Richardson Free Kick

[Madden]

There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest

Absolutely hit the nail on the head Staggy. I`d be interested to know whether this type of common sense is actually written in the laws of the game?

They`d do well to keep the above quote in mind at all times when umpiring - eg a brush of the little finger over someones head does not constitute a free kick.

I'm glad at least one person agrees!

People have got to understand - when you give a free kick, you are by definition, changing the flow of the game. You are stopping one team's momentum and giving it to the other team. And to do that, to take the drastic step of entering the contest and giving one team the ball, you need to have a good reason - you need to be certain that the team who you give the free kick to was prevented from fairly entering a contest for the ball. That's the only reason a free kick for an infringement should be given! None of this "oh well its in the rules" bullshit. The AFL and the Laws of the Game committee better get f*cking serious pretty soon or a lot of supporters are going to be permanently lost to the game.

[andrewb]

If you're already out of position in a marking contest you shouldn't be able to back in to the man and milk a free. The rules shouldn't penalise the player with position.

The new interpretation actually works quite well when a forward is leading because it forces the defender to attack the ball rather than the man. But it's a shithouse interpretation for contests where the ball is deliberately floated over the top.

[BenDoolan]

There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest

Absolutely hit the nail on the head Staggy. I`d be interested to know whether this type of common sense is actually written in the laws of the game?

They`d do well to keep the above quote in mind at all times when umpiring - eg a brush of the little finger over someones head does not constitute a free kick.

I'm glad at least one person agrees!

People have got to understand - when you give a free kick, you are by definition, changing the flow of the game. You are stopping one team's momentum and giving it to the other team. And to do that, to take the drastic step of entering the contest and giving one team the ball, you need to have a good reason - you need to be certain that the team who you give the free kick to was prevented from fairly entering a contest for the ball. That's the only reason a free kick for an infringement should be given! None of this "oh well its in the rules" bullshit. The AFL and the Laws of the Game committee better get f*cking serious pretty soon or a lot of supporters are going to be permanently lost to the game.

I totally agree also. I didn't reply to your original post because I have already said as much months ago. I posted the actual laws of the game and pointed out that NOWHERE does is mention "hands in the back" as being an infringement. It talks about pushing, bumping etc, but not "hands in the back". In fact, the Richardson incident is quite specific in it's description as a LEGITIMATE mark (under law 15.4.5 ).

I have gone ballistic about this Bartlett rubbish in the past and have become tired of repeating myself, but here goes again...

http://www.aflpa.com.au/media/2007%20La ... 20game.pdf

Check out the laws of the game 15.4 FREE KICK - PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED PHYSICAL CONTACT pg 54 of 92

Have a good read of the actual rule book governing our game and then ask yourself the question....... "Why the f*** are we putting up with this bullshit interpretation?"

[swoodley]

It wouldn't have been such a big issue if he'd kicked the ball in his usual manner. Give him that kick another ten times and he probably wouldn't get anywhere near the goals.

It's just that the football gods have a strange sense of humour and Richo seems to be their favourite play thing.

But gee he played well.

[jimmyc1985]

There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest

Absolutely hit the nail on the head Staggy. I`d be interested to know whether this type of common sense is actually written in the laws of the game?

They`d do well to keep the above quote in mind at all times when umpiring - eg a brush of the little finger over someones head does not constitute a free kick.

I'm glad at least one person agrees!

People have got to understand - when you give a free kick, you are by definition, changing the flow of the game. You are stopping one team's momentum and giving it to the other team. And to do that, to take the drastic step of entering the contest and giving one team the ball, you need to have a good reason - you need to be certain that the team who you give the free kick to was prevented from fairly entering a contest for the ball. That's the only reason a free kick for an infringement should be given! None of this "oh well its in the rules" bullshit. The AFL and the Laws of the Game committee better get f*cking serious pretty soon or a lot of supporters are going to be permanently lost to the game.

