Anything goes off the ball, so long as it doesn't look bad

Thanks Bayman & The Cattery. First of all, nowhere have I said anything about endorsing illegal acts in RL upon the ball-carrier in play and/or after the tackle is completed. Of course I don't sanction those things, and nor do the laws. In regard to your other arguments about AFL, you are explaining and seeking to justify why AFL players lawfully & unlawfully play the man not the ball. I fully understand that in AFL-logic the prospect that the ball may come your way (which effectively means every player on the field all the time) means that to the AFL-mind you are playing at the ball not the man. But the reality is apart from those opponents where the ball is coming their way, the players all across the field are engaged in "playing the man not the ball" in terms of what that phrase literally intends to convey.

Bayman I've enjoyed your last few posts. I suspect that most Australian Football fans would agree with you and that any who have read this series of posts would be left scratching their heads. If you've played the game at senior level, you understand that it's all about winning the footy, and/or stopping your opponent from doing the same. That's the game. If you aren't winning your own footy, you ain't going to be playing for too long, and even specialist taggers are expected to win a bit of their own footy. To then hear from proponents of a game where you aren't even allowed to go and win the footy, make pronouncements about Australian Football being more about playing the man than the ball, is absolutely bewildering. If there are two expressions that sum up the philosophy of Australian football, they would be: 1. keep your eye on the ball; and 2. run straight at the ball. That anyone would try and argue otherwise cleary means they don't really know too much about the game.

Mitzter, Can we also assume, given the blow-ups between Hindmarsh and Ennis and Payne and Hayne, that "niggle" is alive and well in the rugby league code? I'd also suggest that AFL fans got annoyed with Sean not because of the "unmanly" expression but rather the uninformed content of his post. It would appear that he has tried to make an issue of something which, to an AFL fan, is perfectly normal, acceptable and legal. So he may be technically correct on the basic fact regarding off the ball contact but, really, so what - it's not an issue. The other point he is trying to make, that somehow this contact is unfair and against the spirit of the game, is simply wrong. That's why he has attracted a crowd, as it were.

Sean, I think I see the problem. You say,.. "if you are carrying/holding the ball in the rugby codes or AFL it is a licence for others to try to use their hands and body to stop/hinder you, if you aren’t carrying the ball, then you are not permitted to be touched by an opponent". In fact, you are wrong. Off the ball blocking, shepherding, bumping, call it what you will is allowed in AFL and actively encouraged. This invariably requires physical intervention with an opponent and often heavy physical intervention. A player may be "cleaned up" while attempting to gain possession but without actually gaining possession. All perfectly legal and by the legal AFL definition "NOT playing the man". The problem has been your tone, or perhaps your pedantic view of your theory of fair play. Or maybe just your pedantic view of off the ball contact and what it means. So let's agree that contact may be made, in AFL, with those who do not have possession of the ball. You seem surprised by this, even slightly outraged. The AFL fans, on the other hand, simply don't know what your problem is since, for them, this is all perfectly legal and normal. Your inference of "playing the man, not the ball" suggests some skullduggery on the part of AFL players which is contrary to all things legal, equal and fair. The actual rules of AFL, however, leave open the possibility that "off ball" contact can and will be made. AFL fans don't consider such contact unfair, unmanly, unsightly or un anything else. It's normal. Perhaps this is why you have generated the general response which is, in a nutshell, "What the hell are you talking about you uninformed idiot". Not my words, Sean, I'm paraphrasing their comments and just trying to get the idea across. But you do see, don't you? You have taken something which may be against the spirit of the rugby codes and assumed the same for AFL - but you're wrong. You have also assumed, for the purposes of your definition, that all tackles made in the rugby codes are "fair" when clearly, as the Payne/Hayne tackle shows, you're wrong again. Payne was playing Hayne, not the ball.

Brendan, Favourable is one thing, informed another thing altogether.

Sheek, To be honest, I'm not sure we can include Sean among those who have left the dark of ignorance........

