New rule?

[Topdog]

what is the new rule that was paid twice yesterday? Apparently you aren't allowed to use your body in a marking contest?

One was paid against Tommy near the wing and 1 against Heath Shaw (I think) near our F50. Both occured in 1 on 1 situations were noone used their hands to gain an advantage and the umpire (once at least was Ray) signalled for what appeared to be sheparding which can't be right seeing as both players were attempting to mark the ball.

[w3design]

I was discussing this with a Collingwood supporter sitting next to me. Neither of us liked the rule at all. I baffles me why the rule needed to be introduced.

[G-Mo77]

Yeah didn't know what happened there either. We got one against Lockyer later on in the game the umpire signaled the same way.

[Go_Dogs]

Saw an incident that seems similar to what you guys have described in the Fremantle v Adelaide game. Surely if you are using the body and the hands/arms are in the air (and not making the contact or 'push') then that is fair game.

It'll be a non-contact sport before too long if they keep making these small, yet drastic rule changes.

[LostDoggy]

One was paid against Tommy near the wing and 1 against Heath Shaw (I think) near our F50. .

It was Medhurst -- listening to the radio commentary apparently it was illegal shepherding -- blocking your opponent from having a clean run at the ball without attempting to get it yourself. It's only paid if there is clear body movement to block your opponent while no attempt to mark is made. The commentators seemed to think that the umps got it wrong both times.

[G-Mo77]

It was Medhurst -- listening to the radio commentary apparently it was illegal shepherding -- blocking your opponent from having a clean run at the ball without attempting to get it yourself. It's only paid if there is clear body movement to block your opponent while no attempt to mark is made. The commentators seemed to think that the umps got it wrong both times.

If that is the rule then the definitely did get the one against Williams wrong. Williams was defending space and made an attempt to mark the ball when the ball was in the area.

Who makes these stupid rules? :confused:

[AndrewP6]

Whether it's poor umpiring, stupid rule changes, or both... they're taking the "contest" out of the contest. Spoiling some of what is great about the game.

[The Pie Man]

I thought the illegal shepherd was when you block out for a teamate to take the grab - Tom & Medhurst were the only two in the contest!

If Tom had put his arms up, then maybe it would've gone the other way...still baffling.

[LostDoggy]

I'm going to go against the trend of the thread here and say that I tend to agree with the spirit of the rule. If you're badly positioned or misread the flight of the ball, and are therefore not in the contest, you shouldn't be allowed to just take other players who are going for the ball out of the play to make up for your crapness/mistake.

I'm all for the contest, but it has to be a fair contest of skill, not one where you are allowed to do anything in the name of physical competition.

Having said that, it is the APPLICATION of the rule by umpires that tends to get us all offside. The Medhurst free was definitely there -- he had absolutely no intention of going for the ball and was just pushing back to block Harbrow/Gilbee's jump. Maxwell did exactly the same thing to Gia, but Gia was penalised for a push in the back. And Williams WAS going for the ball, in fact, he was turning to get to the fall of the ball, but Fraser just jumped into his back. On the other hand, there was a passage of play where Gia stopped and changed direction to block a defender from getting to a marking contest and allow Bazz to mark it that wasn't called.

The inconsistency is what kills us, not the rule itself, which is not about taking away physical contact, but to penalise unfair tactics.

[Sedat]

At the start of every season, there is one rule that the umpires are all over - looks like it is illegal blocking/sheparding this season. Expect to see no frees paid for this by about Round 6 :rolleyes:

[EasternWest]

It was Medhurst -- listening to the radio commentary apparently it was illegal shepherding -- blocking your opponent from having a clean run at the ball without attempting to get it yourself. It's only paid if there is clear body movement to block your opponent while no attempt to mark is made. The commentators seemed to think that the umps got it wrong both times.

Isn't that exactly what players do when they're in the goal square and the ball may be at a height that can be reached by a defender? I know that the argument could be made for there being a direct outcome from the shepherd attempt (ie a goal), but who's to say in the instance of it occurring in the field of play that one player isn't simply outmaneuvering the other player to allow a better attack on the ball when it hits the ground (direct outcome being opposition out of contest and shepherder can run on to a loose ball)?