I totally agree also. I didn't reply to your original post because I have already said as much months ago. I posted the actual laws of the game and pointed out that NOWHERE does is mention "hands in the back" as being an infringement. It talks about pushing, bumping etc, but not "hands in the back". In fact, the Richardson incident is quite specific in it's description as a LEGITIMATE mark (under law 15.4.5).

I have gone ballistic about this Bartlett rubbish in the past and have become tired of repeating myself, but here goes again...

http://www.aflpa.com.au/media/2007%20La ... 20game.pdf

Check out the laws of the game 15.4 FREE KICK - PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED PHYSICAL CONTACT pg 54 of 92

Have a good read of the actual rule book governing our game and then ask yourself the question....... "Why the f*** are we putting up with this bullshit interpretation?"

15.4.3(e) is the money quote. It allows certain contact "if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

That's the hallowed rule that's supposed to give the umpires interprative discretion as to what type of pushing is, and is not, 'incidental' to the contest, and whether the player is, or is not, making a 'legitimate' attempt to mark the ball.

The current interpretation that has the effect of deeming any hands in the back as a push completely completely strips Rule 15.4.3 (e) of its meaning and operation. A deeming rule is the opposite to an interprative rule, so in effect the AFL have replaced 15.4.3(e) (an interpretive rule) with a deeming rule (this year's new 'interpretation') this year.

Now, if a mediocre 4th year law student can spot this blatant discrepancy, then i'll be f****** damned to hell if there's a genuine argument the AFL can make in keeping this year's 'interpretation' without changing the rules as they currently stand.

EDIT: I forgot to add that 15.4.3 provides a list of exceptions to what is prohibited contact under 15.4.5. So the AFL can't point to 15.4.5 and say 'there it is', because 15.4.3 still operates to allow 'incidental' contact so long as the player is making a 'legitimate' attempt to mark the ball.

You're a f****** mediocre, bloated and inept pack of c****, AFL administrators. B-Grade ******** the lot of ya.

[spikefan]

Agree, but Jimmy you are too idealistic about Law and Lawyers.

Remember the two basic laws (of mediocre lawyers)
1. Never admit you are wrong
2. You can BS as much as you want as long as you respect 1.

A. Anderson fits the mold perfectly, he must go.

[MH_Bomber]

This new interpretation of the "PUSH" in the back rule sucks to high heaven. Mark McVeigh was penalised similarly earlier in the game. Its my understanding that it was brought in to prevent the James Clement type of push out of Hirdy last year BUT can someone tell me why they have to throw the baby out with the bathwater !!!!

You watch the game that is full of hard impact contact in tackles and bumps i.e. its a full contact sport and then you see these frees paid and you throw your hands up in despair at how soft has the game become. Its almost unwatchable when you see it. I'd venture to say there is more contact in netball (a non contact sport) and no penalty than some of the free paid under this ridiculous interpretation.

Just leave the game alone and let the umpires make the interpretation. It should be a demonstrative PUSH, in my opinion, for it to be paid.

Despite being rapt we won I was really sorry for Richo especially after the 50m. At that stage of the game the crowd noise was at a crescendo and justifiably may have thought the whistle was for the mark.

Lloydy aint happy with either.

Perhaps we need something from fans at the game in the form of protest at this crap interference into our great game.

[BenDoolan]

There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest

Absolutely hit the nail on the head Staggy. I`d be interested to know whether this type of common sense is actually written in the laws of the game?

They`d do well to keep the above quote in mind at all times when umpiring - eg a brush of the little finger over someones head does not constitute a free kick.

I'm glad at least one person agrees!

People have got to understand - when you give a free kick, you are by definition, changing the flow of the game. You are stopping one team's momentum and giving it to the other team. And to do that, to take the drastic step of entering the contest and giving one team the ball, you need to have a good reason - you need to be certain that the team who you give the free kick to was prevented from fairly entering a contest for the ball. That's the only reason a free kick for an infringement should be given! None of this "oh well its in the rules" bullshit. The AFL and the Laws of the Game committee better get f*cking serious pretty soon or a lot of supporters are going to be permanently lost to the game.

