New rule?

[boydogs]

Re: New rule?

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]

Re: New rule?

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]

Re: New rule?

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]

Re: New rule?

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]

Re: New rule?

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]

Re: New rule?

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.

[Missing-Dog]

Re: New rule?

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]

Re: New rule?

Dingo got the wrong Chamberlain I reckon.

I'm chuckling, guiltily.