These days it seems umpires are more intent on paying holding the ball where someone 'drags it in' or 'dives on it' rather than the traditional way.

These days it seems umpires are more intent on paying holding the ball where someone 'drags it in' or 'dives on it' rather than the traditional way.

Good point. Maybe that's part of an explanation.

Not to mention how long they take to give holding the ball. When Bate got the holding the ball against Young (great tackle), the ump went into his initial pose, and took about 5 seconds to finish it it seemed. Anyone else see that?

The correct decision was made.

A push in the back is always a push in the back. Davey made no attempt to roll the player over, as hard as it would have been.

I'm inclined to agree CB. I remember a similar incident with Junior on Dan Cross of the Dogs in round 5 or 6 last year (when we got pipped at the post as Brad Johnson kicked a late winner). The Davey-Morton tackle seemed to be a mirror-image.

The problem is not the interpretation. Its the rule. I'm all for the push in the back rule where it stops players getting an unfair advantage in a marking contest. But where it is falling into their back in a tackle I have a serious issue with it. In fact I would go so far as to say it is the ruling that I HATE above all others. There are too many finickity rulings associated with tackles in this game.

Not to mention how long they take to give holding the ball. When Bate got the holding the ball against Young (great tackle), the ump went into his initial pose, and took about 5 seconds to finish it it seemed. Anyone else see that?

Yeah I think that might have been Matthew James. Every time I think he was trying to increase the 'drama' of the situation or something. At least he can bounce the ball.

It works i reckon

I'm inclined to agree CB. I remember a similar incident with Junior on Dan Cross of the Dogs in round 5 or 6 last year (when we got pipped at the post as Brad Johnson kicked a late winner). The Davey-Morton tackle seemed to be a mirror-image.

The problem is not the interpretation. Its the rule. I'm all for the push in the back rule where it stops players getting an unfair advantage in a marking contest. But where it is falling into their back in a tackle I have a serious issue with it. In fact I would go so far as to say it is the ruling that I HATE above all others. There are too many finickity rulings associated with tackles in this game.

Actually you're right here, it's not the fact that it wasn't a push in the back (because in all honesty, it probably was), it's the fact that Morton was ambling along, didn't dispose of the ball, and Davey ran hard to chase him down when he was spent, and this is making me and others angry. Maybe in situations where it could be both holding the ball and in the back, holding the ball could take priority?

Maybe in situations where it could be both holding the ball and in the back, holding the ball could take priority?

In order to earn a holding the ball decision, you must tackle legally.

Otherwise we may as well allow tripping and head-high tackles if the player has the ball.

Franklin tackling Wonna who didn't even have the ball in the last quarter.

WTF?

Not much mention of it, but that was absolutely shocking. Probably one of the worst of many bad decisions of the day. I could not believe they'd missed such a clear infringement! The rebound they got from that missed free was one of many that resulted in a goal.

No doubt it will be reported as a mistake only.....

it was a blatant error that blind freddie would have been able to see...

we could not control the laughter because we thought he was joking!!

davey tackled morton, the ball was then dropped, then the in the back... so technically wasnt the holding the ball the first decision and then the in the back?

i just do not understand the rules of the game, especially when you go each week and they change??

watched the replay as well - the davey 50 metre was definitely there... however, the treatment that he received from that scumbag in osborne was verging on rape!! he may be related to crowley or josh carr but honestly, he would be the worst player to win a premiership!!

the buddy tackle on aussie, well... matthew james would have been the umpire for sure and as we know, he enjoys a good time.....

This rule has bugged me for a long time. IMO the player who puts in a chase should be rewarded.

Does the infringement in the back occur due to a clumsy tackle, or because the player being tackled goes to ground and momentum carries the tackler forward?