I totally agree also. I didn't reply to your original post because I have already said as much months ago. I posted the actual laws of the game and pointed out that NOWHERE does is mention "hands in the back" as being an infringement. It talks about pushing, bumping etc, but not "hands in the back". In fact, the Richardson incident is quite specific in it's description as a LEGITIMATE mark (under law 15.4.5).

I have gone ballistic about this Bartlett rubbish in the past and have become tired of repeating myself, but here goes again...

http://www.aflpa.com.au/media/2007%20La ... 20game.pdf

Check out the laws of the game 15.4 FREE KICK - PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED PHYSICAL CONTACT pg 54 of 92

Have a good read of the actual rule book governing our game and then ask yourself the question....... "Why the f*** are we putting up with this bullshit interpretation?"

15.4.3(e) is the money quote. It allows certain contact "if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

That's the hallowed rule that's supposed to give the umpires interprative discretion as to what type of pushing is, and is not, 'incidental' to the contest, and whether the player is, or is not, making a 'legitimate' attempt to mark the ball.

The current interpretation that has the effect of deeming any hands in the back as a push completely completely strips Rule 15.4.3 (e) of its meaning and operation. A deeming rule is the opposite to an interprative rule, so in effect the AFL have replaced 15.4.3(e) (an interpretive rule) with a deeming rule (this year's new 'interpretation') this year.

Now, if a mediocre 4th year law student can spot this blatant discrepancy, then i'll be f****** damned to hell if there's a genuine argument the AFL can make in keeping this year's 'interpretation' without changing the rules as they currently stand.

EDIT: I forgot to add that 15.4.3 provides a list of exceptions to what is prohibited contact under 15.4.5. So the AFL can't point to 15.4.5 and say 'there it is', because 15.4.3 still operates to allow 'incidental' contact so long as the player is making a 'legitimate' attempt to mark the ball.

You're a f****** mediocre, bloated and inept pack of c****, AFL administrators. B-Grade ******** the lot of ya.

It really is sickening isn't it?

Here we have, in black and white, laws that govern our game. And here we also have egotistical maniacs who love to put their own bullshit spin on things, just so they can justify an existence. Time to cull these cretins, so we can have a decent game of footy, uninterrupted by someone's ego.

We had a classic example of their mental incapacity when Mark McVeigh took that blinder of a mark. Geischen came out after media criticism and declared it "a mark". Bartlett also came out and said "it should have been a free kick". Talk about a comical act of idiocy....

[bomberdonnie]

It is all about who can piss further my friends!!

[BenDoolan]

So idiot #1 comes out tonight (Geischen) and says that the Richo incident would have been a free kick under the rules last year. Well how is that, considering the following Laws;

15.4.3 Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a
Player may make contact with another Player:
(a) by using his or her hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands
provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from
the Player;

and....

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact
is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately
Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

Amazing how they come out and make statements without ever quoting the actual laws of the game. That's because they get shown up as complete senile f****** idiots.....

[Rossoneri]

That last part is just f****** stupid. So your allowed to push someone in the back, provided you are going for a mark? So why has Lloyd been getting punished in previous years?

[BenDoolan]

That last part is just f****** stupid. So your allowed to push someone in the back, provided you are going for a mark? So why has Lloyd been getting punished in previous years?

Because of interpretation.

Reading the law as it is, you cannot say that Richo infringed whatsoever. And reading the laws as they are, you cannot see anywhere where you cannot have "hands in the back". They've made the whole f****** thing up, and they are taking everyone for an egotistical ride.

In days gone by, when there were two actions of pushing someone out and taking a mark - it was paid as a push in the back. Pretty simple.

When there was a contest where a player pushed AS they were taking a mark - it was paid a mark. Pretty simple.

