With all of the experimenting and rule changes (and even a Committee just to look at rule changes), I heard on SEN about an hour ago that in the entire history of soccer there have been only 8 rule changes.
Eight!
That's some level of stability.
Rule Changes
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
casey scorp
- Club Player
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005 1:40am
- Location: Hampton/Gold Coast
- Been thanked: 7 times
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10347
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 183 times
- Been thanked: 689 times
4 years younger -
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7078
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 461 times
casey scorp, I reckon you've made a really good point. Important rule changes in soccer are debated for years before they are tried out. That means that they work and are then able to be left in place for ever.
Well-run sports don't change their rules all the time on a whim. Cricket, tennis and golf are other good examples. In cricket, the law that a batsman could be given out LBW to a ball that hits him outside the line of the off stump if he wasn't playing a shot was known as the "experimental law" for about three decades.
The way that AFL (and, for that matter, rugby union and rugby league) keep tinkering with the rules season after season is a total nonsense. The only rule change in the past few decades that I totally support was the abolition of the 15 metre penalty and the advent of the 50 metre penalty. Lots of other changes have not been for the better IMO: eg, the unlimited interchange (which has brought us the flood and many other unwelcome innovations), the quick kick in after the behind is scored (which has eliminated a lot of contested marks), the new interpretation of holding the ball (which frequently penalises the player who is brave enough to go after the contested balll), etc.
I certainly don't want to bring back the biff to AFL, but gee it would be good to see the big men fly a bit more often than they used to do!!
Well-run sports don't change their rules all the time on a whim. Cricket, tennis and golf are other good examples. In cricket, the law that a batsman could be given out LBW to a ball that hits him outside the line of the off stump if he wasn't playing a shot was known as the "experimental law" for about three decades.
The way that AFL (and, for that matter, rugby union and rugby league) keep tinkering with the rules season after season is a total nonsense. The only rule change in the past few decades that I totally support was the abolition of the 15 metre penalty and the advent of the 50 metre penalty. Lots of other changes have not been for the better IMO: eg, the unlimited interchange (which has brought us the flood and many other unwelcome innovations), the quick kick in after the behind is scored (which has eliminated a lot of contested marks), the new interpretation of holding the ball (which frequently penalises the player who is brave enough to go after the contested balll), etc.
I certainly don't want to bring back the biff to AFL, but gee it would be good to see the big men fly a bit more often than they used to do!!
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
Soccer is such a simple game. There's only so much you can change.kosifantutti23 wrote:Soccer has a shorter history, so there should be less rule changes.
And I find that hard to believe, I reckon I could name 8 rules that have changed in the last 30 years.
The last rule that was changed was the back-pass rule. Back in the day keepers were allowed to pick up back-passes with their hands. Now keepers can only pick up back-passes if it comes off a head.
The first rule that was changed was in 1870 where charging from behind was prohibited.
In 1871, goalkeepers were told they could use their hands.
What shorter history are you talking about?
Can someone clarify this rule for me because so far this season I've seen two different rules.
A player takes a mark or wins a free along the boundary line. He steps back over the boundary line to take his kick. Umpire says play on with the player out of bounds.
Is it an automatic boundary throw-in or can the player still run inside?
More often than not I've seen the player run inside and take his kick after the umpire has said play on but this season I've also seen an umpire signal for the boundary throw-in.
What is going on?
A player takes a mark or wins a free along the boundary line. He steps back over the boundary line to take his kick. Umpire says play on with the player out of bounds.
Is it an automatic boundary throw-in or can the player still run inside?
More often than not I've seen the player run inside and take his kick after the umpire has said play on but this season I've also seen an umpire signal for the boundary throw-in.
What is going on?
-
Superboot
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
The disturbing thing about footy is that it's almost impossible to learn the rules by watching the game.
I don't know how newcomers to the game cope with it.
Just when you think you've got the hang of a rule when a decision is made following a clear-cut incident, the incident will be repeated and a completely different decision made. It's very hard to think of another game where the inconsistency in interpretation of the rules is so obvious.
