roosy s bitterness according to patrick smith

[ROK Lobster]

a typical pompus wanker.
obviously wqas picked on a scholl by the footy team and thinks he can use his words as justifiable crap.
that has got to be the biggest load of crap i have ever read..

been tryiongt to find his email so i could email him and let him know..funny it doesn't seem to be listed.

This is one of the most idiotic comments ever. It is almost trolling - surely no one with enough brain power to walk on two legs could post such tripe without deliberately looking for a reaction

Anyway, Smith's opinion piece is meant to be opionated, and generate interest, which it seems to have done.

Where I disagree is in his opinion that the new rule is less open to interpretation than previous interpretations of the rule. Clearly it is not. Much of the angst has been in the inconsistent application of the rule (ie it is always a free when Hall is begind but never when he is in front) rather than the rule itself - which is ordinary. I hope the controversey does not go away. The current AFL administration need to leave things alone.

Oh, and the beat the flood - bench of four. Once off cannot return (except for blood rule in which instance you have a maximum of 10 minutes off. More than once off for the blood rule and you are deemed to be injured and have to be substituted. No player can be named on the bench 3 consecutive weeks). Quick kick-ins don't alleviate the flood. Players run back as soon as the point is scored. Forwards remain in the 50 but the midfielders flood back. It gets the ball to the wing quicker but leads to congestion at the other end.

[Xie Shan]

The issue involving the HITB as well as the holding the ball (HTB) rule derives from the same concept, I believe, which is:

In the case of HTB, it is believed that the umpires are not in a position to determine the intent of a player as to whether he is trying to cause a stoppage in play or is just trying to get possession of the ball and continue play. So in order to resolve the problem of determining intent, the rules committee has decided that if a player acts in a manner that could lead to a stoppage, such as falling on the ball, then it becomes that player's responsibility to get the ball back into play. If he can't, then it will be assumed that the intent was to stop play, and hence a free kick awarded. This is similar to the interpretation of the taking possession in a ruck contest. Take possession, and its your responsibility to keep the play alive, regardless of actual intent.

Since the umpires would find it easier to see a HITB than to determine if pushing has actually occurred, it will just be assumed that HITB means there was a push.

Good post, and one that, IMO, helps to see the AFL's line of reasoning in bringing in these two rules, as dodgy as they are. The main problem with these rules is that they sound good in theory but don't work in practice, and the AFL really needs to admit this. With HTB, it doesn't give enough protection to the guy playing the ball as players are just sitting on him waiting for the free. With HITB, as you've said, the main problems are interpretation, as Rok pointed out (where to draw the line? What's the difference between hands in the back and hands in the side? etc etc) and defenders backing into forwards.

Time for the AFL to admit that it got this one wrong, IMO.

[Ludwig]

I think the HTB rule will resolve itself. I think we might see players, rather than dive on the ball, dive and punch (hopefully to advantage). Another scene may find two opposing player 'dancing' over the ball and trying to kick it to advantage. I don't mind either of these, in that it should keep the ball moving and reduce stoppages.

The HITB rule looks more difficult. The criteria for determining an offence is just too difficult to adjudicate. The league clearly wishes to stop players pushing opposition out of marking contests, and fair enough. Liz noted that the operative word may be 'incidental'. How is an umpire to determine what is a push constituting an unfair advantage, and what is just incidental to good old marking contest. And until that happens the dispute will rage on.

[Vivien]

What annoys me is that the booing was for the umpires and not Mathew Lloyd and I just wish these idiotic journalists would realise that.

I wonder:

If the game was at the MCG and the situation was reversed - ie. Swans win by a point and a few v.controversial descisions go against the Bombers - would there be such an outcry over Essendon fans booing Barry Hall during his acceptance speech?

[Margie]

I wonder:

If the game was at the MCG and the situation was reversed - ie. Swans win by a point and a few v.controversial descisions go against the Bombers - would there be such an outcry over Essendon fans booing Barry Hall during his acceptance speech?

Not from me. And there have been limited numbers here who say they actually booed at Lloyd. Most say it was directed at the umpires.

[Vivien]

Not from me. And there have been limited numbers here who say they actually booed at Lloyd. Most say it was directed at the umpires.

Sorry, I should've chosen my words more carefully.

Would there be such an outcry if Essendon supporters booed during Barry Hall's speech?

I realise that most people were directing their booing at the umpire. But when you're booing whilst someone is talking, regardless of whether the booing is directed at them or not, it comes accross as being rude.

[Margie]

Sorry, I should've chosen my words more carefully.

Would there be such an outcry if Essendon supporters booed during Barry Hall's speech?

I realise that most people were directing their booing at the umpire. But when you're booing whilst someone is talking, regardless of whether the booing is directed at them or not, it comes accross as being rude.

I agree Viven it does sound rude to boo the Captain's acceptance speech but I'd already left by that time so didn't witness it. However, his precious self said tonight OTC that he was annoyed.

If Barry Hall was booed by Essendon supporters in the same situation, it wouldn't really bother me.

[Vivien]

If Barry Hall was booed by Essendon supporters in the same situation, it wouldn't really bother me.

Nor I. Just wondering if smeg-heads like Walls and Sheehan would be so vocal in their disapproval if the situations were reversed.

[Margie]

Nor I. Just wondering if smeg-heads like Walls and Sheehan would be so vocal in their disapproval if the situations were reversed.

Doubtful.

