In the Back - is in the Back!

[RemoteTiger]

All and sundry are complaining about this new rule of hands in the back when contesting a mark.

It has been the rule since before the world wars - any push in the back is a free kick.

IT IS NOT NEW.

This year the umpires have been told to police it - previously, for about 2 decades players - particularly backmen were getting away with it - now they have to play the ball not the man.

It is IMO a very good rule.

The Richo situation is that he has been playing in a game for a decade and a half that allowed hands in the back while contesting a mark - the AFL has now said as that is and always has been illegal according to the rules it should be policed.

The big questions are -

Did Richo's hands actually push Mal Michael in his back or under the arm pit part of his shoulder blade - in other words Mal's side?

Was Richo protecting his ground as Mal Michael pushed back on him? - if so he should have used his forearms instead of his hands

Was the umpire in the correct position to give such a game changing free kick? My belief is the umpire was not and in being more front onto the contest saw Mal Michael stopped and lurch forward - guessing that Richo had a hand in his back.

It was a decision that could have gone either way - for us it went the wrong bloody way!

The next rule I would like to see policed is - it is illegal to shephard an opponent when the ball is not within 5 meters.

Since this is the rule all this blocking (read shepharding) that forwards do on fullbacks when the fullback is trying to stay with his opponent (the fullforward) is illegal. It is allowed in basketball but in our game to shephard an opponent the ball has to be within 5 meters.

Lets not blame the current administration for "rule changes" for they are truly taking the game back to where it was - the real culprit in this is the previous administration that allowed the game to drift away from its rules by stopping the policing of those rules.

 

[GoodOne]

Sorry mate the rule has changed, or at least the interpretation has. There is a difference between pushing in the back and holding your position. This interpretation is the must frustarting thing ever introduced, and being a Richmond supporter I have seen many frustrating things. My opinion is not based on the Richo incident but provides a constant source of frustration in any match I watch. I think there will be a lot of pressure on the adminsitration to dump this new interpretation next year.

 

[IanG]

One of the biggest problems with the rule is something that Mark Fine bangs on about on SEN, it is impossible to police without having more umpires, probably 6, something that probably wasn't considered by the rules committee. The decision was compounded by the poor 50 meter penalty, did Allen really think Richo knew there was a free kick against him? and its made worse by the inconsistent interpretation something that went against us last night.

 

[Baloo]

From what I can gather, the way that free has been paid this year, you could say it was a justified free kick. Doesn't mean the ruling is correct though. To me, in the back was when you gave some force with your hands. Holding your man from falling back into you seemed to be ok.

Anyway, the absolute disgrace is the 50m penalty.

 

[Fighting Fury]

The free against Richo may or may not have been there (even THIS year, you would see similar marking contests be let go a hundred times a game; eg rocca's first mark last week against the dogs which gifted him a goal) but where we got murdered was in the 50 m penalty. It was right next to the boundary line on the southern stand, the roar when he marked and kicked was huge...Tigers fans were going off their nuts...it was in the last minutes...Richo would have heard the whistle and assumed it was for the mark and played on urgently. The crowd noise would have been deafening. The 50m penalty brought michael up to the wing, kicking to half forward, and directly resulted in them getting that first point.

 

[Bunnerz85]

The interpretation of the rule has changed.......

I don't understand how an umpire can tell the difference between an arm, forearm, hand, wateva part of the arm, the rule can't be umpired and should be scrapped.

And for the rule to say when a player is running back into you u cannot hold your ground......give me a bloody break!

Thats one important aspect of football, the strength to be able to do something like that.

The tigers aren't losing my love for them and the game.....The AFL is.

 

[GoodOne]

And for the rule to say when a player is running back into you u cannot hold your ground......give me a bloody break!

Yep, the players are starting to milk that for all its worth. When you're behind someone and someone backs into you what are you supposed to do with your hands, hold them up in the air like a ballerina? Drag your knuckles on the ground like a gorilla? I mean its ridiculous, you're natural reaction is to protect your body with your hands, and all that may mean is holding your position, not pushing someone in the back. The interpretations is totally wrong. Sorry for being so talkative on this subject but it drives me insane as a spectator, and would have driven me insane as a player.

 

[dcstar]

And for the rule to say when a player is running back into you u cannot hold your ground......give me a bloody break!