Most of the recent rule changes in footy are basically the AFL tinkering with the game, supposedly in order to make it more appealing. They are the equivalent of the backpass to the keeper rule in soccer, and the six tackle rule in rugby league. When tactics begin the affect the game as a spectacle the AFL intervenes very quickly and seems very reluctant to let things ride for a while until they sort themselves out. Why not let the coaches figure out how to combat the rushed behind issue, for example, rather than changing the rules prematurely?
I don't know how newcomers to the game cope with it.
Just when you think you've got the hang of a rule when a decision is made following a clear-cut incident, the incident will be repeated and a completely different decision made. It's very hard to think of another game where the inconsistency in interpretation of the rules is so obvious.
Most of the recent rule changes in footy are basically the AFL tinkering with the game, supposedly in order to make it more appealing. They are the equivalent of the backpass to the keeper rule in soccer, and the six tackle rule in rugby league. When tactics begin the affect the game as a spectacle the AFL intervenes very quickly and seems very reluctant to let things ride for a while until they sort themselves out. Why not let the coaches figure out how to combat the rushed behind issue, for example, rather than changing the rules prematurely?
dunno. as far as i remember, the rule is that even if play on is called when out of bounds, the player's allowed to take their kick as long as that's all they do. they're not allowed to run off the line too far or it's a throw in. also, if they get tackled (after play on) then it's a throw in.OLB wrote:Can someone clarify this rule for me because so far this season I've seen two different rules.
A player takes a mark or wins a free along the boundary line. He steps back over the boundary line to take his kick. Umpire says play on with the player out of bounds.
Is it an automatic boundary throw-in or can the player still run inside?
More often than not I've seen the player run inside and take his kick after the umpire has said play on but this season I've also seen an umpire signal for the boundary throw-in.
What is going on?
-
matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
took a bit but i found this:
http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/De ... l_2008.pdf
(its from 2008, and here is the updates to the rules/changes to the rules for 2009:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx )
anyway......
16.5 Disposal — From Out of Bounds
16.5.1 When Permitted
(a) A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking,
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.
(b) If a Player taking his Kick from outside the Boundary Line
(i) fails to bring the football into play;
(ii) attempts to play on outside the boundary line; or
(iii) does not bring the ball into play in accordance with 16.5.1 (a)
then the ball shall be deemed to be Out of Bounds and the
boundary Umpire shall throw the ball back into play at the spot
where the original Mark or Free Kick took place.
http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/De ... l_2008.pdf
(its from 2008, and here is the updates to the rules/changes to the rules for 2009:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx )
anyway......
16.5 Disposal — From Out of Bounds
16.5.1 When Permitted
(a) A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking,
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.
(b) If a Player taking his Kick from outside the Boundary Line
(i) fails to bring the football into play;
(ii) attempts to play on outside the boundary line; or
(iii) does not bring the ball into play in accordance with 16.5.1 (a)
then the ball shall be deemed to be Out of Bounds and the
boundary Umpire shall throw the ball back into play at the spot
where the original Mark or Free Kick took place.
-
SteveStevens66
- Club Player
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed 10 Aug 2005 4:55pm
- Been thanked: 18 times
The entire premise of the rule changes is a nonsense. First, their institution reflects a belief on the part of the AFL that something was wrong with the game. Ironically, the fact that they keep changing the rules is a tacit admission that there is something still wrong with the game and they are unable to fix it.
The second premise for many of the rule changes was to speed the game up. When was this game ever slow or too slow? From its very beginnings it has been the fastest code of football by far. It did not need to be sped up. The AFL created an entire fiction and said it needed to be made quicker and, repeated often enough, it became the gospel truth. And everyone bought in.
As for a solution, the problem is that the situation will never change because of the rampant conflict of interests that exist. As the AFL doesn't listen to the fans (their Potemkin surveys notwithstanding), the only theoretical source of critique of the rule changes are the media. And here is the problem. Blokes such as Luke Darcy and Kevin Bartlett are on the rules committee! You will never hear a peep of criticism out of them. They can't undermine their own work.
Show me another sport in the world where the media are as deeply involved in the management of the game.