[liz]

The HITB rule looks more difficult. The criteria for determining an offence is just too difficult to adjudicate. The league clearly wishes to stop players pushing opposition out of marking contests, and fair enough. Liz noted that the operative word may be 'incidental'. How is an umpire to determine what is a push constituting an unfair advantage, and what is just incidental to good old marking contest. And until that happens the dispute will rage on.

The "incidental" is codified in the rule books, as NMW posted earlier today. The current interpretation seems to be in clear opposition to the written laws of the game. There have been a couple of frees paid in non-Swans games recently where a player literally brushed the hips of an opponent and was penalised. If umpires aren't capable of distinguishing that level of contact, we have a big big problem.

(Note - I'm not criticising the umpires for paying them in those games. That is what they've been instructed to do.)

But my concerns are more fundamental than those obviously stupid instances.

Footy is a game played by big men. Even the midgets of the competition - the likes of Bell and Phillips - are taller than me. They are big, strong men and the game is about combat. Taking a mark isn't meant to be easy. That's why you get a reward of a free kick at goal if you take one close enough. They are meant to be about battling gladiators using their own particular combination of size, strength, speed, agility, leap, hand skill, ball watching skill etc to nab the ball for themselves, pitted against opponents trying to stop them doing so or - even better - trying to mark the ball themselves.

I am not advocating a free for all where any contact is permitted. But wherever you have two or more guys genuinely contesting the ball rather than deliberately restricting their opponent with no regard for the ball itself, I would much rather err on the side of letting them get on with it than finding reasons to penalise each and every thing.

Another of my gripes is homogenisation. One of the things that attracted me to the game was the variety of skills, tactics, strategies. Bomb it long to a packed goal square. Kick to a man on a lead. Kick over the back of the defence and allow the player to run onto it. Dob it long from 50m. Bring the ball to ground and let the little blokes weave their magic. Or tie it up and let the very big blokes help out the very little blokes weave their magic.

The only justification I have read for the HIB rule seems to be to reward the man in front. Well why should we reward the man in front? What is intrinsicly better about always being in front? Sure, there are many times when it is an advantage but it seems to be implying that, in particular, the tactic of kicking over the back of a pack is an illegimate one. How boring would it be if everything was kick, lead, mark?

Matthew Richardson got pinged last week essentially because he read the ball better than Michael. Or more to the point, because his team mate saw where he was positioned and kicked it to his advantage. Michael was just too slow to read the play.

Similarly, although it wasn't a HIB issue, the first contentious free against Hall on Saturday arose because he was in the right position, Michael was scrambling to get into the contest, and Hall held his ground.

I have similar issues about the chopping of the arms. If a player forcefully knocks the lower part of an opponent's arm, preventing him marking and with no real intent to mark himself, fair enough, penalise. But once one player is behind, it is almost anatomically impossible to attempt to spoil without some arm contact occuring. Plenty of players can mark the ball despite this moderate contact. Riewoldt is a genius. ROK is pretty good too. Great, reward them for that attribute but don't allow all those who don't have good enough timing or strong enough hands to be pandered to.

There are no rights or wrongs about this. It is all about opinion of the kind of game we want to watch. I know what I want to see.

And based on the stated opinions of around 95% of players who have publically expressed a view on the matter, it is the kind of game they want to play too.

[Ludwig]

Well put Liz!

I think you're right that 95% of us agree on the what a marking contest should look like. It's just a common sense thing. The HIB rule is getting umpires to focus on a very subtle point in a rough physical game. It's just too hard. And there's also so much gratuitous pushing in the back that goes by without comment, but a love tap in a marking contest becomes such a highly technical issue that it can only be determined in slow motion replay.

The AFL needs a serious rethink about this. It's a sad commentary on the game when the HIB rule is the talking point every Monday. Maybe it's the AFL's way of moving focus away from the drug issues.

[Nolie]

... More than anything it's put additional pressure on the umpires to try to be consistent with ANOTHER rule change and it's added to the frustration of all involved when calls aren't as consistent as one might hope they would be. I know the rule change certainly hasn't added to my enjoyment of footy (as a spectotor or being involved).....

Good comment. In some ways I agree with Smith. It has always been illegal to push someone in the back. It still amazes me that the players are so skilled these days they have the time and skill to grab a handful of jumper in a contest, have the skill to hold out two or one hands to the back of an opponent while still concentrating on the flight of the ball. Great skills. But it does make it a nightmare for the umpires to adjudicate. Some hold, some push. What is and what is not a push will always be subjective. Subjectivity - one of the beauties of the game. Thus from that point of view I can understand where the laws committee is coming from. They are trying to stop the scragging, pushing and pulling in a marking contest which is indeed unsightly and one cannot tell who is holding whom. It has been a blight on the game. Unfortunately the umpires turn this "no hand anywhere near the back AT ALL" into a form of "robotic" umpiring. There were some dreadful decisions on the weekend - I didnt watch much of the Sydney game because someone told me the result before we got the delayed telecast and obviously Barry Hall copped a couple- but there was a also classic against Paul Medhurst where he clearly pushed/bumped a Freo guy in THE SIDE took the clean mark and was pinged!
They do the same robotic umpiring when someone gets run down from behind. There are times when a player is in the process of kicking - i.e is about to drop the ball to his foot - and gets tackled from behind. It automatically gets paid now as DTB - the crowd expect it. In my view that is play on in those circumstances.