Yep, the players are starting to milk that for all its worth. When you're behind someone and someone backs into you what are you supposed to do with your hands, hold them up in the air like a ballerina? Drag your knuckles on the ground like a gorilla? I mean its ridiculous, you're natural reaction is to protect your body with your hands, and all that may mean is holding your position, not pushing someone in the back. The interpretations is totally wrong. Sorry for being so talkative on this subject but it drives me insane as a spectator, and would have driven me insane as a player.

There are many ways to block - or stop - someone backing into you, the problem is that most current players are in the habit of using their hands because the AFL & Umpires allowed more and more use of the hands over the previous 20+ years.

It can take some players quite a while to adjust to any new circumstances - especially if they don't train with these things in mind.

The new "interpretation" is trying to take this part of the game back to the way is used to be (and I agree with that 100%), the problem is that it isn't being enforced consistently and a lot of players (and spectators) also are having difficulty adjusting to it.

 

[RemoteTiger]

And for the rule to say when a player is running back into you u cannot hold your ground......give me a bloody break!

Yep, the players are starting to milk that for all its worth. When you're behind someone and someone backs into you what are you supposed to do with your hands, hold them up in the air like a ballerina? Drag your knuckles on the ground like a gorilla? I mean its ridiculous, you're natural reaction is to protect your body with your hands, and all that may mean is holding your position, not pushing someone in the back. The interpretations is totally wrong. Sorry for being so talkative on this subject but it drives me insane as a spectator, and would have driven me insane as a player.

There are many ways to block - or stop - someone backing into you, the problem is that most current players are in the habit of using their hands because the AFL & Umpires allowed more and more use of the hands over the previous 20+ years.

It can take some players quite a while to adjust to any new circumstances - especially if they don't train with these things in mind.

The new "interpretation" is trying to take this part of the game back to the way is used to be (and I agree with that 100%), the problem is that it isn't being enforced consistently and a lot of players (and spectators) also are having difficulty adjusting to it.

:clap Well said - exactly what I was trying to communicate when I started this thread.

To answer your question Bunnerz85 - in the 70s and previous to them - players would turn a little side on with their hands in the air and use their hip or shoulder to block their opponent coming back on them - this is still permitted - but as David C says it has gone out of our game because it has not been taught at junior level for 20 years.

The last great exponent of this technique IMO was Wayne Carey - he could use his hip and/or shoulder just to get his opponent off balance and out of position - rarely (until his later years when he slowed down) did he use his hands to push opponents out.

An I can tell you this - the game back then was a far greater test of skill and hardness than it is today with its wrestling, scragging and pushing opponents out with your hands.

 

[St. Jude]

Sorry gentlemen but I think the rose coloured glasses that you're wearing have clouded what used to happen in our wonderful game.

This "in the back" rule has been completely changed, ever since I can remember the in the back rule was paid for forceful contact to a players back, and was policed by watching the arms to see if they straightened as contact was made and if the opposing player was propelled forward. 20,30,50 years ago players were protecting themselves in a similar style to the big fella last nite and no team or supporter was concerned about the result.

The AFL has a lot to answer for concerning this "interpretation". It was only a matter of time before one of these "interpretations" was responsable for the result of a game being completely changed and we saw that last nite.

 

[tigachick36]

the rule is a disgrace.
Mal Michael was backing towards richo, what was he supposed to do?
Stand there and show no defence?
I think not.

 

[jb03]

In the back has always been in the back but this year you can be pinged for simply resting your hands on an oppents back.

 

[purepoweryouth]

In the back has always been in the back

Unless, after chasing a player down, you shove him in the back when he takes his kick. This is hardly ever paid as a free kick, although in the interests of player safety, it should be. Say no more.

 

[Judge Smailes]

The problem with the current interpretation is that it is being abused by many umpires - the "new" interpretation (and yes, it HAS changed), is that if the forward uses his hands to force the backman out of the contest the free is paid. My problem is the spirit of this change of interpretation. I believe (maybe incorrectly) that th ereason it was brought in was to stop forwards using their hands to force a backman under the footy during the contest. This is fine if the tradjectory of the ball is at a "high" angle, as in coming down from a high kick into the forward line. The problem is, in an instance like last nights Richo free, is that the ball was kicked to his advantage as he was bewteen Mal and the goals, and the angle of the kick was such that it was carrying over Michael already. The only way Michael could get it was to go BACK into Richo's path. Richo HOLDS his ground, does NOT push using forward momentum as in the previously mentioned scenario and takes the mark. THIS IS THE SITUATION WHERE THE MARK MUST BE ALLOWED IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME!!!! Og course, Brett Allen only has around 250 games to his credit so how would he know anything about the spirit of footy? Very sad. The AFL needs to pull its collective head out of its collective date and review this interpretation, along with the farcical holding the ball "rule" that crucifies the player trying to win the footy.