Now we have free kicks when someone puts their hand on the back (with no pressure applied) and it being paid a free kick - under what law?

This would be a great game if it were not hijacked by f****** numbskulls.

[Rossoneri]

Well their interpreting it that contact was not incidental. When you leave rules up to an umpies interpretation, you will get inconsistencies.

What the AFL has to do is say "contact is not permitted by hand in the back of an opponent in a marking contest".

Or something to that effect. The umpire should be enforcing a rule, not deciding if its correct or not.

[BenDoolan]

I still maintain that the previous interpretation was OK. I never had a problem with it. I never walked away from a game where I was cursing the umpires interpretation of the push in the back rule. However, I find myself walking away from many games this year absolutely cursing, in fact, livid with the current "interpretation".

Yes, the umpire has to determine if the push was incidental, but they got it right more often than not. I would rather that, than to have a player SOFTLY place a hand on the back with NO INFRINGEMENT whatsoever, having a free kick paid against him.

[Madden]

Well their interpreting it that contact was not incidental. When you leave rules up to an umpies interpretation, you will get inconsistencies.

What the AFL has to do is say "contact is not permitted by hand in the back of an opponent in a marking contest".

Or something to that effect. The umpire should be enforcing a rule, not deciding if its correct or not.

No shit. And guess what mate? Nearly every decision in football is built on interpretation, and that's fine - has been for 100 years. THis push in the back rule is analogous to bringing in a directive which says ' if you take three steps and get tackled - its holding the ball". Sometimes that would be true, and sometimes it wouldn't. Just like sometimes when someone has hands in the back it is a push, and sometimes it isn't!

Rules have been subject to interpretation for 100 years, and that's fine. When you try to make them black and white, you get the complete clusterf*ck that the push in the back has become this season.

[Madden]

Just in addition - remember that the rules say nothing about putting hands in someone's back. They say that pushing someone in the back is illegal.

What the AFL has done this year is said that 'hands in the back = push'. And that, is completely f*cking ridiculous. Because sometimes hands in the back would = a push, but sometimes it doesn't. Now someone, please, tell me, how on earth is enforcing such a strict and incorrect interpretation at all logical???

[jimmyc1985]

Just in addition - remember that the rules say nothing about putting hands in someone's back. They say that pushing someone in the back is illegal.

What the AFL has done this year is said that 'hands in the back = push'. And that, is completely f*cking ridiculous. Because sometimes hands in the back would = a push, but sometimes it doesn't. Now someone, please, tell me, how on earth is enforcing such a strict and incorrect interpretation at all logical???

It isn't.

Some smart arsed barrister with too much time on his hands should attempt to get a declarative judgment that the AFL's interpretation is wrong and not within the rules of the game.

Probably wouldn't go anywhere, but it'd still be f****** funny to at least have someone take the AFL on.

[j-mac31]

As Richo took the mark, I looked to the umpire expecting hands in the back, despite the stupidity of the rule. As Richo ran off but Allen had paid the free, I was cheering with the Richmond fans and as he kicked for goal called for 50. WHen that was paid too, I was on my feet with the Richmond fans. Awesome stuff.

However...

Just in addition - remember that the rules say nothing about putting hands in someone's back. They say that pushing someone in the back is illegal.

What the AFL has done this year is said that 'hands in the back = push'. And that, is completely f*cking ridiculous. Because sometimes hands in the back would = a push, but sometimes it doesn't. Now someone, please, tell me, how on earth is enforcing such a strict and incorrect interpretation at all logical???

Spot on. This rule is bullshit.

There are so many arguments against this bloody hands in the back rule that all stand up, yet I can't think of hearing a good one for it.

Now how's this. Using the "logic" of the rules committee that a hand touching another player's back constitutes a push, I say we change the ruck contest rules. Unless a player uses his fist to hit the ball away (ie. he palms the ball) he will be pinged for a throw, in that he had the ball in his open hand and flung it away.

Oh crap, expect to see this new "interpretation" as of next year.