While i am on this subject, the other one that drives me crazy is when a player is chased down when he is on his own on the wing for instance, and as he feels the tackle he frees his arm and pops out a soft handball in front of him even though there are no players within 20 meters of him. Holding the ball, or play on? 9 times out of 10 the umps with call play on. You have to reward the chase and tackle. That is what fans who pay there money to come and see games want to see, a player making a 50m chase to run down an opposition player getting rewarded.

Everyone should back Franklin and Mitchell for the brownlow cause they can do no wrong. Mitchell should have been caught holding the ball 10 times and they only gave one on the siren. When Franklin was allowed about 5 minutes to kick the ball on the boundary when Garland grab him would have been holding the ball to anyone else I think they got a goal shortly after that and his tackle on Wonaeamirri when he didn't have the ball was a disgraceful non decision. The decision that realy hurt us when Roughhead was clearly caught holding the ball or incorrect disposal and they didn't pay it and Rioli then snapped a goal which got them well and truly back in the game. Why is it that top teams always get a better run with the umpires?

Davey definately pushed Morton in the back about the only correct decision they did all day but then again I have seen worse payed holding the ball.

Everyone should back Franklin and Mitchell for the brownlow cause they can do no wrong. Mitchell should have been caught holding the ball 10 times and they only gave one on the siren.

Good call

Brownlow doubt for Hawk Mitchell

In order to earn a holding the ball decision, you must tackle legally.

Otherwise me may as well allow tripping and head-high tackles if the player has the ball.

Ah yes, good point. Quite a dumb suggestion on my behalf.

Actually you're right here, it's not the fact that it wasn't a push in the back (because in all honesty, it probably was), it's the fact that Morton was ambling along, didn't dispose of the ball, and Davey ran hard to chase him down when he was spent, and this is making me and others angry. Maybe in situations where it could be both holding the ball and in the back, holding the ball could take priority?

Kinda like when jeff white got tackled in the backline waiting to kick and the umpire called play on....

he got tackled from behind and fell forward.. free kick to adel... so why the different ruling in the hawks game??

the umpires really have to sit down and say when this situation occurs and the guy is caught plumb..award the tackle.. even if the player dives as soon as he feels contact...

The Jeff White tackle was completely differet. The Crows guy did tackle him from behind, but immediately dropped his knees and let jeff fall but never pushed him forwards. Now this was an easier tackle to execute as Jeff was still, but Davey definitely got right into his back. Against the spirit i think, and i'd like it to have been paid, but under this current interpretation of the in the back rule, it was definitey a free

How about Campbell's (or the other ruck) double fisted spoil straight out of bounds?

Not deliberate????

All umpires are pricks.

That is the honest god-given truth. SO HELP US ALL.

A spoil will never be paid deliberate

A spoil will never be paid deliberate

Wouldn't put it past them......Isn't the interpretation about intent?

I doubt it because they aren't in control of the ball if they spoil

The Jeff White tackle was completely differet. The Crows guy did tackle him from behind, but immediately dropped his knees and let jeff fall but never pushed him forwards. Now this was an easier tackle to execute as Jeff was still, but Davey definitely got right into his back. Against the spirit i think, and i'd like it to have been paid, but under this current interpretation of the in the back rule, it was definitey a free

i agree it was a free under the current rules.. i just dont agree with them..

if you tackle a player and take him to ground and he doesnt even try to dispose of the ball what difference doe sit make if you tackle him front on from behind or in the side?? you still take him to ground...the guy had prior oppertunity and got well caught.. how did falling forwatrd stop him from disposing of the ball in the 5 seconds it took davey to catch him??

Yeah, i don't like it either, but they're trying to protect the ball carrier. Pinning the arms and drilling someone in the back into the ground is probably pretty dangerous

Not to mention how long they take to give holding the ball. When Bate got the holding the ball against Young (great tackle), the ump went into his initial pose, and took about 5 seconds to finish it it seemed. Anyone else see that?

It's because they're centre stage, they've got 40,000 pairs of eyes on them, and they simply milk that few seconds for all it's worth. Them & coppers, don't you just love 'em?