Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[MD Jazz]

The video (that you have just caught up with despite it being mentioned on here many times) was released on November 17, 2020, not 'the eve of the season' you poor, sad, nuff-nuff.

You are just confirming what I said, the rule is being publicly discussed in November, after the clubs were told about it and a trial game held during the 2020 season, and then with the entire 2021 preseason to use it in scratchies.

Seriously, it's no wonder you can't keep up. Sometimes the water is a bit deep to get in without floaties on.

Now go and pop out your stocking, it's likely Christmas Eve at your place.

Now that you’re still here you reckon you could provide that proof of the handball rule change?

Understand you are busy counting $$$, managing investments, playing the simulator, coffees with dusty etc and time may not permit but I’m always looking to learn and as you are the self appointed PRE FOK I was hoping you could help a battler out.

 

[DavidSSS]

I've been trying my darndest to find an AFL sanctioned release about some handball interpretation change, specifically about if the interpretation changed to allow the holding hand to move. In this look I did come across this video regarding 2021 rule changes.

Some do seem to claim that once upon a time the rules stated that the hand holding the ball could not move when handballing, but it is complete bollocks.

Look at the rules back to 1945 and you can see the "stationary hand" was never in the rules, ever.

It is just a deflection which assumes we all can't find the old rules (they're here: https://aflua.com.au/laws/ ) or be bothered reading them, a deflection promoted by those who wish to claim the definition of a handball has changed. The really big change, which is still in the rules, is the mention of a clenched fist when they outlawed the flick pass in the 1960s. Apart from that the rule has not changed. The current rule mentions hitting the ball with the clenched fist of the other hand, just like the 1966 rules state.

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

Some do seem to claim that once upon a time the rules stated that the hand holding the ball could not move when handballing, but it is complete bollocks.

Look at the rules back to 1945 and you can see the "stationary hand" was never in the rules, ever.

It is just a deflection which assumes we all can't find the old rules (they're here: https://aflua.com.au/laws/ ) or be bothered reading them, a deflection promoted by those who wish to claim the definition of a handball has changed. The really big change, which is still in the rules, is the mention of a clenched fist when they outlawed the flick pass in the 1960s. Apart from that the rule has not changed. The current rule mentions hitting the ball with the clenched fist of the other hand, just like the 1966 rules state.

DS

The thing is there is generally transparency around interpretation or rule changes. So one would think it should not be hard to find?

The funny thing is it’s not the only statement of “fact” made by Total Body Rub that is not supported by any evidence. I live in hope (and squalor) though.

 

[Tigers of Old]

The slide rule is one I'd get rid of tomorrow.
The ludicrous decision against Shorty just goes to show what a crapshoot is it.
Kneejerk then. Kneejerk now. Just a shitshow.

 

[RoarEmotion]

The slide rule is one I'd get rid of tomorrow.
The ludicrous decision against Shorty just goes to show what a crapshoot is it.
Kneejerk then. Kneejerk now. Just a shitshow.

Be great if there was some way fans could have a voice. I do know a few that don’t mind the stand rule but you would think it would be 80:20 against.

 

[tigertim]

The slide rule is one I'd get rid of tomorrow.
The ludicrous decision against Shorty just goes to show what a crapshoot is it.
Kneejerk then. Kneejerk now. Just a shitshow.

Yep, just another stupid rule that penalises the player going for the ball.

 

[Brodders17]

The slide rule is one I'd get rid of tomorrow.
The ludicrous decision against Shorty just goes to show what a crapshoot is it.
Kneejerk then. Kneejerk now. Just a shitshow.

The slide rule, should be that- a slide rule. If a player slides into the ball and an incoming opponent then pay a free. If a guy jumps on the ball he is not risking breaking someone's leg.

 

[tony_montana]

The slide rule, should be that- a slide rule. If a player slides into the ball and an incoming opponent then pay a free. If a guy jumps on the ball he is not risking breaking someone's leg.

yep its actually pretty simple to adjudicate, some of the interpretations leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Brodders17]

every free or mark should be like lining the kicker up for a set shot at goal. The kicker the man in the mark and centre of goals should be aligned.

out on the wings the guy with ball can start anywhere 20 m either side of that line.

but that would give a player who marks on the back flank clear space directly in front- it is another clear issue with the rule- firstly the umps dont pay any attention to where the actual mark is, then the time given guys to "go back 5" is wildly inconsistent- on Saturday Weagles players were standing the mark then running away. but then thirdly the line they allow the player with the ball to take varies greatly- sometimes a player who goes back off the mark and out of line (whatever that line actually is in the back half) a metre is called play on, other times players move 5 metres either way and allowed to take their kicks, while the player on the mark can do nothing.

 

[Willo]

Some do seem to claim that once upon a time the rules stated that the hand holding the ball could not move when handballing, but it is complete bollocks.

Look at the rules back to 1945 and you can see the "stationary hand" was never in the rules, ever.

It is just a deflection which assumes we all can't find the old rules (they're here: https://aflua.com.au/laws/ ) or be bothered reading them, a deflection promoted by those who wish to claim the definition of a handball has changed. The really big change, which is still in the rules, is the mention of a clenched fist when they outlawed the flick pass in the 1960s. Apart from that the rule has not changed. The current rule mentions hitting the ball with the clenched fist of the other hand, just like the 1966 rules state.

DS

Maybe the rules around handball haven’t changed, maybe it’s the “Interpretation “. That seems to happen a lot.

 

[The Big Richo]

Now that you’re still here you reckon you could provide that proof of the handball rule change?

Understand you are busy counting $$$, managing investments, playing the simulator, coffees with dusty etc and time may not permit but I’m always looking to learn and as you are the self appointed PRE FOK I was hoping you could help a battler out.