The guys in the media will never rock the boat. Listen to the commentary. They only rarely and then most timidly question a decision or a rule itself.
They do not want to be blacklisted by the AFL. Sadly, the whole thing as corrupt as all get out.
The second premise for many of the rule changes was to speed the game up. When was this game ever slow or too slow? From its very beginnings it has been the fastest code of football by far. It did not need to be sped up. The AFL created an entire fiction and said it needed to be made quicker and, repeated often enough, it became the gospel truth. And everyone bought in.
As for a solution, the problem is that the situation will never change because of the rampant conflict of interests that exist. As the AFL doesn't listen to the fans (their Potemkin surveys notwithstanding), the only theoretical source of critique of the rule changes are the media. And here is the problem. Blokes such as Luke Darcy and Kevin Bartlett are on the rules committee! You will never hear a peep of criticism out of them. They can't undermine their own work.
Show me another sport in the world where the media are as deeply involved in the management of the game.
The guys in the media will never rock the boat. Listen to the commentary. They only rarely and then most timidly question a decision or a rule itself.
They do not want to be blacklisted by the AFL. Sadly, the whole thing as corrupt as all get out.
Carna Saints!!!
Nice work.matrixcutter wrote:took a bit but i found this:
http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/De ... l_2008.pdf
(its from 2008, and here is the updates to the rules/changes to the rules for 2009:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx )
anyway......
16.5 Disposal — From Out of Bounds
16.5.1 When Permitted
(a) A Player who is awarded a Free Kick or a Mark may bring the
football into play from beyond the Boundary Line provided that
the Player moves in one direction whilst in the act of Kicking,
Handballing or moving to cross the Boundary Line.
(b) If a Player taking his Kick from outside the Boundary Line
(i) fails to bring the football into play;
(ii) attempts to play on outside the boundary line; or
(iii) does not bring the ball into play in accordance with 16.5.1 (a)
then the ball shall be deemed to be Out of Bounds and the
boundary Umpire shall throw the ball back into play at the spot
where the original Mark or Free Kick took place.
Therefore, what I must have seen is a player not take his kick nor attempt to run inside to play on.
He must've just stood there, out of bounds, as the umpire called play on which left the umpire no choice but to signal for a boundary throw-in.
-
carnasaints55
- Club Player
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sat 19 Aug 2006 10:47pm
This scares me more then anything. Its like a fascist regime. They have entrenched their own men within the people who should be critiquing them. In soccer, when an umpire makes a wrong decision, the commentators say it up front. "That should not have been a penalty" and such. But the harshest we get is "ohhh well, that might not have been the best decision".SteveStevens66 wrote: As for a solution, the problem is that the situation will never change because of the rampant conflict of interests that exist. As the AFL doesn't listen to the fans (their Potemkin surveys notwithstanding), the only theoretical source of critique of the rule changes are the media. And here is the problem. Blokes such as Luke Darcy and Kevin Bartlett are on the rules committee! You will never hear a peep of criticism out of them. They can't undermine their own work.
Show me another sport in the world where the media are as deeply involved in the management of the game.
The guys in the media will never rock the boat. Listen to the commentary. They only rarely and then most timidly question a decision or a rule itself.
They do not want to be blacklisted by the AFL. Sadly, the whole thing as corrupt as all get out.
Disgraceful. Rules committee needs to be disassembled.
roo=god
-
SteveStevens66
- Club Player
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed 10 Aug 2005 4:55pm
- Been thanked: 18 times
Great post. All very true.Superboot wrote:The disturbing thing about footy is that it's almost impossible to learn the rules by watching the game.
I don't know how newcomers to the game cope with it.
Just when you think you've got the hang of a rule when a decision is made following a clear-cut incident, the incident will be repeated and a completely different decision made. It's very hard to think of another game where the inconsistency in interpretation of the rules is so obvious.
