Rushed behind rule

[Iron Fist]

Hi guys
Does anyone know the ruling on this? I know in the AFL they cant rush a point unless under pressure or something along those lines.
How does that rule progress down to the SAAFL?
EG. If a player was in a contest and ball came to ground, approx 5-6 players around the ball, he soccers it off the ground through the goals to concede a point, does the point stand? is it a ball up? Does the opposition get a free kick from where he kicked it? Does the opposition get a free kick on the goal line?

[Footy Chick]

Bah!

When we played Plympton a couple of weeks ago, one of their blokes grabbed the ball with 2 hands and fully tossed it over his head though the goals (kinda like in rugby union scrums), right in front of the umpire and nothing was paid except the rushed point.

The moral of this story is, it depends on the umpire

[Cohiba]

Bah!

When we played Plympton a couple of weeks ago, one of their blokes grabbed the ball with 2 hands and fully tossed it over his head though the goals (kinda like in rugby union scrums), right in front of the umpire and nothing was paid except the rushed point.

The moral of this story is, it depends on the umpire

Ain't it the truth irrespective of whichever rule it is.

[retired60]

SAAFL doesnt have the rushed AFL rule. Basically you can do anything you want.

[Grahaml]

As far as I can tell, the SAAFL has no rule overriding the Laws as determined by the AFL, which reads:

15.7.1

A fee 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.

Interesting to note there appears to be no "under pressure" out clause as always seems to be brought up when this rule gets discussed.

[HH3]

Pretty sure we are covered by all AFL rules as of this season. Thats why we had to re-register with our clubs under the AFL banner.

In our B grade game against Kenilworth on the weekend, I saw the sliding in rule and the meter apart rule for ruckmen implemented for the first time.

Didnt see the rush behind rule because we spread and rebound with precision in the Bs

[BenchedEagle]

Same goes with The 1 metre apart in the ruck new rule..

Ive noticed in Reserve and some C grades some umpires do enforce it and some do not. Majority are actually enforcing it, albeit lightly

Whats the official rule this year across the SAAFL?

[Grahaml]

The 1 metre rule and sliding in rule are both definitely meant to be implemented across the board.

[finn]

To paraphrase Paul Montesi the umpire's coach, the sliding rule is not to be paid by club umpires as they do not have the training necessary to properly judge it. I'm unsure about the one metre rule but he answered my query in a day or so I'd suggest just toss him an e-mail.

[Grahaml]

To paraphrase Paul Montesi the umpire's coach, the sliding rule is not to be paid by club umpires as they do not have the training necessary to properly judge it. I'm unsure about the one metre rule but he answered my query in a day or so I'd suggest just toss him an e-mail.

That information is the complete opposite of correspondence sent out by the league to all clubs on behalf of Paul Montesi after round 1 stating that these rulse are indeed to be implemented by club umpires.

"Attention all clubs. Could you please notify all coaches and club umpires of the following from the SAAFL umpires Coach Paul Montesi.

There are 2 changes to existing laws we will be implementing this year in line with the AFL laws of the game 2013

1. FORCEFUL CONTACT BELOW THE KNEES

2. SEPERATION OF RUCKS"

[SUNS]

The 1 metre rule and sliding in rule are both definitely meant to be implemented across the board.

Would like to see the sliding in rule administered a lot better from umpires. Been 2 incidences so far this season resulting in injuries to knees and missing games through players sliding in and taking a players legs out from under him. Dont mind players genuinely attacking the ball but when its a blatant slide in to take a players legs out then it needs to be umpired much better.

[lutz]

To paraphrase Paul Montesi the umpire's coach, the sliding rule is not to be paid by club umpires as they do not have the training necessary to properly judge it. I'm unsure about the one metre rule but he answered my query in a day or so I'd suggest just toss him an e-mail.

That information is the complete opposite of correspondence sent out by the league to all clubs on behalf of Paul Montesi after round 1 stating that these rulse are indeed to be implemented by club umpires.

"Attention all clubs. Could you please notify all coaches and club umpires of the following from the SAAFL umpires Coach Paul Montesi.

