Holding the ball / prior opportunity / incorrect disposal

[mrtwister 650]

Stinger's first goal - throw

Stringer's first goal of the last quarter - dropped ball

Dickson's free kick at the start of the 4th = Stretch's non free kick not long after

Libba is an annoying little [censored] [censored] just like his old man.

[drdrake 3,037]

The unwritten law knocked out in a tackle.  I have been banging on about this for years, I call it the Sam Mitchell drop.  Hawthorn are masters at this and the Bulldogs have learnt the same, get tackled and drop it to your teams advantage.  Watch the Bulldogs they had release players at the back of every contest, they drop it to the back, Hawthorn do the exact same thing.

It should be you get tackled you need to dispose correctly.

The other thing we get tackled and we try to release hang on to it 95% it will be a ball up.  We release and it opens us up

[Webber 9,987]

To be fair, the holding the ball/disposal issue is one that has been the big flaw in our game since it was conceived. It is impossible to adjudicate with complete adherence to the law every time. There's too much interpretation involved. It will always be frustrating. What would be nice however is consistency at least between the umpires on the ground, and ideally from week to week, something which is woefully absent. 

As for the deliberate out of bounds rule, I was glad to see it abandoned yesterday, except for the double palmed 10 metre shovel across the line yesterday by a dogs player that would have been a free kick paid against any other year since 1858. 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

5 minutes ago, Webber said:

To be fair, the holding the ball/disposal issue is one that has been the big flaw in our game since it was conceived. It is impossible to adjudicate with complete adherence to the law every time. There's too much interpretation involved. It will always be frustrating. What would be nice however is consistency at least between the umpires on the ground, and ideally from week to week, something which is woefully absent. 

As for the deliberate out of bounds rule, I was glad to see it abandoned yesterday, except for the double palmed 10 metre shovel across the line yesterday by a dogs player that would have been a free kick paid against any other year since 1858. 

Good post.

[nutbean 8,837]

11 minutes ago, Webber said:

What would be nice however is consistency at least between the umpires on the ground, and ideally from week to week, something which is woefully absent. 

 

I was about to post on this  exact problem. The old one umpire game never had the problem and there was consistency as one umpire could be as harsh or lenient in his interpretation as he wished. The minute we went from 1 umpire to 2 umpires the problems start and were exacerbated with 3 umpires.

We have an expectation of consistency not only with 3 umpires on the one ground reading the game differently but then you have 9 games a week - so we want consistency from 27 field umpires. good luck with that.

[Akum 2,660]

58 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I didn't see the game yesterday so can't use specific examples. But I think the umps mentally distinguish the prior opportunities further and it leads to inconsistencies. Get caught unawares of take evasive action more than once in a pack and you are pretty much given NO time to dispose correctly. Attempt to force your way in a straight line through a pack and no prior is determined and it doesn't seem to matter how long it takes to spill out, if or how it does, or how much effort is genuinely made. This last interpretation encourages the head-down burrowing.

I guess what annoys me about this rule is that more frees seem to be gained by either gaming the umpire or appealing to the umpire as are paid on merit.

And teams that play to the umpires in this are the ones who are doing well by it. It seems that umpires are instructed to pay only what they can be certain about. So it all comes down to being able to create (false) uncertainty that you've infringed (e.g. by "disguising" a throw) or to creating (false) certainty that you've been infringed against (e.g. by ducking & diving & throwing your head back). These are much more reliable ways of getting frees than actually earning one.

So I disagree about the "too much interpretation" theme - I think it's getting very predictable what you can get away with & what you can't, providing your acting skills are top-notch. The aim isn't to get a "fair" decision; it's much easier and more reliable to get an unfair decision by gaming the umpire.

North, Geelong, Dogs doing very well out of it indeed.

[Skuit 9,124]

47 minutes ago, Akum said:

So I disagree about the "too much interpretation" theme - I think it's getting very predictable what you can get away with & what you can't, providing your acting skills are top-notch. The aim isn't to get a "fair" decision; it's much easier and more reliable to get an unfair decision by gaming the umpire.