 

[TigerForce]

I though it was called a 'PUSH in the back' not 'HANDS on the back', but who cares, nowadays all you do is tackle a player from behind, he dives forward which takes the tackling player with him and the maggots see it as a 'PUSH?? in the back' ??

 

[TigerMasochist]

The problem with the current interpretation is that it is being abused by many umpires - the "new" interpretation (and yes, it HAS changed), is that if the forward uses his hands to force the backman out of the contest the free is paid. My problem is the spirit of this change of interpretation. I believe (maybe incorrectly) that th ereason it was brought in was to stop forwards using their hands to force a backman under the footy during the contest. This is fine if the tradjectory of the ball is at a "high" angle, as in coming down from a high kick into the forward line. The problem is, in an instance like last nights Richo free, is that the ball was kicked to his advantage as he was bewteen Mal and the goals, and the angle of the kick was such that it was carrying over Michael already. The only way Michael could get it was to go BACK into Richo's path. Richo HOLDS his ground, does NOT push using forward momentum as in the previously mentioned scenario and takes the mark. THIS IS THE SITUATION WHERE THE MARK MUST BE ALLOWED IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME!!!! Og course, Brett Allen only has around 250 games to his credit so how would he know anything about the spirit of footy? Very sad. The AFL needs to pull its collective head out of its collective date and review this interpretation, along with the farcical holding the ball "rule" that crucifies the player trying to win the footy.

The rule was tightened to stop backmen pushing the forwards under the ball not the other way round.
The rule adjusting should have been tested during preseason before finalising because players have been used to a different interpretation for twenty years( the maggots fault for being slack ).
The most obvious problem with the rule is that the maggots ( and Gieschenhausen ) still can't get it right. If it's hands in the back then PAY them all, don't try and later claim that the McVeigh or Rocca marks were only incidental contact.

 

[brigadiertiger]

Like the rule or not under the rules the free was there against Richo. The pathetic part of it was an umpire with no understanding of playing the game awarded a 50m penalty when in 9 out of 10 similar cases it would not have been paid.

It was the 50 that killed us not the original free. Although some bloody consistency from the umpires would be nice to see for once.

 

[tiges]

Like the rule or not under the rules the free was there against Richo. The pathetic part of it was an umpire with no understanding of playing the game awarded a 50m penalty when in 9 out of 10 similar cases it would not have been paid.

It was the 50 that killed us not the original free. Although some bloody consistency from the umpires would be nice to see for once.

its a pathetic rule and its been umpired with so much inconsistency but yet if you ask KB he thinks the world of it, ive never heard such a person play a straight bat to a stupid rule.
The prime example of this was i think mcveigh aginst collingwood , the umpire is 4 metres away mcveigh clearly puts both hands into the back of the player in front for leverage to take a mark in a one on one contest, now under this new rule thats a free kick , but because it was a screamer it was paid.

Now richo bairly touches mal michael and its a free.

 

[brigadiertiger]

Like the rule or not under the rules the free was there against Richo. The pathetic part of it was an umpire with no understanding of playing the game awarded a 50m penalty when in 9 out of 10 similar cases it would not have been paid.

It was the 50 that killed us not the original free. Although some bloody consistency from the umpires would be nice to see for once.

its a pathetic rule and its been umpired with so much inconsistency but yet if you ask KB he thinks the world of it, ive never heard such a person play a straight bat to a stupid rule.
The prime example of this was i think mcveigh aginst collingwood , the umpire is 4 metres away mcveigh clearly puts both hands into the back of the player in front for leverage to take a mark in a one on one contest, now under this new rule thats a free kick , but because it was a screamer it was paid.

Now richo bairly touches mal michael and its a free.

Last night first quarter Thursfield brushes Lloyds back with a hand and LLoyd gets a free kick then not long after Fletcher runs behind Richo with his hands in his back Richo doesn't mark it nor does he get a free.

The rule sucks and was only brought in to make it easy for the maggots. They couldn't tell the difference between a real push and a dive so they had it made easier for them and they still can't get it right.