The Holding the Ball rule has long been one of my absolute favourites in our great game as it rewards teams for good defence in a tangible way no other sports do. I love that if a team with the ball doesn't watch out that, given prior opportunity, they will be pinged if they get caught.

However, what I have witnessed in the first two rounds of this season and last season to a lesser extent, is an increasing punishment of players for simply taking hold of the ball. Either by picking it up in congestion, or being hit with a handball and being tackled immediately then being pinged. I find this worrying as if takes the fairness out of the rule and also seems to have led to confusion amongst players as to when they have had prior, and not, and when they have been caught in a way that makes an attempt impossible, without prior, what they are supposed to do to avoid being pinged. I for one would prefer ball ups in the more iffy decisions in an attempt to give the benefit of the doubt to the player who has fought to gain the ball. Though I like the defensive team being rewarded for great pressure and tackling I believe there needs in be fairness in how this is applied. Also I believe players need to be rewarded for taking possesion of the ball in congestion rather than punished.

Obviously several newer interpretations have come along recently to 'avoid conjestion' in games, however I would prefer congestion and fairness to iffy decisions that decide games..

Also it seems interesting we have a new sub rule to 'slow the game down to prevent injuries' yet slowing the game down the old fashioned way, with ball ups, is frowned upon.

Whilst I love this rule I think its application is becoming far too harsh on players who take possesion and if it continues to become harsher it seems that players might as well avoid picking up the pill whenever someone else is around and simply waiting to tackle.. Thoughts???

I thought the umpires got it right tonight. If you have the ball and you're tackled, you have to make a genuine attempt to get rid of it, wherever you are. Nothing annoys me more than a player jumping on the ball & holding it in or making a "pseudo-attempt" that's so faked it's obvious to everybody that they're playing for a ball-up. I think the umps tonight pinged the most obvious fakes, but if there was doubt they gave the benefit to the guy with the ball. Hope it continues.

Jeez, wouldn't mind playing the Aints at the moment.

Funny, I thought the umpires were terrible tonight. Richmond were given a huge advantage through the umpires constantly giving 50-50 calls their way.

The Holding the ball rule is one of the worst adjudicated in my opinion. Oddly enough, it is the ones involving tackles that are most on the nose in my book. The umpires' inability to spot people playing for free kicks through high tackles and in the back is shocking, as is the absurdly soft way they call both of these offences. The number of times we have seen a player dive forwards the second they are touched and get an in the back call regardless of whether there is any pressure to the back is ridiculous. Last year we saw Mitch Robinson from Carlton deviate markedly from his course and headbutt David Hille and be rewarded with a high contact call. To make katters worse, Hille responded by headbutting an opponent in the chest and was promptly rewarded with his own free. When these are considered alongside the shockingly inconsistent adjudication of the holding the ball rule it's no wonder the fans are so disillusioned with the umpiring of the game.

Speaking of which, last week against the Swans, Lynden Dunn was tackled while in possession of the ball. Both guys went to ground. Knowing the rule that you have to make an attempt to get rid of it (which for most players means they just swing their arm at the ball over and over again with no real purpose), Dunny took the opportunity to handily "miss" the ball with his punches and get his opponent instead. He's such a pain in the ass to play against!

I played in 1960 and the bane of the day then concerning umpires was differing interpretations of holding the man/holding the ball rule. Nothing has changed.

It's simple, if the guy with the ball attempts to get rid of the ball legitimately once he is tackled then it is play on. If the ball is knocked out of his hands, play on, and if he doesn't then holding the ball.

Accent is on the word attempt.

It is easy to understand but for some reason a few umpires want to to take the matter to the High Court.

I have been shaking my head in bewilderment for 50 years and still can't see light at the end of the tunnel.

Where has common sense gone?

I actually thought the Richmond - St Kilda Game was awful in terms of holding the ball decisions. It prompted me to write this topic. First of all I have no preference between the two teams and simply wanted to see a good game. So I think that the Tigers were given some holding the ball decisions that were totally ridiculous. There was one involving Sam Fisher where he took possession of the ball and had his right arm held and was pinned to the ground, it looked as though his arm was being held before he even got the ball, and he took posession via a handball, not diving on it, yet was penalised when there was a) no prior opportunity, if anything he was held, B) no conceivable way to get rid of it or to make a valid attempt as he had his arm held and was taken to ground preventing a kick, c) was in heavy congestion and had no other option but to catch his teammates handpass... In my opinion the only thing he could have done to avoid being called holding the ball was to not catch the pass, which could have resulted in a goal and may have been automatic. The decision against Maric last week was similar to this... If the only option is to not gain the ball from a bounce or a pass to prevent holding the ball I believe there is no way it should be holding the ball. I understand the diving on the ball rule, but I think this rule could be far better adjudicated.

I hate any rule where the player who goes for and gets the ball is punished. Last year's two Grand Finals were almost unanimously regarded as having some of the best umpiring. Why? Because the umpires put the whistle away, and only called the decisions that they were absolutely sure of, this included holding the ball.

Skills summed it up perfectly.

I think that instead of subbing players off, we should be subbing umpires off when they make horrible decisions.

What I hate most is when a player does something that used to get a standing ovation and gets pinged:

- Last line of defence, desperate dive on the footy to prevent the other team getting possession in front of goal, pack collapses on top = HTB

- 80m clearing kick to the boundary line = OOTF

For me, I see no imperative in knocking the ball forward when you're under pressure. The first thought should always be to take possession. But taking possession and choosing not to knock it on is not equal to an opportunity to get rid of it, that must be separate!

And it changes every week. We play games with <5 holding the ball decisions one week, and then >15 the next week, with no obvious difference in number of tackles or style of general play.

I've enjoyed watching Paul Reiffel umpire cricket over the last couple of years. Does anyone really think a bunch of ex-players sitting around watching replays would make the same calls as AFL umpires?

The worst part of it is that they play it up. In the pocket, in front of 50,000 Pies, watching the knee bend, the arms cross, the slow descent to make the glorious holding the ball gesture - THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!! Too many umpires seem as if they umpire to boost their own self-esteem. The other classic is the final quarter application of the deliberate out of bounds rule.

There was one involving Sam Fisher where he took possession of the ball and had his right arm held and was pinned to the ground, it looked as though his arm was being held before he even got the ball, and he took posession via a handball, not diving on it, yet was penalised when there was a) no prior opportunity, if anything he was held, B) no conceivable way to get rid of it or to make a valid attempt as he had his arm held and was taken to ground preventing a kick, c) was in heavy congestion and had no other option but to catch his teammates handpass... In my opinion the only thing he could have done to avoid being called holding the ball was to not catch the pass, which could have resulted in a goal and may have been automatic.

As I've said, I have a soft spot for the Aints & I think a lot of Sam Fisher & don't like the Toigs at all. But in this case Fisher got the ball & tried to "take 'em on" & took a few paces & tried to break a tackle & get clear before he was grabbed & his arm held so he couldn't dispose by hand. If you take 'em on & you're nailed, you're gone.

I agree that generally they're horrible at it, but last night they got the distinction right between genuine & fake attempts to get rid of the ball.