Holding the Ball

[Retrospective 104]

Tonight I've seen decisions which are making me wonder if I could umpire a junior footy match.

Essendon Player (not sure who) on the wing, unaware of his surrounds plays on , drops it like a hot spud when tackled (by Betts I think)......play on

Then Lonergan into the open goal....

These combined with the normal random nature of "prior opportunity" make me wonder what players are advised to do...secure the ball? or just let it go

Any insight

[Demon2 58]

Tonight I've seen decisions which are making me wonder if I could umpire a junior footy match.

Essendon Player (not sure who) on the wing, unaware of his surrounds plays on , drops it like a hot spud when tackled (by Betts I think)......play on

Then Lonergan into the open goal....

These combined with the normal random nature of "prior opportunity" make me wonder what players are advised to do...secure the ball? or just let it go

Any insight

the lonergan one was the correct decision...the ball hit the ground before he kicked it...therefore incorrect disposal....

but i agree the rule is a joke...last week i could of sworn the ump was blowing his whistle even before JT grabbed the ball

[gOLLy 401]

I have no idea anymore. AFL has gone to the [censored] with the rules, not just holding the ball but the rules in general. Hate the game more and more every week.

[furious d 464]

Any insight

None whatsoever. It's very confusing at the moment. Has the interpretation of the rule officially changed this year?

I was thinking how it could be made simpler and fairer. The rules involved in interpreting a tackle should be ranked in order of importance and interpreted in that order.

So, first the ball player should be protected. High or low tackles should be punished before anything else is taken into account.

Second would be incorrect disposal. I don't think it should matter whether or not you had prior opportunity if you drop or throw the ball.

Third, did the player drag the ball under himself.

If none of those 3 rules come into play, only then should prior opportunity come into it. Only if you didn't have prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and bring the ball to ground should there be a ball up.

Probably several things I haven't considered there, it couldn't be that easy. I'll end my drunken rant anyway and see if it still makes sense in the morning.

[Retrospective 104]

Oops...It was Pears on the wing and he was tackled by Yarran rather than Betts

[heartbeatstrue 57]

The umpiring was totally random tonight (Carlton/Essendon). Not really favouring either side, just very inconsistent. There were so many puzzling decisions that instinctively I thought went one way but ump's paid them the opposite. Like Alice in Wonderland, it gets stranger and stranger...

And BTW, both Essendon & Carltank were woeful, incredibly poor kicking skills and some horrible clangers. We should beat them both.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

How many times did the player tackled get rid of the ball one-handed, or simply drop it, but no free kick?

If you're tackled, no prior opportunity and the ball's pinned to you, fair enough. But tackled and throw or drop it, then that's a free for illegal disposal I always thought. Tonight, the umps didn't have their OPSM glasses on disposals of any sort. Even a two-handed throw got past.

The other one was when the player tackled, hand-passed in front of himself (effectively to himself). On two occasions, they paid holding the man. Both hand-pass disposals were either at the instant of the tackle or immediately after (not before). Very unfair and impossible for the tackler to avoid giving away a free, if that interpretation is to stand.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,053]

the lonergan one was the correct decision...the ball hit the ground before he kicked it...therefore incorrect disposal....

but i agree the rule is a joke...last week i could of sworn the ump was blowing his whistle even before JT grabbed the ball

Is the drop kick illegal now? I seem to remember that once upon a time it was often used by players who wanted distance. Silly me thinking it stopped being used because it was inaccurate and harder to control than the drop punt, when in reality they changed the rules to outlaw this style of kicking!

[Wolfmother 182]

The issue is the AFL don't want stoppages and just want free flowing football up and down the field like basketball. So effectively they have changed the rules so the umpire need to consider a free before thinking about a ball up all to get the game flowing....

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

the lonergan one was the correct decision...the ball hit the ground before he kicked it...therefore incorrect disposal....

but i agree the rule is a joke...last week i could of sworn the ump was blowing his whistle even before JT grabbed the ball

Incorrect! Watch the replay, the ball did not hit the ground.Clearly a goal the umps got wrong. Some woeful indecisios by the umps in this game!

[deanox 9,922]

in that situation i would say that the drop kick is illegal, because the rules state that you cannot bounce the ball while being tackled. and thats meant to apply to being tackled and putting the ball on the ground also, even though the umpires do not enforce it.

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

in that situation i would say that the drop kick is illegal, because the rules state that you cannot bounce the ball while being tackled. and thats meant to apply to being tackled and putting the ball on the ground also, even though the umpires do not enforce it.

Absolutely! However, the ball did not hit the ground in this instance, it`s a goal no question(depending on who the umpire is of course)

[Gorgoroth 12,954]

The ball did hit the ground, and even in the days of the drop kick (I thought), it was not allowed when being tackled.

To me that was def right call by the ump.

The one on the wing was baffling, he clearly dropped it and it should have been holding the ball.

[Chook 15,013]

The ball did hit the ground, and even in the days of the drop kick (I thought), it was not allowed when being tackled.

To me that was def right call by the ump.

The one on the wing was baffling, he clearly dropped it and it should have been holding the ball.

The only way I could defend the umpire on that one is that it happened right near the interchange bench and that he couldn't reasonably expect to be tacked, but really, that's just bull.

[jnrmac 20,065]

Incorrect! Watch the replay, the ball did not hit the ground.Clearly a goal the umps got wrong. Some woeful indecisios by the umps in this game!

Actually I think you are wrong. I clearly saw the ball hit the ground.

And not that its relevant to the decision but he had a week and a half to get rid of it!

[praha 11,240]

I despise it when a player is pinged for being over the ball. What exactly is a player supposed to do when the ball is on the ground? If they try and pick it up and stand up, they get tackled and lose it. If they jump on it and try and knock it out but get it caught underneath, it's holding the ball.

The rule should have stayed the way it was. Watching the 93 Grand Final between Essendon and Carlton on Fox Sports on Tuesday night made me realise how much the game has changed for the worst.

Edited April 11, 2010 by calabreseboy

[Chook 15,013]

I despise it when a player is pinged for being over the ball. What exactly is a player supposed to do when the ball is on the ground? If they try and pick it up and stand up, they get tackled and lose it. If they jump on it and try and knock it out but get it caught underneath, it's holding the ball.

The rule should have stayed the way it was. Watching the 93 Grand Final between Essendon and Carlton on Fox Sports on Tuesday night made me realise how much the game has changed for the worst.

I disagree with that. I'm probably a few years younger than you though, so that rule is pretty much the only interpretation I've ever known, but I like it that way.