After watching a whole day of Jimmy Stynes games on foxtel I was amazed by the hardness at which players went at the ball in the late 80's and 90's.

It made me think that the interpretation of the holding the ball rule - if you dive on the ball or drag it in and dont get it out (no matter how many tonnes of footballers are lying on top of you) then it is a free kick against.

Do you think this has created a "lurker" mentality? Maybe not go in quite as hard. Be second to the ball and tackle instead of making the play and get pinged. I wonder how a Glen Archer would go in this day and age.

Do you think this rule has made players assess the best option if the ball is on the ground( go in first or let the other player go in and then tackle) rather than the football of yesteryear which had players mind set on a single purpose - no matter where the ball is just go for it as the footballer making the play will always get the umpires advantage.

I also was impressed by the hardness of the Demons teams from the '80s and '90s in the Stynes marathon.

I did not think about the rules so much.

What occurred to me was that I have been watching some very ordinary Melbourne teams who did not even approach the hardness of Brett Lovett, Todd Viney or Stinger.

As to "rules interpretations", the one that's really got me going is where a player slides along the ground to take out the legs of an opponent and then the slider gets a free kick.

Total bulldust. In effect, it's a trip by body rather than hand or foot. If the AFL was fair dinkum about protecting the head which is put at risk in this manouvre they would penalise this tactic.

Edited March 30, 201213 yr by pitmaster

After watching a whole day of Jimmy Stynes games on foxtel I was amazed by the hardness at which players went at the ball in the late 80's and 90's.

It made me think that the interpretation of the holding the ball rule - if you dive on the ball or drag it in and dont get it out (no matter how many tonnes of footballers are lying on top of you) then it is a free kick against.

Do you think this has created a "lurker" mentality? Maybe not go in quite as hard. Be second to the ball and tackle instead of making the play and get pinged. I wonder how a Glen Archer would go in this day and age.

Do you think this rule has made players assess the best option if the ball is on the ground( go in first or let the other player go in and then tackle) rather than the football of yesteryear which had players mind set on a single purpose - no matter where the ball is just go for it as the footballer making the play will always get the umpires advantage.

I agree. I have no doubt some players decide not to go for the ball but would rather the opportunity to tackle. I don't particularly like the way the player who gets the ball gets pinged for holding it when he hasn't really had an opportunity to get rid of it. But I understand the bigger picture, which is to stop scrums forming. Perhaps it might be better to trial a rule which says a player cannot take possession of the ball if their knees are on the ground.

I'm only in my mid-forties, but I'm about to sound like my father-in-law and come out with "In my day...".

When I was learning footy as a schoolboy, we were taught to paddle the ball along the ground in front of us is there was a threat to getting tackled. If you picked up the ball and was then tackled - a free kick against you. The beauty of this was that it kept the ball flowing - none of this picking up the ball knowing that you'll get tackled just so that you end up with a stoppage. I'm not sure when the interpretation changed but I think that it is a turn for the worse.

I think that players should be penalised if they dive on the ball and get tackled. Second rate players may "lurk", but really good players become skilled at attacking the ball and keeping it moving at the same time. That was one of the things that I have noticed every time we have played Geelong since 2007.

One of my wishes for the rules is that players are responsible if they grab the ball and get tackled. If we bring in this interpretation, we'll see more players knocking the ball on in contested situations and fewer stoppages.

I just hate the way that holding the ball is paid at the drop of a hat.

Not enough reward for the player getting the ball. I also don't think most umpires fully understand the rule, especially with regards to a player attempting to dispose of the ball.

For all the peanuts/commentators out there, there is no such rule as "dropping the ball".

I hate when the umpires are on the wrong side of the players and they guess.They see the player who originally dived on the ball but have no idea where it ended up. The ball often is clear of the original player but because there are 5 players on the pack and the ball didnt come out the original player is pinged.

FYI - I sit on the ground level of the members. You'll hear me. Im the one who constantly shouts out -"you are guessing you idiot"

Hate the rule too, it penalizes the player of the ball for not getting the ball out, and rewards the other bloke who is doing everything in his power to keep the ball in there.

Edited March 30, 201213 yr by 1 red eye 1 blue eye

I just hate the way that holding the ball is paid at the drop of a hat.

Not enough reward for the player getting the ball. I also don't think most umpires fully understand the rule, especially with regards to a player attempting to dispose of the ball.

For all the peanuts/commentators out there, there is no such rule as "dropping the ball".

but there is incorrect disposal B)

but there is incorrect disposal B)

Bartram better be careful or he'll give away 20 frees a game .

Hate the rule too, it penalizes the player of the ball for not getting the ball out, and rewards the other bloke who is doing everything in his power to keep the ball in there.

I hate the shepherding in the ruck

In my day any use of the arms to impede your opponent was a free. Led to much cleaner ruckwork