Umpiring on Monday

[CarnTheDees 52]

Was excellent. Well done to the chaps who didn't pay any ridiculous holding-the-ball decisions or get too touchy about hands in the back.

Made it an excellent, tough, competitive match.

Only disappointment was the standard of centre bounces... Quite a few off to the side.

[barpen 0]

Thought our tackling was again unrewarded.

Other than that, a pass for the men in yellow.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Was excellent. Well done to the chaps who didn't pay any ridiculous holding-the-ball decisions or get too touchy about hands in the back.

Made it an excellent, tough, competitive match.

Only disappointment was the standard of centre bounces... Quite a few off to the side.

Wash your mouth out.

[CarnTheDees 52]

Thought our tackling was again unrewarded.

Other than that, a pass for the men in yellow.

Our tackling was consistently rewarded in that it prevented the ball moving towards the oppositions goal, and often stripped the opposition of possession.

Why should a tackle necessitate a free kick? Should you also get a free kick for manning-up, or laying a shepherd, or winning a hit-out?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Why should a tackle necessitate a free kick? Should you also get a free kick for manning-up, or laying a shepherd, or winning a hit-out?

Shut up...

You'll give Adrian Anderson ideas.

[deanox 9,914]

Our tackling was consistently rewarded in that it prevented the ball moving towards the oppositions goal, and often stripped the opposition of possession.

Why should a tackle necessitate a free kick? Should you also get a free kick for manning-up, or laying a shepherd, or winning a hit-out?

if a player has the ball and is tackled and they drop it, it should be rewarded with a free kick.

thems the rules carnthedees. the game isn't 'let it run until it gets locked in or someone takes a mark'. it is essentially a game of keepings off. if you have the ball and are caught the opposition are entitled to the ball. tackling should e rewarded. it isnt because it means players will have to rush disposal out rather than spin 720 looking for a team maet so that play can continue nicely. and the afl likes it to all look nice.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

if a player has the ball and is tackled and they drop it, it should be rewarded with a free kick.

I don't think he is questioning that deanox.

If a player has the ball, is tackled and as a result there is a ball up then the tackling player has already won out.

The player with the ball has lost possession of the ball.

If the player "incorrectly disposes of the ball" (or whatever the terminology is) then yes, the tackler should be rewarded with a free kick. The problem for me is that too often, the idea of "prior opportunity" gets misinterpreted by the umpire, whereby the only player who actually makes an effort to get the ball is penalised because they somehow can't get a kick or off handball off with seven players laying on top of them.

[deanox 9,914]

If the player "incorrectly disposes of the ball" (or whatever the terminology is) then yes, the tackler should be rewarded with a free kick. The problem for me is that too often, the idea of "prior opportunity" gets misinterpreted by the umpire, whereby the only player who actually makes an effort to get the ball is penalised because they somehow can't get a kick or off handball off with seven players laying on top of them.

but the rule says if a player with the ball is tackled and retarded it is a free kick. so if you are tackled and spun in a circle it is a free kick.

the exceptions are:

if the player hasnt had prior opportunity, the player must dispose of it immediately. if he doesnt it is a free kick. so you dont need prior opportunity, but you need to legally dispose of it. putting the ball on the ground and knocking it back between your legs isnt legal disposl. having a team mate rip the ball out of your hands isnt legal disposal. letting go of it when you are tackled from behind, isnt legal disposal. all those examples should result in a free kick.

if the ball is bumped out in the tackle. not dropped. knocked out by the force of the tackle. and if the ball is knocked out when the player hits the ground, id consider that the player had been successfully tackled first.

if the ball is pinned to the tackler. which means if i hold the ball to you, or the ball is stuck between the play and the ground.

the last case is the only case where there should be a ball up.

if the player with the ball has his arm pinned and cant get rid of the ball then it is holding the ball. prior opportunity or not, provided that if he hasnt had a chance he is given reasonable time to try and get his arm free or kick the ball.

[CarnTheDees 52]

if a player has the ball and is tackled and they drop it, it should be rewarded with a free kick.

thems the rules carnthedees. the game isn't 'let it run until it gets locked in or someone takes a mark'. it is essentially a game of keepings off. if you have the ball and are caught the opposition are entitled to the ball. tackling should e rewarded. it isnt because it means players will have to rush disposal out rather than spin 720 looking for a team maet so that play can continue nicely. and the afl likes it to all look nice.

Exactly.

But there must be a clear distinction between dropping the ball (ie throwing it) and when a ball is spilt free in the tackle due to the tackler's input. Clear case in point is when a player is tackled whilst dropping the ball onto his boot. If the ball misses his boot it is often called "dropping the ball" (which isn't anywhere in the rules BTW), whereas if the ball hits his foot then it is a legal disposal. So what is the difference in the two dropping actions? Nothing. They both are identical, even in intention, yet one is illegal and one is not.

