds back heal goal rd 20 vs carlton...Have the umpires gone soft, or has the AFL very quietly gotten rid of it, to save embarrasment?

If its still around...should ti stay o should it go?

Get over it. You must realise that putting the hands in the back of your opponent would get you a push in the back free kick anyway. Why? Because the action is illegal.
It is the extension of the push in the back rule and it is here to stay.

[dogsact]

Richos WAS in the back, Lloyds back heel was legal, it was dropped and kicked in one motion, thus a drop kick, which is still legal. The ump got both decisions right.

I cant believe people would still be raising the richo issue! Its gone and in the past, get over it. Agree or Disagree with the rule, it is here. It was frustrating, but the good backs and forwards adapted and used it to their advantage.

It will be forgotten cos surely they will crack down on some other rulenext year. Kicking in danger must be due to come back on the agenda. Or play on from backward passes might be the next new rule to confuse the situation.

[dogsact]

And if Lloyd got half the free kicks that he deserved, he would not need to dive, He gets a raw deal every week. Watch him every week like I do, then make a call. Not just on the handful of times you might see him during the year.