I don't like it. If you're not illegally holding on, and you're focussed on the ball and can fairly shepherd an opponent out, it's play on!

[bornadog]

It was Medhurst -- listening to the radio commentary apparently it was illegal shepherding -- blocking your opponent from having a clean run at the ball without attempting to get it yourself. It's only paid if there is clear body movement to block your opponent while no attempt to mark is made. The commentators seemed to think that the umps got it wrong both times.

Clearly not shepharding, Tommy was using his body in the marking contest. It was a joke.

The number of frees paid against both sides in the ruck contests, were ridiclulous. The game will soon not require any body on body

[mjp]

Only one umpire ever pays these - Chamberlain. He is a goose of the highest order - paid more than 50% of the free-kicks awarded in that game...serious case of look at me.

[alwaysadog]

The commentators seemed to think that the umps got it wrong both times.

Now Lantern, we both know that umpires never, perhaps we need to say it again never, get things wrong, or if they do they couldn't possibly do so twice. Logicians hold your critique regarding anti axiomatic statements and remember we are in the neo-logical realm of AFL umpiring.

What prevents Aussie Football from being a serious internationally recognised code is that there are so many grey areas in the interpretation of our rules. All codes have some but we not only have the greatest range of such possibilities but we allow them to change from round to round, and as as I think we've just discovered from season to season.

We have witnessed in recent years the issuing to clubs etc of the current interpretation of the rules only to find that they don't last the season.

In other countries no professional commentator is going to be jerked around by changed interpretations of the rules of which s/he is ignorant. Let's remember in other countries commentary is an analytic profession seriously pursued, not a popularity contest amongst immediate past players and the stations latent geriatric love children.

I was sitting next to a Wollywood supporter and he was as bemused as I was about so many decisions. There was one glaring case where Addison's arms were chopped and no whistle. Some time later when a clear assault was made to the head and allowed to proceed; I yelled "What rules are we playing by?" to my amazement another Wolly supporter two rows in front turned round and held her thumb up in agreement.

We should send Adrian and someone with an umpiring background but not yet had the full frontal lobotomy to the US or England for a whole season to gain an understanding of how some constancy and public understanding of the code's rules is achieved, because at the moment what we have are the perfect umpires and the mug punters, which accounts for the rest, and as the cilche goes "never the twain shall meet".

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'm going to go against the trend of the thread here and say that I tend to agree with the spirit of the rule. If you're badly positioned or misread the flight of the ball, and are therefore not in the contest, you shouldn't be allowed to just take other players who are going for the ball out of the play to make up for your crapness/mistake.

I'm all for the contest, but it has to be a fair contest of skill, not one where you are allowed to do anything in the name of physical competition.

Having said that, it is the APPLICATION of the rule by umpires that tends to get us all offside. The Medhurst free was definitely there -- he had absolutely no intention of going for the ball and was just pushing back to block Harbrow/Gilbee's jump. Maxwell did exactly the same thing to Gia, but Gia was penalised for a push in the back. And Williams WAS going for the ball, in fact, he was turning to get to the fall of the ball, but Fraser just jumped into his back. On the other hand, there was a passage of play where Gia stopped and changed direction to block a defender from getting to a marking contest and allow Bazz to mark it that wasn't called.

The inconsistency is what kills us, not the rule itself, which is not about taking away physical contact, but to penalise unfair tactics.

I can't agree.

More and more the rules are favouring the taller player, whether it's chopping the arms or hands in the back. This rule is taking away another skill a smaller player can use to defeat a taller player.

Soon everyone will be forced to stand beside their opponent and jump straight up as if they were going for a rebound.

It's a disaster - Will will be fouled out every game!

[boydogs]

It was Medhurst -- listening to the radio commentary apparently it was illegal shepherding -- blocking your opponent from having a clean run at the ball without attempting to get it yourself. It's only paid if there is clear body movement to block your opponent while no attempt to mark is made. The commentators seemed to think that the umps got it wrong both times.