The rules used to contain something to do with a player's intention to dispose of the ball once tackled, ie "he tried to kick it", so the above situation was called play-on. Same with a player wrapped up by 3 blokes trying to get away the handball when the opposition are holding the ball to him. This is how it should be.

The umpires on Monday got it pretty much spot on.

The irony is that the AFL wants the game to look nice (ie keep it moving) so to do so it pings everyone who gets tackled with holding the ball, which means that play stops and the ball is brought back. In the majority of those situations the ball has spilt free and kept moving of its own accord, so play has been stopped when it wouldn't have otherwise.

If you want keepings-off, play netball or touch-rugby. Personally I like to see good tackling, and players occasionally taking on the tackler, having the strength to stand up in the tackle and get an efffective handpass away.

[deanox 9,914]

whereby the only player who actually makes an effort to get the ball is penalised because they somehow can't get a kick or off handball off with seven players laying on top of them.

out of interest, if the afl instructed the umpires to adjudicate holding the ball correctly, we would probably see players start to knock the ball out of packs, which would result in more players hanging off packs (ie wings and flankers) and less congestion around the actual ball up, which would mean the game would be more open again.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

There was a total Shocker given to the filth in the 1st Q on the members wing. Resulted in a Filth Goal. The replay showed it up. I almost Lost my voice!!!!

[CarnTheDees 52]

out of interest, if the afl instructed the umpires to adjudicate holding the ball correctly, we would probably see players start to knock the ball out of packs, which would result in more players hanging off packs (ie wings and flankers) and less congestion around the actual ball up, which would mean the game would be more open again.

Do you believe that holding the ball is not paid enough in today's AFL football?

[Rogue 585]

Our tackling was consistently rewarded in that it prevented the ball moving towards the oppositions goal, and often stripped the opposition of possession.

Why should a tackle necessitate a free kick? Should you also get a free kick for manning-up, or laying a shepherd, or winning a hit-out?

To answer your first question, it's because that's how it has been in the previous 10 weeks (and will likely be in the next 10).

[beelzebub 23,364]

Exactly.

But there must be a clear distinction between dropping the ball (ie throwing it) and when a ball is spilt free in the tackle due to the tackler's input. Clear case in point is when a player is tackled whilst dropping the ball onto his boot. If the ball misses his boot it is often called "dropping the ball" (which isn't anywhere in the rules BTW), whereas if the ball hits his foot then it is a legal disposal. So what is the difference in the two dropping actions? Nothing. They both are identical, even in intention, yet one is illegal and one is not.

I think I know where ya going but I read it as youve crossed your self up from the original line.

I was laways taught to tackle so it deprived the carier with opportunity to do anything..and if it dislodge the ball then it went against the carrier as HE has dropped it. I could be wrong..but.

If intention is to let it go in some fashion to try to kick it..then the decision is allocated purely on whether he does..kick it..not how the bal lgot there.

Holding and dropping the ball is such a grey area. I mean for mine..one step is sufficient for prior opportunity.but seldom given.

Dont get me started on 'in the back'...lol

[deanox 9,914]

But there must be a clear distinction between dropping the ball (ie throwing it) and when a ball is spilt free in the tackle due to the tackler's input. Clear case in point is when a player is tackled whilst dropping the ball onto his boot. If the ball misses his boot it is often called "dropping the ball" (which isn't anywhere in the rules BTW), whereas if the ball hits his foot then it is a legal disposal. So what is the difference in the two dropping actions? Nothing. They both are identical, even in intention, yet one is illegal and one is not.

The umpires on Monday got it pretty much spot on.

If you want keepings-off, play netball or touch-rugby. Personally I like to see good tackling, and players occasionally taking on the tackler, having the strength to stand up in the tackle and get an efffective handpass away.

good points.

1. im not sure how to adjudicate that. i personally believe that if you are run down and miss the kick it should be the same as if you are tackled and miss the hand ball. i'll think you'll find the rule is 'incorrect disposal', where if a player fails to either correctly kick or handball a ball it is a free kick. thus the holding the ball decision and the throw decision can be technically different interpretations of the same rule

2. i was generally happy with the umpires. prob the best ive seen this year a an mfc game. i still dont agree with the 'you can use a forearm but not a hand' in the back rule, a push is a push, and you should be able to hold yourself in position but not push at all, but that isnt the umpires fault. i also thought the 50m to burns was soft, plenty of other times they could have called it also. bouncing was average, and i dont like that they can swap between bouncing and ball up depending on how fast they want to move the play on. otherwise i was happy because i generally didnt notice them.