Most of the recent rule changes in footy are basically the AFL tinkering with the game, supposedly in order to make it more appealing. They are the equivalent of the backpass to the keeper rule in soccer, and the six tackle rule in rugby league. When tactics begin the affect the game as a spectacle the AFL intervenes very quickly and seems very reluctant to let things ride for a while until they sort themselves out. Why not let the coaches figure out how to combat the rushed behind issue, for example, rather than changing the rules prematurely?
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
When we had a game that was recognisable as Australian football, the Football Association was still trying to work out whether or not you could run with the ball, until the rugby clubs decided to split away in 1871.OLB wrote:Soccer is such a simple game. There's only so much you can change.kosifantutti23 wrote:Soccer has a shorter history, so there should be less rule changes.
And I find that hard to believe, I reckon I could name 8 rules that have changed in the last 30 years.
The last rule that was changed was the back-pass rule. Back in the day keepers were allowed to pick up back-passes with their hands. Now keepers can only pick up back-passes if it comes off a head.
The first rule that was changed was in 1870 where charging from behind was prohibited.
In 1871, goalkeepers were told they could use their hands.
What shorter history are you talking about?
Other English rugby football clubs followed this lead and did not join the FA, or subsequently left the FA and instead in 1871 formed the Rugby Football Union. The eleven remaining clubs, under the charge of Ebenezer Cobb Morley, went on to ratify the original thirteen laws of the game.[14] These rules included handling of the ball by "marks" and the lack of a crossbar, rules which made it remarkably similar to Victorian rules football being developed at that time in Australia.
Ive never actually seen a soccer rule book..but Id reckon it would be mainly consisting of.
* The dimensions of the ground, which unlike Aussle Rules are set in concrete
* What constitutes "hand ball"
*What constitues a legal tackle
..the other 950 pages would be used trying to explain the offside rule
Seriously thoough, the soccer world would be pretty comfortable where they sit in the scheme of things sport-wise. They have billions of devoted followers around the world who follow the sport with a passion some religions could only dream of.
Aussie rules however, is suddenly under some threat it seems from a host of other sports and pastimes...and feels that it not only has to be more attractive to watch..it has to been seen to be a viable option to play from the host of helicopter parents who fear their kids might get hurt playing it. Hence the tinkering with the rules.
I'm no soccer historian...but I reckon there'd be a lot of similarity between a soccer game from the 60s and one today. Aussie rules? Almost a different game altogether.
* The dimensions of the ground, which unlike Aussle Rules are set in concrete
* What constitutes "hand ball"
*What constitues a legal tackle
..the other 950 pages would be used trying to explain the offside rule
Seriously thoough, the soccer world would be pretty comfortable where they sit in the scheme of things sport-wise. They have billions of devoted followers around the world who follow the sport with a passion some religions could only dream of.
Aussie rules however, is suddenly under some threat it seems from a host of other sports and pastimes...and feels that it not only has to be more attractive to watch..it has to been seen to be a viable option to play from the host of helicopter parents who fear their kids might get hurt playing it. Hence the tinkering with the rules.
I'm no soccer historian...but I reckon there'd be a lot of similarity between a soccer game from the 60s and one today. Aussie rules? Almost a different game altogether.
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
As someone who came to AFL late and has watched Football (soccer to the rest of you) all his life (I'm from London) the constant dicking about with the rules is bewildering.
To change rules so readily (and mid-way through a season in some cases) is just staggering. A quick trial in the NAB cup and there you are.
No one seems to really think the changes through and so we have changes upon changes to alter how teams reacted to last seasons changes.
The new rushed behind rule is a case in point. This came into effect as a result of teams taking advantage of the kicking in rule change.
As regards to 'soccer' you have to remember that it is a world game ( and has been for most of its existence) and so you would have to change the rules on an international basis. No mean feat.
To change rules so readily (and mid-way through a season in some cases) is just staggering. A quick trial in the NAB cup and there you are.
No one seems to really think the changes through and so we have changes upon changes to alter how teams reacted to last seasons changes.
The new rushed behind rule is a case in point. This came into effect as a result of teams taking advantage of the kicking in rule change.
As regards to 'soccer' you have to remember that it is a world game ( and has been for most of its existence) and so you would have to change the rules on an international basis. No mean feat.