North, Geelong, Dogs doing very well out of it indeed.

This. Until it changes we need to coach our players how to do the same rather than complain about it. Same teams, same tactics, every year.

[monoccular 16,041]

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

I have come to the conclusion the umpires decide year on year which rules to enforce.  at the moment, incorrect disposal and throwing (unless blatently obvious) are not being paid as this lets the game move

really frustrating the changes to the game are being driven by umpires

 

1 hour ago, Melbournepotter said:

I would say week on week they decide which free kicks to pay.  This week....virtually no deliberate out of bounds and also, seemed to change how holding the ball is interpreted. 

And I would disagree with both of you - it seems to be a minute to minute decision, or even second by second

1 hour ago, Webber said:

...

As for the deliberate out of bounds rule, I was glad to see it abandoned yesterday, except for the double palmed 10 metre shovel across the line yesterday by a dogs player that would have been a free kick paid against any other year since 1858. 

If you are referring to the one in ?Q4 in front of the MCC I saw it as a throw deliberate OOB - neither of which were paid

[Call Me What You Will 693]

Slight digression here, but did anyone notice that one of the boundary umpires yesterday was consistently throwing the ball in short. I am sure it was the same fellow who we had at Etihad against St Kilda, which from memory, lead to a couple of St Kilda goals.

My biggest beef with the protected species is that are beyond accountability. AFL may give lip service to a couple of high profile errors, but the same fellows will be running around week in week out! Maybe different combinations, but still running around.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

7 minutes ago, Call Me What You Will said:

Slight digression here, but did anyone notice that one of the boundary umpires yesterday was consistently throwing the ball in short. I am sure it was the same fellow who we had at Etihad against St Kilda, which from memory, lead to a couple of St Kilda goals.

My biggest beef with the protected species is that are beyond accountability. AFL may give lip service to a couple of high profile errors, but the same fellows will be running around week in week out! Maybe different combinations, but still running around.

I noticed this too. One where it dropped well short and Gawn gave away free trying to make up the ground.

As you said, there was one against the Saints where it dropped short, neither ruckman got to it, and Acres (I think) just grabbed it and slotted it through.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

On 16/05/2016 at 0:08 PM, nutbean said:

I was about to post on this  exact problem. The old one umpire game never had the problem and there was consistency as one umpire could be as harsh or lenient in his interpretation as he wished. The minute we went from 1 umpire to 2 umpires the problems start and were exacerbated with 3 umpires.

We have an expectation of consistency not only with 3 umpires on the one ground reading the game differently but then you have 9 games a week - so we want consistency from 27 field umpires. good luck with that.

And apparently they aren't even professionals. They have real jobs and this is a side gig.

Umpiring needs to be 100% professional, with a big talent pool so they can be dropped when they stuff up.

[Lord Travis 10,157]

The Doggies players are coached to drop their shoulder or knees, and they milk it to perfection.

Lachie Hunter must play with a hung knee, as the second he touches the ball and drops a knee and raises his shoulder. He's the softest player I've ever seen take an AFL field. If they change the rules or interpret them correctly, he'd have 20 less touches a game and not be paid 4-5 free kicks. At one stage a week or two back he had more free kicks in a quarter than the whole opposition team!

[nutbean 8,837]

27 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

The Doggies players are coached to drop their shoulder or knees, 

 

Can I ask you if you know this for certain or are purely speculating as I would be shocked if they were actually coached to do this. It is just not in the spirit of the game and couldn't imagine a coach actually coaching this technique.

[Lord Travis 10,157]

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

Can I ask you if you know this for certain or are purely speculating as I would be shocked if they were actually coached to do this. It is just not in the spirit of the game and couldn't imagine a coach actually coaching this technique.

I don't know it for certain, but either they are coached to do it or the whole team plays with bung knees. Hawthorn also use it to milk free kicks around contests.

