My revolutionary proposal sent to the AFL.

[Booney]

To Whom It May Concern:

During the last several weeks of the minor round,and now into the first round of this year’s finals series I have been considering a manner in which the rules committe
could improve our already great game.

One of the points that seems to be a reoccurring one is the manner in which players are tackled while in possession of the ball.

As such,I propose from 2007 onwards the following rule be introduced to the game,and the umpires interpret it as such.

: If the player in possession of the ball is driven forward in the tackle,it is to be deemed a push in the back,and the player in possession be awarded a free kick.
: The player in possession of the ball,even having had prior opportunity (one of your greatest ever introductions to the game,and umpires thinking) is to be considered to have been “pushed in the back” before he is deemed to be holding the ball.


If you any further enquiries into this ruling,and the way it should be policed,please feel free to contact me and we can discuss this proposed ruling.

If any current umpires would like some clarification on this rule,feel free to contact me.



I have sent this to AFLHQ.

[mighty_tiger_79]

no disrespect intended but it would have gone straight in the bin, if its not there idea they dont want to know about it

[Blue Boy]

To Whom It May Concern:

During the last several weeks of the minor round,and now into the first round of this year’s finals series I have been considering a manner in which the rules committe
could improve our already great game.

One of the points that seems to be a reoccurring one is the manner in which players are tackled while in possession of the ball.

As such,I propose from 2007 onwards the following rule be introduced to the game,and the umpires interpret it as such.

: If the player in possession of the ball is driven forward in the tackle,it is to be deemed a push in the back,and the player in possession be awarded a free kick.
: The player in possession of the ball,even having had prior opportunity (one of your greatest ever introductions to the game,and umpires thinking) is to be considered to have been “pushed in the back” before he is deemed to be holding the ball.


If you any further enquiries into this ruling,and the way it should be policed,please feel free to contact me and we can discuss this proposed ruling.

If any current umpires would like some clarification on this rule,feel free to contact me.



I have sent this to AFLHQ.

Nice - ala Hentschell should of got a free kick when he did his knee!!!.

Couldnt take it but they are the frees that are continually missed !!!

[PhilG]

..

[am Bays]

: If the player in possession of the ball is driven forward in the tackle,it is to be deemed a push in the back,and the player in possession be awarded a free kick.
: The player in possession of the ball,even having had prior opportunity (one of your greatest ever introductions to the game,and umpires thinking) is to be considered to have been “pushed in the back” before he is deemed to be holding the ball.

Booney, that is the current interpretation, certainly the way I umpire, If a player is tackled he must be tackled correctly i.e. if he is propelled forward in any way it should be a push in the back. Always a hard one to pay particularly in front of a teams crowd who's player has chased hard to tackle a bloke who has had prior opportunity but in the tackling players enthusiasm has propelled him forward into the turf. Still play push in teh back if the ball is "dropped' in the tackle...

A rough guide should be who's torso touches the ground first. If he is tackled correctly ie pulled down like Henschell was (IMHO) or to the side the tacklers body should touch the ground first or simultaneously with the player in possession. If the player in possession torso makes contact with the ground first (i.e. he has been propelled forward it should be a push in teh back) - common occurence when he is tackled from behind.

I'm not sure of you second rule as I comprehend it because if you get players getting paid an in the back everytime they take on a tackler you will just get players running at tacklers milking free kicks a la rugby League.

Maybe my comprehension of your second rule is flawed, because I am an umpire, a Crows supporter or both...

[sydney-dog]

my issue is when the tackling player tackles the player with the ball from behind, hands not in the back but the tackle is wraped around the player but the player with the footy propels himself forward and the tackling player naturally follows with the momentum, for me this is play on, too easy for players to milk free's and stage dives, and we see it way too often, the ruling is very inconsistent

Two minutes prior to Hentchel's injury, Ebert takes a swan dive with less force and he won a free

It needs to be cleaned up

[heater31]

Im afraid this could never be fully erased from the game like diving in the penalty box. Its here to stay and all we can ask for is consistency on any given day to be applied.

[mal]

BOONEY i agree with you, so does HENTSCHELL.
I will sign your petition.

[Booney]

: If the player in possession of the ball is driven forward in the tackle,it is to be deemed a push in the back,and the player in possession be awarded a free kick.
: The player in possession of the ball,even having had prior opportunity (one of your greatest ever introductions to the game,and umpires thinking) is to be considered to have been “pushed in the back” before he is deemed to be holding the ball.

Booney, that is the current interpretation, certainly the way I umpire, If a player is tackled he must be tackled correctly i.e. if he is propelled forward in any way it should be a push in the back. Always a hard one to pay particularly in front of a teams crowd who's player has chased hard to tackle a bloke who has had prior opportunity but in the tackling players enthusiasm has propelled him forward into the turf. Still play push in teh back if the ball is "dropped' in the tackle...

A rough guide should be who's torso touches the ground first. If he is tackled correctly ie pulled down like Henschell was (IMHO) or to the side the tacklers body should touch the ground first or simultaneously with the player in possession. If the player in possession torso makes contact with the ground first (i.e. he has been propelled forward it should be a push in teh back) - common occurence when he is tackled from behind.

I'm not sure of you second rule as I comprehend it because if you get players getting paid an in the back everytime they take on a tackler you will just get players running at tacklers milking free kicks a la rugby League.

Maybe my comprehension of your second rule is flawed, because I am an umpire, a Crows supporter or both...

My second point Tassie is basically a footnote,or extension of rule 1,not another rule,as such.That is where my main problem with this lie's,umpires tend to see "ball" before they see "the -back!",it is in the back first,ball second.(If the tackle is executed correctly)

[am Bays]

Funny how many players don't really like it when they tackle a bloke and propel him foward despite the bloke having "prior opportunity" and you pay in the back....

Ah well the problem with us umpires is we just don't care who wins.....