"The humble improve" Wynton Marsalis
-
maverick
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5003
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:42am
- Location: Bayside
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 86 times
Dimensions of a soccer pitch are NOT set in concrete.saint66au wrote:Ive never actually seen a soccer rule book..but Id reckon it would be mainly consisting of.
* The dimensions of the ground, which unlike Aussle Rules are set in concrete
* What constitutes "hand ball"
*What constitues a legal tackle
..the other 950 pages would be used trying to explain the offside rule
Seriously thoough, the soccer world would be pretty comfortable where they sit in the scheme of things sport-wise. They have billions of devoted followers around the world who follow the sport with a passion some religions could only dream of.
Aussie rules however, is suddenly under some threat it seems from a host of other sports and pastimes...and feels that it not only has to be more attractive to watch..it has to been seen to be a viable option to play from the host of helicopter parents who fear their kids might get hurt playing it. Hence the tinkering with the rules.
I'm no soccer historian...but I reckon there'd be a lot of similarity between a soccer game from the 60s and one today. Aussie rules? Almost a different game altogether.
There is a minimum size in place but that's about it, even the minimum dimensions change from comp to comp. The EPL minimum is different to the UEFA one for example.
-
casey scorp
- Club Player
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005 1:40am
- Location: Hampton/Gold Coast
- Been thanked: 7 times
Soccer Rules:saint66au wrote:Ive never actually seen a soccer rule book..but Id reckon it would be mainly consisting of.
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html
maverick wrote: Dimensions of a soccer pitch are NOT set in concrete.
There is a minimum size in place but that's about it, even the minimum dimensions change from comp to comp. The EPL minimum is different to the UEFA one for example.
Playing Field Requirements:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournam ... 5f8211.pdf
“Recommended dimensions
Playing field: length: 105m, width: 68m
For all matches at the top professional level and where major international and domestic
games are played, the playing field should have dimensions of 105m x 68m. These
dimensions are obligatory for the FIFA World Cupâ„¢ and the final competitions in
the confederations’ championships. The playing field should have the precise markings
illustrated.
Other matches can be played on a playing field with different dimensions and the
Laws of the Game stipulate the maximum and minimum dimensions. However it is
strongly recommended that new stadiums have a 105m x 68m playing field.â€
-
desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10347
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 183 times
- Been thanked: 689 times
Here's the original rules -
What's interesting is rules 4 and 8 - could well have developed into something like our aussie rules but for rules 9, 11 & 12 (which, along with rule 10, led to the split into two codes -soccer & rugby).
"On 8th December, 1863, the FA published the Laws of Football.
1. The maximum length of the ground shall be 200 yards, the maximum breadth shall be 100 yards, the length and breadth shall be marked off with flags; and the goal shall be defined by two upright posts, eight yards apart, without any tape or bar across them.
2. A toss for goals shall take place, and the game shall be commenced by a place kick from the centre of the ground by the side losing the toss for goals; the other side shall not approach within 10 yards of the ball until it is kicked off.
3. After a goal is won, the losing side shall be entitled to kick off, and the two sides shall change goals after each goal is won.
4. A goal shall be won when the ball passes between the goal-posts or over the space between the goal-posts (at whatever height), not being thrown, knocked on, or carried.
5. When the ball is in touch, the first player who touches it shall throw it from the point on the boundary line where it left the ground in a direction at right angles with the boundary line, and the ball shall not be in play until it has touched the ground.
6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.
7. In case the ball goes behind the goal line, if a player on the side to whom the goal belongs first touches the ball, one of his side shall he entitled to a free kick from the goal line at the point opposite the place where the ball shall be touched. If a player of the opposite side first touches the ball, one of his side shall be entitled to a free kick at the goal only from a point 15 yards outside the goal line, opposite the place where the ball is touched, the opposing side standing within their goal line until he has had his kick.
8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked.
9. No player shall run with the ball.
10. Neither tripping nor hacking shall be allowed, and no player shall use his hands to hold or push his adversary.
11. A player shall not be allowed to throw the ball or pass it to another with his hands.
12. No player shall be allowed to take the ball from the ground with his hands under any pretence whatever while it is in play.