[nutbean 8,837]

3 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

I don't know it for certain, but either they are coached to do it or the whole team plays with bung knees. Hawthorn also use it to milk free kicks around contests.

i would suggest absolutely not coached but I hate it none the less. Caleb Daniels drops the knees and falls over at the slightest hint of a tackle as well. 

[Akum 2,660]

9 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Can I ask you if you know this for certain or are purely speculating as I would be shocked if they were actually coached to do this. It is just not in the spirit of the game and couldn't imagine a coach actually coaching this technique.

Comedy gold!

[hells bells 2,022]

11 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Can I ask you if you know this for certain or are purely speculating as I would be shocked if they were actually coached to do this. It is just not in the spirit of the game and couldn't imagine a coach actually coaching this technique.

Nutbean, I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't coached.  The coach is there to get the results and if by doing it, it advantages the team then the coach will be instructing it no doubt.  As mentioned by others North do it, Geelong do it and the Hawks do it.  

If you watch the technique closely, the action is a drop to one side, knee and shoulder and then raise the arm on the dropped side causing the tackling arm to slide up the arm to the neck.  I have little doubt that they will have some sort of oil on their upper arms too, to make it more likely to slip.

It may not be in he spirit but it's within the rules.  It's incredibly frustrating but it's definitely a tactic.

[nutbean 8,837]

I must be very naive  - It just goes so contrary to what is good in our game and if it is being coached I'd be horribly disappointed ( but not for the first time).

North don't do it , Geelong don't do it and the Hawks and Bulldogs don't do it - certain players in their team do. I have watched the action closely and see exactly how it is done. 

One of the worst offenders is Dylan Grimes.

 At worst certain players in teams are being coached to do it.

[beelzebub 22,225]

I have no idea anymore. It all seems so inconsistent and random. About the only absolutes. You CAN throw it as long as youre not a Demon.  Look away restrained dropkicks are the new black and if someone is running up to you to rag you and your instinct kick in...well youre for the sin bin.

[nutbean 8,837]

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I have no idea anymore. It all seems so inconsistent and random. About the only absolutes. You CAN throw it as long as youre not a Demon.  Look away restrained dropkicks are the new black and if someone is running up to you to rag you and your instinct kick in...well youre for the sin bin.

I have absolutely no doubt that the 'scoop handpass' is being coached and it happens in a blink of an eye and that fine line between handpass and throw is being tested every week. Also when players are tackled in their desperation to rid themselves of the ball they will throw and many are just not being pinged.

I will say I have never seen a team throw the ball as much as bullies on Sunday.

[hells bells 2,022]

When the Bulldogs are averaging a positive 9 Free Kick differential, it can't be luck.

It is a tactic and they are being coached. It's just that some players will be better at it than others.

[sue 8,416]

3 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I have absolutely no doubt that the 'scoop handpass' is being coached and it happens in a blink of an eye and that fine line between handpass and throw is being tested every week. Also when players are tackled in their desperation to rid themselves of the ball they will throw and many are just not being pinged.

I will say I have never seen a team throw the ball as much as bullies on Sunday.

Throwing is now standard.  I reckon it won't be too long before throws of less than say 2 metres are formally ruled as legal disposals.

As for dropping down being coached or not - just because some players don't do it doesn't mean they haven't been coached to do it. Some are probably just not capable of doing it fast enough so they don't try.  

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

2 minutes ago, hells bells said:

When the Bulldogs are averaging a positive 9 Free Kick differential, it can't be luck.

It is a tactic and they are being coached. It's just that some players will be better at it than others.

Umpires who continue to rewards players who duck is the biggest umpiring and safety issue in the game.

[hells bells 2,022]

The umpires would view it that it is not ducking as the players are not ducking their heads, rather dropping their body.  

They would argue that the player infringed was "going lower" at the ball.

i don't agree with it, but that's what I think is happening.

[sue 8,416]

1 minute ago, hells bells said:

The umpires would view it that it is not ducking as the players are not ducking their heads, rather dropping their body.  

They would argue that the player infringed was "going lower" at the ball.

i don't agree with it, but that's what I think is happening.

Its one thing to go lower at the ball, another to go low as/after you take possession.