I thought the intention of the 8th edition was to remove interpretation. Where in the rule does it say "with a positive intent to make a touch"? It only says "at a reasonable pace until a touch is imminent or made". There is no requirement in the rule that a player make a touch, however universally referees are being told to instruct players to "move forward and make a touch"???
If the ball is played within the 7m zone , and the defending player has retreated to the line , when can they advance? Can the advance once ball is rolled ?
At what point is a defender allowed to retreat if no touch is "made or imminent"? The rule effectively says all defenders would have to keep "moving forward" (ruling out cover defence) where an attacker has sidestepped past any one of them. I understand (and agree with) the intent of the rule, but it is really unworkable as it is written and I can't see any referee ruling that way without risking a Tuesday night shouting match. Even the play in the video examples didn't follow the rule as it's written. My suggestion would be that it's far easier and more reasonable to say the defender must "move towards any attacking player" rather than "forward"- this means defenders would be forced to come "forward" if the attackers retreat, but they would be free to stick to their opposite number regardless of what happens in the play, and provide cover defence when necessary (as footy should be played). I think this problem has existed for a while before the 8th edition rules, and I am really hoping it will be clarified eventually.
Two questions. Does this only apply to the mids? In the "positive" clips, the wings and links were not really moving at all, or retreating early. Secondly, what if the player with the ball runs past a defensive player? Is that defender allowed to chase them backwards? There is also still a very big difference in the interpretation of "imminent touch" around the world.
I understand the intention of the rule, but it seems like "over ruling" the game and defence strategy.. for more older and amateur players imposible to maintain physically speaking..saludos..
I thought the intention of the 8th edition was to remove interpretation.
Where in the rule does it say "with a positive intent to make a touch"? It only says "at a reasonable pace until a touch is imminent or made". There is no requirement in the rule that a player make a touch, however universally referees are being told to instruct players to "move forward and make a touch"???
If the ball is played within the 7m zone , and the defending player has retreated to the line , when can they advance? Can the advance once ball is rolled ?
At what point is a defender allowed to retreat if no touch is "made or imminent"? The rule effectively says all defenders would have to keep "moving forward" (ruling out cover defence) where an attacker has sidestepped past any one of them. I understand (and agree with) the intent of the rule, but it is really unworkable as it is written and I can't see any referee ruling that way without risking a Tuesday night shouting match. Even the play in the video examples didn't follow the rule as it's written. My suggestion would be that it's far easier and more reasonable to say the defender must "move towards any attacking player" rather than "forward"- this means defenders would be forced to come "forward" if the attackers retreat, but they would be free to stick to their opposite number regardless of what happens in the play, and provide cover defence when necessary (as footy should be played). I think this problem has existed for a while before the 8th edition rules, and I am really hoping it will be clarified eventually.
Two questions. Does this only apply to the mids? In the "positive" clips, the wings and links were not really moving at all, or retreating early. Secondly, what if the player with the ball runs past a defensive player? Is that defender allowed to chase them backwards? There is also still a very big difference in the interpretation of "imminent touch" around the world.
What if the player with the ball runs past a defensive player? Is that defender allowed to chase them backwards?
I understand the intention of the rule, but it seems like "over ruling" the game and defence strategy.. for more older and amateur players imposible to maintain physically speaking..saludos..