3. i dont want to play keepings off but if you want to see good tackling watch rugby union. the ball is constantly alive at all times. the rules of afl state that if a player is correctly tackled its a free, good tackling is as important and fundamental a skill as kicking and handballing. and yes it is good to see players take tackles on. thats why the rule says they have to be retarded not just tackled. unless you can stop a players run the tackle doesnt make it holding the ball. spinning them in a full circle should be considered retarded. so should taking them to ground.

[deanox 9,914]

Do you believe that holding the ball is not paid enough in today's AFL football?

good question. it is hard to answer because some games it is over the top. other games they wont pay it once. in general i think the problem is that it isnt consistant, and i believe that often umps let one or two go they should have paid and then follow up quickly with a really soft free kick for something else.

i think that if the rule was applied consistantly across all games, across all sections of the ground, and across all four quarters (by all umps) then it could be paid more. but they need to ensure that they pay the right thing. players just letting go of the ball as they are tackled should be pinged. players who have run 5 meters and are then dragged off their kick need to be pinged. players who dive on it then throw it out their legs should be pinged. players who have 4 guys dive on them and the ball stuck in between or have the ball held to them should not be pinged.

ok overall i think its not paid enough. however i think often when it is paid, it is paid wrong.

[Rogue 585]

3. i dont want to play keepings off but if you want to see good tackling watch rugby union. the ball is constantly alive at all times. the rules of afl state that if a player is correctly tackled its a free, good tackling is as important and fundamental a skill as kicking and handballing. and yes it is good to see players take tackles on. thats why the rule says they have to be retarded not just tackled. unless you can stop a players run the tackle doesnt make it holding the ball. spinning them in a full circle should be considered retarded. so should taking them to ground.

My primary objective would be to encourage players to take on the game, and my secondary objective would be to reward good tackling.

- If you're tackled and dispose of the ball correctly (regardless of 'prior opportunity' or being 'retarded') it should be play on

- If you're tackled and don't dispose of the ball correctly, a free kick should be paid against you

[deanox 9,914]

- If you're tackled and dispose of the ball correctly (regardless of 'prior opportunity' or being 'retarded') it should be play on

then you'd have to change the rules of football im sorry rogue. it clearly stats that a player with prior opportunity who is tackled and retarded has been caught holding the ball.

are you suggesting the players should be allowed to hold onto the ball as long as they while beng tackled until they have a good option present itself?

i suppose thats why the rule is called 'holding the ball' not held the ball in the tackle for way too long'. the ball is meant to move, if you get caught holding it you lose it.

[Rogue 585]

then you'd have to change the rules of football im sorry rogue.

...and the problem is? We're not talking about the constitution! The rules change all the time.

it clearly stats that a player with prior opportunity

Exactly my point - a player who attempts to make the play is penalised almost the instant that he is tackled, irrespective of whether the tackle is very effective (perhaps incorrectly adjudicated by the umpires), and even if he correctly disposes of the ball & the play continues in a timely fashion.

[Surfa 0]

once again as soon as you stop paying free kicks for tackles you loose the desire to tackle or risk making players frustrated which then result in fighting...

which then result in free kicks anyway lol

[titan_uranus 25,016]

I thought the umpiring was better than some other weeks, but not flawless (never is, probably never could be anyway). I can't stand the free kicks against the guy with the ball for a fend-off, we seemed to give a few of those away yesterday.

[paddo 0]

Was excellent. Well done to the chaps who didn't pay any ridiculous holding-the-ball decisions or get too touchy about hands in the back.

Made it an excellent, tough, competitive match.

Only disappointment was the standard of centre bounces... Quite a few off to the side.

Gee I think you're being a little generous. I lost count of the number of times our boys turned their players 360 degrees in a tackle and were not rewarded. I thought there was an interpretation some weeks ago that if you turn a player 360 degrees and they have not disposed of the ball BEFORE the full rotation then it is holding the ball.

[deanox 9,914]

...and the problem is? We're not talking about the constitution! The rules change all the time.

Exactly my point - a player who attempts to make the play is penalised almost the instant that he is tackled, irrespective of whether the tackle is very effective (perhaps incorrectly adjudicated by the umpires), and even if he correctly disposes of the ball & the play continues in a timely fashion.

i understand what you are sying. i think you think that i want it to go extreme, of course i dont. i like watching footy, i just think that players caught with the ball should lose it. i dont agree with tackling a player, and continually tackling a player while he spins around looking for an open player. he should have to get rid of it straight away, even if it is to an opposition player...

[Rogue 585]

i dont agree with tackling a player, and continually tackling a player while he spins around looking for an open player. he should have to get rid of it straight away, even if it is to an opposition player...

I think we're on the same page. I'm happy with that, I just find it frustrating when a player trying to take on the game is penalised as soon as he is tackled.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I just find it frustrating when a player trying to take on the game is penalised as soon as he is tackled.

That is also my main problem.