Sean, First let me say that having read all of your comments which have been considered unsuitable for adults, and therefore hidden, I'm buggered if I know why. They don't seem to me to be particularly nasty or a danger to small children. However, I fear your definition of "playing the man, not the ball" is extremely narrow and perhaps, uninformed. At the very least, pedantic in the extreme. Fake ex-AFL fan has described a perfectly reasonable scenario. To suggest a defender, for example, is playing the man by simply sticking close to his opponent and making body contact suggests a basic lack of understanding of the requirements of the game. That defender cannot hold the opponent, his body or his jumper, without risking a penalty against himself. He can, however, use his body against that opponent to make position or to block his opponent from making position. He is not required to give ground to his opponent and is allowed to hold his position. He is not allowed to push the opponent in the back but can push in the side as long as the ball is within five metres. He can back into the opponent and shift him from the fall of the ball as long as the ball is within five metres. In many cases both players are trying to achieve the same thing so it's difficult to tell who's doing what to whom. But the ultimate object is still the ball. In rugby league, for instance, we saw the case this weekend of a Canterbury player applying a high "tackle" to the head of Jarryd Hayne. Hayne was already tackled and was on the ground, going nowhere. By your definition he had the ball therefore Corey Payne was actually playing the ball when he deliberately swung his arm into Hayne's head. My view, however, was that Payne was simply being the typical "third man in" gutless freak who deliberately took the opportunity to inflict damage on a man who wasn't looking and wasn't going anywhere. The phrase "playing the man" comes to mind.

Sean, I'm sure others will have mentioned it by now but........the essential difference between AFL and the rugby codes is the positioning and the fact that AFL has no offside. Consequently, no rugby player will be anywhere near an opposition player - theoretically - until he has the ball or his opponent has the ball. The teams are kept apart, basically, until the tackle is made or the ball is in dispute. AFL players, though, are allowed to get in amongst the opposition at any time, that is to say, in the opposition's defensive area regardless of where the ball may be at the time. The idea, though, that they stand around "niggling" each other, pushing, shoving, hitting, punching, elbowing is quite wrong and the idea that AFL players spend most of their time playing the man is even more wrong. Basically, they don't have time for such self indulgence and in these days of TV coverage they don't have the inclination. They don't get thanked for getting suspended. Of course, you and I may differ in our interpretation of "niggle" or contact. Somebody brushing past is not, in my opinion, "niggle". In today's game, especially today's game, most players are running into space not their opponents. Like most football codes there are really only three scenarios; we've got it, they've got it, nobody's got it and it's in dispute. When we've got it most coaches will kill any player who gives away a free to an opponent and causes the ball to be handed over. So at least a third of the time unnecessary and illegal contact with the opposition is frowned upon by the coaches and seen as dumb. When they've got it the player is expected to provide a contest to any future potential possession by the opposition to effect a turnover. This will usually require a physical component to be employed and is expected by the coaching staff. Give away a stupid free (a la Campbell), however, and the coaching staff are suddenly not happy. So a third of the time a contest is expected but only by those in the vicinity of the ball. Anything else which risks an umpire's intervention is frowned upon. So most people are not making contact, most of the time. The third scenario is the potentially dangerous one. The cherry is in dispute and physical pressure is almost certain to be applied by both teams. When it's your turn, you've got to go. Things happen, guys get hurt. In rugby you know where the danger is coming from. In AFL the lack of an offside rule means the danger may come from anywhere. In a perfect world you will never see coming the hit that sends you to hospital. The real test, of course, is when you do. Again, though, it is a requirement asked only of those within the vicinity of the ball. The rest are too busy making position to receive the footy or chasing the guy making position or blocking opponents who are trying to get to the ball. Unless, of course, you're ball watching and get caught out of position and, again, the coach is not happy. In any case, only a relative few are in the action and making physical contact with the opposition at any point in time. The running and chasing is as much about sending a message that you are not giving up as it is about being close enough to take advantage of a mistake from the ball carrier. And, of course, under pressure players do make mistakes. You better be there when they do. Once an opponent sees a player stop chasing they know he's beaten and they'll happily let him know they know. As will his coach. And his teammates. To summarise Sean, your statement about an AFL player spending the bulk of his time playing the man and not the ball might be considered by some to be a sweeping generalisation. Others may just consider it to be bulls--t. Don't forget, also, Sean that although shepherding is considerd illegal in the rugby codes it is a time honoured tradition in Aussie Rules. Indeed, it is expected that a temamate will physically block an opponent from reaching the ball carrier. Perfectly legal and, as I said, expected regardless of the pain involved. Not playing the man though - it's in the rules and is an explicit requirement of the game. These days, of course, it is now illegal to block a man who has released the ball from making position to get it back again. Don't know why - bloody silly rule. In the good old days when men were men and women ate their young this guy was often cleaned up precisely to prevent him making such position. Ah, it was a simpler time back then but then as now, you cannot win if you don't get the footy. The ball is the object of the exercise.