13. No player shall be allowed to wear projecting nails, iron plates, or gutta-percha on the soles or heels of his boots. "
What's interesting is rules 4 and 8 - could well have developed into something like our aussie rules but for rules 9, 11 & 12 (which, along with rule 10, led to the split into two codes -soccer & rugby).
"On 8th December, 1863, the FA published the Laws of Football.
1. The maximum length of the ground shall be 200 yards, the maximum breadth shall be 100 yards, the length and breadth shall be marked off with flags; and the goal shall be defined by two upright posts, eight yards apart, without any tape or bar across them.
2. A toss for goals shall take place, and the game shall be commenced by a place kick from the centre of the ground by the side losing the toss for goals; the other side shall not approach within 10 yards of the ball until it is kicked off.
3. After a goal is won, the losing side shall be entitled to kick off, and the two sides shall change goals after each goal is won.
4. A goal shall be won when the ball passes between the goal-posts or over the space between the goal-posts (at whatever height), not being thrown, knocked on, or carried.
5. When the ball is in touch, the first player who touches it shall throw it from the point on the boundary line where it left the ground in a direction at right angles with the boundary line, and the ball shall not be in play until it has touched the ground.
6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.
7. In case the ball goes behind the goal line, if a player on the side to whom the goal belongs first touches the ball, one of his side shall he entitled to a free kick from the goal line at the point opposite the place where the ball shall be touched. If a player of the opposite side first touches the ball, one of his side shall be entitled to a free kick at the goal only from a point 15 yards outside the goal line, opposite the place where the ball is touched, the opposing side standing within their goal line until he has had his kick.
8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked.
9. No player shall run with the ball.
10. Neither tripping nor hacking shall be allowed, and no player shall use his hands to hold or push his adversary.
11. A player shall not be allowed to throw the ball or pass it to another with his hands.
12. No player shall be allowed to take the ball from the ground with his hands under any pretence whatever while it is in play.
13. No player shall be allowed to wear projecting nails, iron plates, or gutta-percha on the soles or heels of his boots. "
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Can someone verify something about this new rushed behind rule for me?
Is it true that a free kick is only given if the player rushing the behind is "not under pressure"? But if the player is under pressure, then it is okay to rush a behind?
And where does the free kick get taken from, top of the goal square? (I haven't seen this new rule being used yet)
Is it true that a free kick is only given if the player rushing the behind is "not under pressure"? But if the player is under pressure, then it is okay to rush a behind?
And where does the free kick get taken from, top of the goal square? (I haven't seen this new rule being used yet)
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
-
matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
15.12 FREE KICK – DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDSbattye wrote:Can someone verify something about this new rushed behind rule for me?
Is it true that a free kick is only given if the player rushing the behind is "not under pressure"? But if the player is under pressure, then it is okay to rush a behind?
And where does the free kick get taken from, top of the goal square? (I haven't seen this new rule being used yet)
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender. A Free Kick awarded under this Law shall be taken at the point where the football crossed the Goal Line or Behind Line or from the relevant Goal Post.
Interpretation:
When an Umpire is determining whether to award a free kick for a deliberate rushed behind the considerations are:
• What is the player’s intention?
• Is the player contesting the ball?
• What is the degree of pressure the player is under?
• Was there a team mate in the vicinity of where the ball crossed the scoring line?
For clarification:
• Players who are contesting the ball in a marking contest or in general play may punch or knock the ball away from their opponents to prevent them from gaining possession of the football or from scoring. This will not be deemed to be deliberately rushed.
• Where a player is in possession of the football and is tackled near the scoring line, he must dispose of or attempt to dispose of the ball in complying with the laws of the game. A player will receive the benefit of the doubt in this situation.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
-
Superboot
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
So, as with the old 'deliberate out of bounds' rule, the umpire has to be a mind reader.matrixcutter wrote:15.12 FREE KICK – DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDSbattye wrote:Can someone verify something about this new rushed behind rule for me?
Is it true that a free kick is only given if the player rushing the behind is "not under pressure"? But if the player is under pressure, then it is okay to rush a behind?
And where does the free kick get taken from, top of the goal square? (I haven't seen this new rule being used yet)
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Defender. A Free Kick awarded under this Law shall be taken at the point where the football crossed the Goal Line or Behind Line or from the relevant Goal Post.
Interpretation:
When an Umpire is determining whether to award a free kick for a deliberate rushed behind the considerations are:
• What is the player’s intention?
• Is the player contesting the ball?
• What is the degree of pressure the player is under?
• Was there a team mate in the vicinity of where the ball crossed the scoring line?
For clarification:
• Players who are contesting the ball in a marking contest or in general play may punch or knock the ball away from their opponents to prevent them from gaining possession of the football or from scoring. This will not be deemed to be deliberately rushed.
• Where a player is in possession of the football and is tackled near the scoring line, he must dispose of or attempt to dispose of the ball in complying with the laws of the game. A player will receive the benefit of the doubt in this situation.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
Yet again, the AFL introduces a rule which requires the umpire to interpret intent. Yet another recipe for inconsistency. They just don't learn.
Do you remember a season or two ago when one of our defenders (maybe Max) tried to rush a behind but hit the behind post and was pinged for deliberate out of bounds?!! Completely absurd.
that said, it appears to be working pretty well at this point of the season.Superboot wrote:So, as with the old 'deliberate out of bounds' rule, the umpire has to be a mind reader.
Yet again, the AFL introduces a rule which requires the umpire to interpret intent. Yet another recipe for inconsistency. They just don't learn.
-
matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
yup and was delib trying to knock it thru for a point NOT out of bounds.
but got payed delib because the ball rolled that way.
brilliant ruling umpy
but the one rule that gives me the shites, (well its really the decision process thats made, that gives me the shites.) is the PLAY ON ADVANTAGE rule.
this is stuffed up so many times its not funny, sometimes every player has stopped except one bloke who manages to just get the footy out of a pack, the whistle blows for a free, everyone else stops and then the ump calls play on...while everyone on the field has stopped EXCEPT the cherry pilferer who manages to make a break for it!...
of course its advantage ya twat...everyone else has bloody stopped!!.
the way i see it is if the ball comes out just as the whistle blows for a free and some one grabs it and makes a dash, and its a player from the team getting the free kick then call play on NO MATTER what, if he takes two steps and tries to make a break then call play on, if there isnt really an advantage then tough s***, he made the decision, he lives with it.
if the free was payed for the other side then the ump obviously has to blow again to call it back.
i mean sometimes they go "no advantage bring it back" when all the player had to do was maybe sidestep one opp and he is free!!
they then call it back explaining there was no advantage, and now the opp team has got the whole friggin 18 players back behind the ball...SOME FRIGGIN ADVANTAGE to the team with the cherry!!
lmao
but got payed delib because the ball rolled that way.
brilliant ruling umpy
but the one rule that gives me the shites, (well its really the decision process thats made, that gives me the shites.) is the PLAY ON ADVANTAGE rule.
this is stuffed up so many times its not funny, sometimes every player has stopped except one bloke who manages to just get the footy out of a pack, the whistle blows for a free, everyone else stops and then the ump calls play on...while everyone on the field has stopped EXCEPT the cherry pilferer who manages to make a break for it!...
of course its advantage ya twat...everyone else has bloody stopped!!.
the way i see it is if the ball comes out just as the whistle blows for a free and some one grabs it and makes a dash, and its a player from the team getting the free kick then call play on NO MATTER what, if he takes two steps and tries to make a break then call play on, if there isnt really an advantage then tough s***, he made the decision, he lives with it.
if the free was payed for the other side then the ump obviously has to blow again to call it back.
i mean sometimes they go "no advantage bring it back" when all the player had to do was maybe sidestep one opp and he is free!!
they then call it back explaining there was no advantage, and now the opp team has got the whole friggin 18 players back behind the ball...SOME FRIGGIN ADVANTAGE to the team with the cherry!!
lmao