Nothing to say about making an arse of yourself huh? Eve of the season.

Why is it you are so obsessed with what I do, what I have and who I know? It's a bit sad. What do you do for a living? Is it really so bad that you need to carry such a chip on your shoulder.

And no, I won't be sharing with you or your sad mate. Anyone else is welcome to PM me but I wouldn't share the steam of my *smile* with either of you. Trust you can understand.

 

[DavidSSS]

Maybe the rules around handball haven’t changed, maybe it’s the “Interpretation “. That seems to happen a lot.

The problem is that the phrase in the rule states:

"hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand"​

How can that be interpreted to mean you chuck the ball with one hand while rubbing it along the other hand? In what way can that possibly be construed as hitting the ball?

The answer is that it can't, the words do not allow for such an interpretation.

If they want to allow throwing the ball be honest and change the definition of a handpass.

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

Nothing to say about making an arse of yourself huh? Eve of the season.

Why is it you are so obsessed with what I do, what I have and who I know? It's a bit sad. What do you do for a living? Is it really so bad that you need to carry such a chip on your shoulder.

And no, I won't be sharing with you or your sad mate. Anyone else is welcome to PM me but I wouldn't share the steam of my *smile* with either of you. Trust you can understand.

mmmm so you actually think the video is OK? No issue with its content? Sounds like they got the work experience kid in to answer the questions. That stand rule change smacks of a well considered and discussed move hey.

Re the video here's how you get to the link -

https://www.afl.com.au/news/563050/afl-2021-style-check-out-whats-different-about-the-new-season (this article released 18/3/2021)

It links to - A new man on the mark rule - which takes you to the video I posted. So on the 18/3/2021 they are still linking to the video with incorrect information about the application of the rule. That's the eve of the season?

There is a video explanation in the link with an umpire explaining it as well. Which doesn't discuss any movement of the player on the mark. But contradicts Shocking. Are we to guess which one is correct as to how it will work? You don't think that's a little confusing?

As regards your personal affairs, not sure anyone on this site has ever asked you about your wealth, talents or contacts, they have been offered up voluntarily? Not sure why, but self congratulation is better than none.

steam of my *smile* - It's good to know in some regards you're just like us mere mortals!

 

[tigertim]

mmmm so you actually think the video is OK? No issue with its content? Sounds like they got the work experience kid in to answer the questions. That stand rule change smacks of a well considered and discussed move hey.

Re the video here's how you get to the link -

https://www.afl.com.au/news/563050/afl-2021-style-check-out-whats-different-about-the-new-season (this article released 18/3/2021)

It links to - A new man on the mark rule - which takes you to the video I posted. So on the 18/3/2021 they are still linking to the video with incorrect information about the application of the rule. That's the eve of the season?

There is a video explanation in the link with an umpire explaining it as well. Which doesn't discuss any movement of the player on the mark. But contradicts Shocking. Are we to guess which one is correct as to how it will work? You don't think that's a little confusing?

As regards your personal affairs, not sure anyone on this site has ever asked you about your wealth, talents or contacts, they have been offered up voluntarily? Not sure why, but self congratulation is better than none.

steam of my *smile* - It's good to know in some regards you're just like us mere mortals!

I will say I have enjoyed more of the Dustin Martin moments that the stand rule has created.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

We have lifted off the bottom, and this off the back of the New CEO being a RFC supporter and rumours that Gale will head the football dept for the AFL, so all of them are shitting themselves now.

 

[Willo]

The problem is that the phrase in the rule states:

"hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand"​

How can that be interpreted to mean you chuck the ball with one hand while rubbing it along the other hand? In what way can that possibly be construed as hitting the ball?

The answer is that it can't, the words do not allow for such an interpretation.

If they want to allow throwing the ball be honest and change the definition of a handpass.

DS

I was being cynical.
There are plenty of “hard” rules that umpires “interpret“ differently to what we all see.

I remember back yonks ago, the hand holding the ball had to remain stationary when hit with a closed fist. Then it seemed to change to both hands could be in motion. I’m not sure whether the rule was actually changed or it just was allowed/interpreted differently.

But agreed, if the rule is clear, umpires should enforce it. But as we all know, that doesn’t happen. Players are adjudicated differently as are some clubs.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I will say I have enjoyed more of the Dustin Martin moments that the stand rule has created.

Prestia openly said in the podcast I listened to today how much he hated the stand rule. I would think our players are every bit as incensed by SHocking's unprecedented rule changes that benefitted Geelong as we are.

 

[Redford]

Prestia openly said in the podcast I listened to today how much he hated the stand rule. I would think our players are every bit as incensed by SHocking's unprecedented rule changes that benefitted Geelong as we are.

Meatball had a fair bit to say to the umpires behind the play on Saturday, can tell you.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Apart from that the rule has not changed. The current rule mentions hitting the ball with the clenched fist of the other hand, just like the 1966 rules state.

DS

Modern day artistic non violent interpretation of the rule would be pushing the ball with a clenched hand in a faux guiding gesture while throwing it in the required direction with the ball supporting hand.

 

[DavidSSS]

I remember back yonks ago, the hand holding the ball had to remain stationary when hit with a closed fist. Then it seemed to change to both hands could be in motion. I’m not sure whether the rule was actually changed or it just was allowed/interpreted differently.

But agreed, if the rule is clear, umpires should enforce it. But as we all know, that doesn’t happen. Players are adjudicated differently as are some clubs.

I keep having to burst this myth, there has never been mention of handpassing the ball with a stationary hand.

No idea how these things get any currency.

You're so right about the adjudication: any resemblance between adjudication of the rules of Australian Football as published by the AFL, and what the umpires actually decide, is purely coincidental.

DS