There are 2 changes to existing laws we will be implementing this year in line with the AFL laws of the game 2013

1. FORCEFUL CONTACT BELOW THE KNEES

2. SEPERATION OF RUCKS"

What's the reasoning for the 'seperation of rucks' rule? Not sure I'm a fan of it.

[Grahaml]

Mostly to stop some of the crazy wrestling that ruckmen were doing I think. Nothing wrong with a bit of push and shove, but it was getting to the point the rucks were so tangled that neither was able to actually aim a half decent tap.

[BenchedEagle]

The ruck seperation is a good rule and is easy to umpire. Frees up the ruck contest and does help the more athletic ruckmen, not just the big lazy units

[lutz]

Mostly to stop some of the crazy wrestling that ruckmen were doing I think. Nothing wrong with a bit of push and shove, but it was getting to the point the rucks were so tangled that neither was able to actually aim a half decent tap.

The ruck seperation is a good rule and is easy to umpire. Frees up the ruck contest and does help the more athletic ruckmen, not just the big lazy units

I can see where both of you are coming from, but respectfully have to disagree, from my point of view anyway. I play in the ruck and am usually outweighed my opponent, but actually think the new rule disadvantages a player like me, because now i don't get the opportunity to get into the position I want and hold my ground... What happens now is the bigger bodied ruckman can just bump the samller ruckman out of the way as they are both on the move at the same time and the bigger guy usually win out.
I was up against some quite big guys last week which probably exacerbates the problem I face. I myself prefer the old rule, but will have to adapt.

[Cash 123]

Mostly to stop some of the crazy wrestling that ruckmen were doing I think. Nothing wrong with a bit of push and shove, but it was getting to the point the rucks were so tangled that neither was able to actually aim a half decent tap.

The ruck seperation is a good rule and is easy to umpire. Frees up the ruck contest and does help the more athletic ruckmen, not just the big lazy units

I can see where both of you are coming from, but respectfully have to disagree, from my point of view anyway. I play in the ruck and am usually outweighed my opponent, but actually think the new rule disadvantages a player like me, because now i don't get the opportunity to get into the position I want and hold my ground... What happens now is the bigger bodied ruckman can just bump the samller ruckman out of the way as they are both on the move at the same time and the bigger guy usually win out.
I was up against some quite big guys last week which probably exacerbates the problem I face. I myself prefer the old rule, but will have to adapt.

Not from what I have seen Lutz

Say the ruckman are closer together than the supposed 1m apart, how do you decide who gets the free if they are both just standing there

[HH3]

Say the ruckman are closer together than the supposed 1m apart, how do you decide who gets the free if they are both just standing there

Pretty sure the last player to move gets the free paid against him. Thats what was called on Saturday by a club umpire anyway. Our ruckman was standing still, and their guy ran in to get to the throw in but didnt pull up fast enough and went over the 1m.

[The Big T]

Have seen some interesting decisions by umpires regarding the sliding in rule so far this season (not club umpires) player dives or slides in head first at feet of a standing player and given free for head high contact saw that at least 4 times given on weekend on at least one occasion the diving player sent the standing player over the top of him..... result free kick given against the standing player.

Always thought if the player diving in initiated contact that wasnt a free kick.

[BenchedEagle]

Say the ruckman are closer together than the supposed 1m apart, how do you decide who gets the free if they are both just standing there

Pretty sure the last player to move gets the free paid against him. Thats what was called on Saturday by a club umpire anyway. Our ruckman was standing still, and their guy ran in to get to the throw in but didnt pull up fast enough and went over the 1m.

I think the common sense approach to club umpiring it is to only pay a free kick if one of them move and makes contact with the other ruckman, treat the 1m as just a guide.

[SUNS]

Have seen some interesting decisions by umpires regarding the sliding in rule so far this season (not club umpires) player dives or slides in head first at feet of a standing player and given free for head high contact saw that at least 4 times given on weekend on at least one occasion the diving player sent the standing player over the top of him..... result free kick given against the standing player.

Always thought if the player diving in initiated contact that wasnt a free kick.

Ive seen 2 incidences where the player sliding in has taken the legs out from the standing player sending him ass up and resulting in knee injuries, the sliding in player got the free kick both times YET he didnt even get close to touching the ball. This is where it should be an obvious free kick to the player having his legs taken out from underneath him as its basically a trip.