Medhurst was just holding his ground - Harbrow jumped all over him to try and reach the ball and didn't get close, but Medhurst didn't go out of his way to block Harbrow. Was a worse decision than Brian Lake v Russell Robertson in Round 22 2005 which was right in front of me - Lake was trying to stop Robbo launching on top of the pack forming ahead of them but didn't really move to do so, umpire moves in saying you can't block his run. Medhurst was keeping Harbrow away from the ball drop to then run on to the ball, perfectly legitimate. At least Lake never intended to go for the footy, the Medhurst decision was complete rubbish

The Gia one he wasn't going for the ball but didn't move away from it in blocking, just a pseudo marking attempt - no free given, correct decision I thought but was nervous watching it as they had been very trigger happy with it

[Sockeye Salmon]

Medhurst was just holding his ground - Harbrow jumped all over him to try and reach the ball and didn't get close, but Medhurst didn't go out of his way to block Harbrow. Was a worse decision than Brian Lake v Russell Robertson in Round 22 2005 which was right in front of me - Lake was trying to stop Robbo launching on top of the pack forming ahead of them but didn't really move to do so, umpire moves in saying you can't block his run. Medhurst was keeping Harbrow away from the ball drop to then run on to the ball, perfectly legitimate. At least Lake never intended to go for the footy, the Medhurst decision was complete rubbish

The Gia one he wasn't going for the ball but didn't move away from it in blocking, just a pseudo marking attempt - no free given, correct decision I thought but was nervous watching it as they had been very trigger happy with it

The next obvious evolution is players deliberately running into the back of opponents to try to make it look like they have been blocked.

[bornadog]

The next obvious evolution is players deliberately running into the back of opponents to try to make it look like they have been blocked.

Yep, every time you change a rule, the players work around it and it creates another issue.

[LostDoggy]

I can't agree.

More and more the rules are favouring the taller player, whether it's chopping the arms or hands in the back. This rule is taking away another skill a smaller player can use to defeat a taller player.



I appreciate the gist of this argument, being a distinctly average-sized bloke myself, but I don't know that it's broadly applicable -- taller players have their advantages (reach, marking), smaller players have their advantages (roving, ball-winning, speed). If you're Goodes or Ayce Cordy and can do both, then all bets are off, but you shouldn't be penalised for having natural advantages, or allow less naturally endowed players to even things up by essentially cheating. (I know you've argued in other threads that smaller players should be allowed to chop the arms so we're probably quite far apart on this one.)

For example, in tennis, taller players get better angles and more leverage (thus power) on their serves, but this doesn't mean that shorter players should get a larger court to serve into, or be allowed to stand on a chair. Reductio ad absurdum, I know, but it serves to illustrate my point.

ps. I was going to use a basketball analogy too, but then realised that having footy become exclusively a tall man's game is precisely what we don't want...

[alwaysadog]

Yep, every time you change a rule, the players work around it and it creates another issue.

It's one of the problems with micro management, you are always consumed by the petty and lose sight of the strategic.

[LostDoggy]

The next obvious evolution is players deliberately running into the back of opponents to try to make it look like they have been blocked.

But isn't that just a push in the back? Medhurst's was different -- he knew he couldn't get to the ball, and moved backwards deliberately to block Harbrow's jump. When you jump into the back of an opponent who is NOT making a clear attempt to block you the free gets paid against you. The spirit of the rule, I think, makes some rational sense.

The tricky bit (which I think we can all agree on) is the interpretation of the rule -- when the game is as fast as it is, how can an umpire consistently tell if a bloke has jumped into a guy's back, whether the player with front position has moved to block or simply moved because he's moving, whether the front player is pushing back, whether the player jumping misses the ball because of bad judgment or he is being impeded etc. etc...

I've implied as much in the examples I gave above -- in replays, Gia was clearly impeded by Maxwell who pushed back, Gia also clearly impeded a player from getting to a marking contest, Medhurst deliberately blocked Harbrow's jump, and Fraser pushed Williams in the back by badly timing his jump. Yet of all the examples, only Medhurst's was called correctly, the free going the wrong way in the other 3 instances. 1 out of 4, or 25%, isn't a very good strikerate for the umps.

[craigsahibee]

Only one umpire ever pays these - Chamberlain. He is a goose of the highest order - paid more than 50% of the free-kicks awarded in that game...serious case of look at me.

Dingo got the wrong Chamberlain I reckon.

[EasternWest]

Dingo got the wrong Chamberlain I reckon.

I'm chuckling, guiltily.:rolleyes: