Croad's Screamer

Doctor Fish · Post by **Doctor Fish** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:42 am

Anyone see it yesterday? Great grab. The entire crowd was clapping (Bomber fans as well), then sure enough the umpire reversed it saying it was in the back. This new interpretation will drive all footy supporters mad this season...

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:51 am

I am obviously a minority and will get shouted down for this but I agree with the rule. Dont put your hands there, put your forearm, your shoulder whatever else, just not your hands.

Not sure why Essendon supporters are complaining either. We have the two best full-backs of the last 10 years and they are able to change their style to suit. The chopping of the arms rule didnt seem to affect Michael and Fletcher last year when it was introduced.

And with Lloydy generally in the front spot, he will kick a bag most weeks.

But finally, we will now see how over-rated Clement is.

Gossy7 · Post by **Gossy7** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:13 am

Was a ripper mark, and of course, we would always take the turnover for the kick, but i dont agree with it.

paddyl90 · Post by **paddyl90** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:14 am

Mmn I remember that last game against Collingwood where it was Hird vs Clement and he would've done 3 o 4 times. I think it will be a benefit yet a disadvantage depending on how Fletch and Michael play. Will be interesting. I think our first game against Carlton took it way too far. In other games in the NAB Cup the other teams were let off easier. But who cares that's done. 2 weeks til we have some real footy.

Sartorius · Post by **Sartorius** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:37 am

The player that looks like he will benifit from this rule the most is Fev. As soon as he senses the slightest touch in the back he dives and gets a free kick. But when he did it to Merrett he was allowed the mark, and kicked a goal.

The umpires need to not just pay it to the forwards. If it happens to a midfielder or a backman they should also get given it. Consistency is going to be the major issue with this rule.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:31 pm

THis rule is rediculous. Pushing in the bakc is a good rule but giving away a free kick for touching your opponents back is insane. Even in Basketball your allowed to touch your opponent.

spikefan · Post by **spikefan** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:22 pm

I am not so sure the rule is stupid, but I fear enforcing it might just be too difficult. Hand, wrist, arm... this should not be difficult to tell the difference but at a distance and in the middle of a fast action it is. These type of rules encourage inconsistent umpiring.
IMO Umpiring is already generally woeful, and adding hard to enforce rules will not help.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:25 pm

Rossoneri wrote:I am obviously a minority and will get shouted down for this but I agree with the rule. Dont put your hands there, put your forearm, your shoulder whatever else, just not your hands.

Not sure why Essendon supporters are complaining either. We have the two best full-backs of the last 10 years and they are able to change their style to suit. The chopping of the arms rule didnt seem to affect Michael and Fletcher last year when it was introduced.

And with Lloydy generally in the front spot, he will kick a bag most weeks.

But finally, we will now see how over-rated Clement is.

I think I've vented my annoyance at the interpretation over a number of threads and posts. Let's just say that I disagree with you!

Post by **Megan** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:34 pm

This new 'rule' will kill one of the most exciting parts of the game - the screamer - stone dead.

And Mal adjusting? I recollect him getting murdered by that rule in our only NAB game. He'd want to have pulled his head in since then?

Doctor Fish · Post by **Doctor Fish** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:37 pm

If you think back to that night at the Dome when Gary Moorcroft decided to get airborne. How unreal was it? All the supporters stood up and applauded for at least a minute. People were amazed. They'd witnessed something special... This year it would be deemed a free kick against the fiery bloodnut. End of story.

What gives a bunch of tosspots in the rules committee the right to take this away from the game? Got me buggered...

As for the 'use your forearms' thing. I don't know if its advocates have ever tried to take a speccy, but it's hard enough using your hands to stabalize let alone being hunched over using your forearms. The interpretation, and that's all it is, is a joke...

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:40 pm

I think is a stupid rule but man it is going to make Lloyds job a whole lot easier

He would have kicked 200 goals in 2000 and 2001 if the rule was around then

dodgey · Post by **dodgey** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:55 am

Gossy7 wrote:Was a ripper mark, and of course, we would always take the turnover for the kick, but i dont agree with it.

NOT ME ..

Must admit I laughed my head off..... as Croad to the mark I said to my Hawk supporting mate..."watch this ...they effing take this off him".... and sure enough the wanker in green didn't disappoint. even got a 50m penalty and goal from it as well.

BERT · Post by **BERT** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:20 am

I think the rule is stupid but it's not the umpires fault for paying it. They made it a rule and the maggots have to pay it. Simple as that.

Doctor Fish · Post by **Doctor Fish** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:29 am

bomberdonnie wrote:I think is a stupid rule but man it is going to make Lloyds job a whole lot easier

He would have kicked 200 goals in 2000 and 2001 if the rule was around then

With 100 of them coming from soft free kicks eh Donnie?

CameronClayton · Post by **CameronClayton** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:49 pm

Megan wrote:This new 'rule' will kill one of the most exciting parts of the game - the screamer - stone dead.

And Mal adjusting? I recollect him getting murdered by that rule in our only NAB game. He'd want to have pulled his head in since then?

Complete rubbish - ever see Vanda play? He took screamers all the time without using his hands to get extra lift.

I call this new rule the Capper rule. Once he started taking screamers in Sydney by using his hands to get a free ride off the backman, the AFL wanted a pin up poster boy in Sydney to promote the game there, so they instructed the umps to let him get away with it. If he could get away with it, then that meant every man & his dog could get away with it (up until Capper , it was always push in the back if you used your hands). So Silvagne & co mastered the art of it.

I amazed at the backlash in here, as this new rule will benefit us more than most teams (except Scotty Lucas). Good readers of play in the backline like Fletch, NLM & Ryder can attack a mark rather than being concerned about being taken out illegally. Ball players like Hird & lloyd will thrive.

But just remember it is not a 'new' rule. It's a return back to the old rule when champions like Knights & Vanda kicked arse & took speccies all the time without using their hands on opponent's backs & shoulders.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:46 pm

Doctor Fish wrote:
bomberdonnie wrote:I think is a stupid rule but man it is going to make Lloyds job a whole lot easier

He would have kicked 200 goals in 2000 and 2001 if the rule was around then
With 100 of them coming from soft free kicks eh Donnie?

Yep and I would have loved each one of them!!!

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:26 pm

CameronClayton wrote:
Megan wrote:This new 'rule' will kill one of the most exciting parts of the game - the screamer - stone dead.

And Mal adjusting? I recollect him getting murdered by that rule in our only NAB game. He'd want to have pulled his head in since then?
Complete rubbish - ever see Vanda play? He took screamers all the time without using his hands to get extra lift.

I call this new rule the Capper rule. Once he started taking screamers in Sydney by using his hands to get a free ride off the backman, the AFL wanted a pin up poster boy in Sydney to promote the game there, so they instructed the umps to let him get away with it. If he could get away with it, then that meant every man & his dog could get away with it (up until Capper , it was always push in the back if you used your hands). So Silvagne & co mastered the art of it.

I amazed at the backlash in here, as this new rule will benefit us more than most teams (except Scotty Lucas). Good readers of play in the backline like Fletch, NLM & Ryder can attack a mark rather than being concerned about being taken out illegally. Ball players like Hird & lloyd will thrive.

But just remember it is not a 'new' rule. It's a return back to the old rule when champions like Knights & Vanda kicked arse & took speccies all the time without using their hands on opponent's backs & shoulders.

You don't get it. The rule is no longer a 'push in the back' rule. It is for all contact with the hands and back. From 'push in the back' its changed to 'touching the back'.

Post by **Megan** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:44 pm

To answer your question CC, no I did not see Vanda play.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:36 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:
CameronClayton wrote:
Megan wrote:This new 'rule' will kill one of the most exciting parts of the game - the screamer - stone dead.

And Mal adjusting? I recollect him getting murdered by that rule in our only NAB game. He'd want to have pulled his head in since then?
Complete rubbish - ever see Vanda play? He took screamers all the time without using his hands to get extra lift.

I call this new rule the Capper rule. Once he started taking screamers in Sydney by using his hands to get a free ride off the backman, the AFL wanted a pin up poster boy in Sydney to promote the game there, so they instructed the umps to let him get away with it. If he could get away with it, then that meant every man & his dog could get away with it (up until Capper , it was always push in the back if you used your hands). So Silvagne & co mastered the art of it.

I amazed at the backlash in here, as this new rule will benefit us more than most teams (except Scotty Lucas). Good readers of play in the backline like Fletch, NLM & Ryder can attack a mark rather than being concerned about being taken out illegally. Ball players like Hird & lloyd will thrive.

But just remember it is not a 'new' rule. It's a return back to the old rule when champions like Knights & Vanda kicked arse & took speccies all the time without using their hands on opponent's backs & shoulders.
You don't get it. The rule is no longer a 'push in the back' rule. It is for all contact with the hands and back. From 'push in the back' its changed to 'touching the back'.

CC is correct on this. The rule was always in, its just that the umpires didnt police it as heavily as they used to back in the 70's.

So basically what the AFL has done is made the umpires enforce it like they are supposed to. Its not a new rule.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:34 pm

Let me repeat myself and quote Kevin Sheedy's article on the topic. He pulled out the old rule book, and NOWHERE does it mention "hands in the back". It does, however, mention "push in the back" with a push meaning an action applied with FORCE. So it is a new rule and should be dubbed "Hands In The Back".

Sheedy wrote:
If it was clearly defined in the rule book, we would have to cop it. But despite all the talk about returning the rule to what it used to be, AFL rules don't prevent players using their hands in a marking contest.

I fished out my rule book and my dictionary this week just to clarify what players were allowed to do.

Rule 14.4.5 of the Laws of the Game covers prohibited contact, and clauses B, D, E and F all deal with pushing an opposition player.

Nowhere does it say a player isn't allowed to use his hands. All it says is push – and it's not the pushing that AFL coaches worry about.

My dictionary says a push is "to move by force". If James Clement shoves out Jim Hird, or Mal Michael shoves out Brendan Fevola, then a free kick should be paid.

But when a defender simply raises his hands to protect himself when a forward props, or crashes back with the pack, that simply shouldn't be a free kick.