Come off it Redb & Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner - you AFLrs pride youselves on the game's simplicity for newcomers to understand. It's been on tv in Sydney since the 1970s. There's no deep dark secret to understanding the game. The ball can't be in a dozen places at once, and yet there are opposing couples jostling with each other all over the field. The reason they are doing it doesn't change what it is - playing the man, not the ball.

Dont think that's going to happen Redb, but an extroadinary and just ridiculous call from someone who by his own admission, has seen JUST 2 games in 30 + years. 2 games, and yet he seems to write constantly about Australian football, what is with that ?.

and thats the difference in trying to understand the game, you've only been to 2 games. Get yourself on the boundary and you will be suprised at the attack on the ball.

That is the point i made, but according to the visiting "professor", the gangtacklers are really going for the ball and not the man !, even if they are not allowed to go for the ball, whilst 2 players setting themselves in Australian football, for the ball, which is in dispute, is going the man and not the ball. In using Fagans bizarre theory, sports such as soccer, basketball, hockey, and a whole host of other sports simply go the man and not the ball. Of course Fagan does not see this , but points out that only Australian football goes the man.

Went to a Collingwood-Swans game at ANZ in 2008 & one at SCG in mid 1980s. In simple terms Redb the difference is as simple as this - if you are carrying/holding the ball in the rugby codes or AFL it is a licence for others to try to use their hands and body to stop/hinder you, if you aren't carrying the ball, then you are not permitted to be touched by an opponent. If you do the former it is playing the ball, if it is the latter you are playing the man.

mitzer, "I am not as fond of afl or soccer because of the ‘marking’ aspect " This article was not about evaluating what is a good game and what is not? I can find plenty of things about rugby league that bores me to tears or the lack of contest for the ball ie: gifted possession. The niggle is a small part of the game. If you ever actually go to a game of Australian football and I challenge Fagan to do the same, you will see the courage required to attack the ball. However, if we go down this path it intrigues me the comment that in Australian football they dont play the ball but the man, yet in rugby league the opposing side which does not have the ball attacks the man in the tackle. If it is within the first 5 tackles the opposing player is ruled out from actually get the ball assuming his opponent hangs on to it. So you get 5 tackles in a row where the opponent does nothing more than attack the man. Most the time the game is 5 uncontested ball situations only attacks on the man. In Australian football it is a constant contest, if you have to win the ball.

Thanks mitzter.

He cannot, in any sort of good faith, answer the question honestly, it would be at odds with his deluded beliefs.

Yes you did sean, I noticed it and I'm not sure why somebody else posted the same comment but anyway your wasting your time trying to argue with these people Sean. They just saw 'unmanly' and got on their big code war high horse. I understand what you are trying to say. I am not as fond of afl or soccer because of the 'marking' aspect where you spend the whole game competing against one man, and prefer the team vs team of the rugby codes. I also understand that you are not saying that what Brown did was condoned by the afl but that the game encourages 'niggling' your opponent (even agreed to by many on this forum) as a way to win. Quite different to roughness trying to get the ball.

I did amazonfan. My post starts off I appreciate Fake ex-AFL fan you making an attempt at a reasoned explanation.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Sean, Fake ex-AFL fan’s post has been posted twice, and you are yet to respond to it. If your intentions are genuine, perhaps you could respond to it.

Do you follow me on twitter Redb? Cool.