Backward over the head handball

[Enrico_Misso]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

[6621104]

If Stevie J does it, play on!

[noddy04]

We got pinged, G Ablett never....just sayin

[plugger66]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

Nothing wrong with doing it. Never been a rule against it. That decision against us looked wrong but maybe the umpire thought he didnt hit it.

[SaintJohn1956]

Once upon a time the hand holding the ball had to be stationary - the over the head was always a throw. This is one of the blights on the modern game (In my opinion) there are som many "handballs" that a few years would have been called a throw; it has almost got to the point that unless it is really blatant throws are allowed. Having said that - I too was mystified as to why (was it Dunstan?) was penalised on Sunday. Maybe the "punch" didn't actually conmect - but I'm not sure.

[Life Long Saint]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

Nothing wrong with doing it. Never been a rule against it. That decision against us looked wrong but maybe the umpire thought he didnt hit it.

I hate it when the umps guess...They should only pay what they see. The player (Dunstan, I think) clearly had a clenched fist and that is what propelled the ball. Just one of many inconsistently applied rules from Sunday.

[plugger66]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

Nothing wrong with doing it. Never been a rule against it. That decision against us looked wrong but maybe the umpire thought he didnt hit it.

I hate it when the umps guess...They should only pay what they see. The player (Dunstan, I think) clearly had a clenched fist and that is what propelled the ball. Just one of many inconsistently applied rules from Sunday.

The thing is the umpire wouldnt think he is guessing. how many times do we go to games and swear the decision is wrong and then watch it later on TV and see its right. The same would apply to umpires. its just an error if it was wrong. What i have noticed is the umpiring has got worse as our club has got worse.

[Dis Believer]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

Nothing wrong with doing it. Never been a rule against it. That decision against us looked wrong but maybe the umpire thought he didnt hit it.

I hate it when the umps guess...They should only pay what they see. The player (Dunstan, I think) clearly had a clenched fist and that is what propelled the ball. Just one of many inconsistently applied rules from Sunday.

The thing is the umpire wouldnt think he is guessing. how many times do we go to games and swear the decision is wrong and then watch it later on TV and see its right. The same would apply to umpires. its just an error if it was wrong. What i have noticed is the umpiring has got worse as our club has got worse.

To state the obvious, that's because a bad team gives the umpires more chances to make a mistake...!! But you already knew that , you still umpiring this year?

[lloyd21]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

Nothing wrong with doing it. Never been a rule against it. That decision against us looked wrong but maybe the umpire thought he didnt hit it.

I hate it when the umps guess...They should only pay what they see. The player (Dunstan, I think) clearly had a clenched fist and that is what propelled the ball. Just one of many inconsistently applied rules from Sunday.

The thing is the umpire wouldnt think he is guessing. how many times do we go to games and swear the decision is wrong and then watch it later on TV and see its right. The same would apply to umpires. its just an error if it was wrong. What i have noticed is the umpiring has got worse as our club has got worse.

Hate to disagree but Umpire 25 clearly has an agenda : Quietly and calmly look at many decisions not blaming umpires for loss 2 examples of many

Billings continually was hit out of marking contests a number times he saw it . Ablett free everytime contact made
Riewoldt ala Gary Rohan sliding into legs( several thousand saw it ) ( no free ) you could go on about it

[CURLY]

Have to lloyd21. So many times that litte cheat chose to ignore clear infringments committed by GC players. Like Ablett just pushing blokes in the back if they lead him to the ball or he is allowed to tackle before they get the ball.

The worst free of the night was Riewoldt with arms outstretched for a mark makes slight contact high and is penalised. Minutes later the GC forward smashed Webster to with in a inch of his life play on.

[plugger66]

In the old days it would always be pinged as a throw.

But in recent years it seems to be tolerated.

Yesterday there were 4 instances that I noted; three were play-on nothing to see here.
The other was a free kick against us for a throw.

Can anyone explain the rule please?

Nothing wrong with doing it. Never been a rule against it. That decision against us looked wrong but maybe the umpire thought he didnt hit it.

I hate it when the umps guess...They should only pay what they see. The player (Dunstan, I think) clearly had a clenched fist and that is what propelled the ball. Just one of many inconsistently applied rules from Sunday.

The thing is the umpire wouldnt think he is guessing. how many times do we go to games and swear the decision is wrong and then watch it later on TV and see its right. The same would apply to umpires. its just an error if it was wrong. What i have noticed is the umpiring has got worse as our club has got worse.

To state the obvious, that's because a bad team gives the umpires more chances to make a mistake...!! But you already knew that , you still umpiring this year?

Did my first game this year on saturday. Good first up from a spell. Think it is also my last game for the year as SS mate Finey is doing the rest.

[Dis Believer]

Didn't you guys split them 50/50 last year?

[plugger66]

Didn't you guys split them 50/50 last year?

Yep its a long story but in C grade you cant umpire your own seconds side so you supposed to do another side. i cant do that because I am assistant coach on match day. They dont count Finey as an Ormond person for some strange reason so he able to do it. i was allowed to umpire this week because they were short. Rules apply only when they need to apply.

[borderbarry]

Did anyone else note the large Suns player, who when Acres injured himself and was on the ground leant over and punched the youngster to the body? Of course no umpire or media person saw it.

[elizabethr]

Clearly a throw.

[elizabethr]

Clearly a throw.

[elizabethr]

Clearly a throw.

[elizabethr]

Clearly a throw.

[elizabethr]

Clearly a throw.

[elizabethr]

Clearly a throw.

[Dis Believer]

Clearly a throw.

You are apparently very strident in your opinion !!

Oddly, one of the other posters has had the same issue as you with a post being replicated multiple times. Perhaps you both need a new IT consultant??

[kosifantutti]

Clearly a throw.

You are apparently very strident in your opinion !!

Oddly, one of the other posters has had the same issue as you with a post being replicated multiple times. Perhaps you both need a new IT consultant??

It's like Darryl Hair was miked up for a Murali over.

[elizabethr]

Whoops!

[elizabethr]

Whoops!

[perfectionist]

I explained this in another thread. There are always two components to the correct awarding of a free kick. The first is the actual law and the second is the interpretation. Laws rarely change, but interpretations vary much more frequently.

The law about handball has changed over the years. Back when I started watching footy, the law stated that handball was ," Clearly holding the ball with one hand and hitting it with the other." This, at the time, gave rise to the flick pass through Teddy Whitten at Footscray and Len Smith at Fitzroy. Just why it took so long for someone to test this law this way is a bit of a mystery. However, it was outlawed by adding "the clenched fist of" before "the other".

However, the interpretation of this rule, for more than 30 years was that the hand holding the ball could not substantially direct the ball. This varied in strictness over this time from the hand not moving at all, to a minor movement. This changed when Adelaide entered the competition. The Crow" throw" came under the spotlight. Soon, everyone was doing it. Now the hand holding the ball could move all over the place, well almost. The one place it couldn't move was up and over, as it was believed that it was impossible to do legally. Ultra slow motion replays proved otherwise, especially for players who could hold the ball from the top (you usually need big hands).

About four years ago (might be more), the AFL "clarified" this interpretation. As long as the ball is on the hand when it is hit with the clenched fist of the other, even as you direct it over your head, then it is legal. However, if the ball moves off the hand first and is then hit with the clenched fist, then it is deemed a throw, for "incorrect disposal". And as usual, there is a fair amount of dispute in the adjudication of that interpretation, especially from 100 metres away.