Is the holding-the-ball interpretation really better?

[Traja Dee 104]

Last Monday, I sat close to the boundary for the first time this year - normally I like to sit higher to get a better feel for the structures and ball movement. What really struck me this time was how physical the game has become. I love how hard our boys go in and I really think that the Pies' players were intimidated in the 3rd quarter. But in the back of my mind, particularly seeing Jack Grimes head-first dive for the ball, I was wondering if there is an acceptable limit to the physicality for the players sake and ultimately for the health of Aussie Rules.

For those who did not arrive early to Monday's game, the scoreboard showed a replay of the last quarter of a Dees / Collingwood match at Victoria Park in 1992. The replay started with Melbourne down by 15 points or so but we clawed them back to win by 9 points (or so) with a goal right on the siren. It was great to reminisce with Jackovic, Lyon, Matt Febey, Chopper, Ox playing the swing-man (though he wasn't the Ox back then), Sean Charles (though I didn't see him with a possession - what wasted opportunity for the MFC).

What struck me watching the 1992 game was how different the holding-the-ball / dropping-the-ball interpretation was back then. These days, players take a risk in going for the ball and rely on fumbling if they get tackled, which leads to packs and the physicality that we now see. Back in 1992, the umpires were much more inclined to penalise a player if they grabbed the ball in traffic and got caught. The outcome was a more free flowing game and presumably fewer head-clashes.

What do other Demonlanders think about the current holding-the-ball interpretation? Does it lead to more stoppages, congestion and imperil player safety? Should the rules committee allow players to go for the ball even when the chance of getting the ball out seems small?

By the way, for the life of me, I could not recall Melbourne's #10 ruckman in 1992 - I think his name was Mahoney. He seemed to do a decent job against Monkhurst and I was wondering what happened to him.

[stuie 7,374]

Really good point I think.

The "modern" rules and interpretations for holding/dropping/dragging in the ball are an absolute mess, but somehow have been slipping under the radar.

I'm really hoping this matter gets the attention it deserves for next season, and the rules committee aren't too obsessed with subs and the usual 2-3 issues that come up during the year (sliding has been the big one so far) to pay attention to something we as fans want to see at least clarified.

[george_on_the_outer 7,016]

The rules haven't changed and the current "interpretation" by Gieshen and his cronies is incorrect. The ball MUST be disposed of by hand or foot if the player has prior opportunity. No if's nor buts. The rule does not say it is OK if the ball is jolted free.

It has led to throwing the ball, and other incorrect disposal. Valid free kicks are not paid and the rugby scrum continues.

No problems with the dragging the ball in interpretation, because the player is considered to have prior opportunity.

However, laying on someones back is "in the back" and 3rd man in should be holding the man ( you can only tackle the man with the ball, not someone else)

If the umpires applied the rules instead of making them up, then the game would flow.

In the game that was replayed before the QB match the real highlight was the positioning of the umpires. They were in at the contest, not sheep-dogging around the periphery like they do today. They could see what was happening and not making guesses. And when a ball up was required, it was up and over quickly. Not wait, wait, wait, whistle, come in, prop, look behind,bounce.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

The big problem with umpiring at the moment is the powers that be at AFL House issuing their "official interpretations" of the rules, often directly contravening the rules as they are written. This is a thin attempt to change the rules without going through any sort of proper procedure and leads to endless confusion and contradictions. The holding the ball/incorrect disposal conundrum is a classic example. The Geisch has declared that a player who is tackled while in posession of the ball may drop the ball and not be penalised even if they have had prior opportunity, while a player with no prior opportunity who does not drop the ball may be penalised. Both of these cases are directly opposing the rules as written.

To me, the real humour of these interpretations is the desired effect on the game. A few years ago it was all about making the game free-flowing, hence allowing players to drop the ball to keep play going. Now suddenly there is a panic that the game is getting too fast and we see new rules attempting to slow it down again. If the muppets in charge would stop tampering with the rules, many of these issues would sort themselves out as coaches came up with new tactics to couter the things they are seeing on the field. The constand rule changes and reinterpretations are doing far more harm than the ongield incidents they are trying to control.

[The Albino Warrior 44]

I could not be less impressed with the umpires' current holding the ball interpretation. For A long time I’ve believed it to be by far the worst part of the modern game.

It was brought in in an attempt to reduce congestion and keep the game flowing. It hasn’t worked at all.

I agree that if there’s a three on one contest for a loose ball and the one dives on the ball and holds it in to turn an almost certain loss of possession into a 50-50 (contest with a ball up), they should be penalised when tackled. But there is a clear difference between this kind of cynical (and unfair) action, and the circumstances in which hard, committed ball players are penalised these days.

If it’s one on one contest and one player decides they want it more (and goes hard and low), while the other hangs off and then makes sure the ball then can’t be jarred loose in the tackle, who’s being cynical? And yet the umpires have an almost erotic obsession with penalising the bloke making the play in this circumstance.

For that reason, I’m not sure I like the idea of going back to the old interpretation where if you make the play, get tackled and happen not to get a clean kick or handball away you’re gone. Anything’s better than the current interpretation, but I do think the concept of prior opportunity should be retained.

I reckon it’s as simple as umpires ignoring the possible sexual arousal they might elicit from giving a theatrical “Get it out! Get it out! Didn’t get it out!” holding the ball call and looking instead at the intent of the player. If they’re obviously trying to make the play, don’t penalise them. If they’re obviously being cynical, pay a free kick against. If it’s inconclusive, DON’T BLOODY GUESS!

[The Albino Warrior 44]

By the way, there is room for the theatrical. If, for instance, a player has five seconds to dispose of the ball, dithers and gets run down from behind, everyone wants to see the ditherer penalised, as long as the tackle is fair. So don't worry about where the got a toe to it, or whether they might have dribbled a two metres handball forward. There's little worse in the game than seeing a brilliant rundown go unrewarded on a technicality.

[Akum 2,660]

... The Geisch has declared that a player who is tackled while in posession of the ball may drop the ball and not be penalised even if they have had prior opportunity, while a player with no prior opportunity who does not drop the ball may be penalised. Both of these cases are directly opposing the rules as written.

I thought this was a ruling made ex cathedra specifically for one C. Judd (to quote the umpire at the time: "he tried to get rid of it, he only has to try to get rid of it") & doesn't apply to mere mortals.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

The holding the ball rule/interpretation is completely ludicrous at the moment. May sound dramatic, but it is draining out any enjoyment I used to get from watching games, or more specifically neutral games, as I get so frustrated at the way they apply this rule.

There is a serious issue when one player can run 10 metres, take on a couple of tacklers, someone sticks a tackle and ball spills free to a teammate and they can just carry on like nothing happened. And then conversely, a player can take control of a ball, be simultaneously wrapped up and get pinged for holding the ball. A good example was the Magner free kick in the 1st or 2nd quarter.

Instead of reporting the usual dribble, the media needs to make this an issue and get some answers.

[robbiefrom13 877]

The "tackler" who either holds the ball to the player he has tackled, or pulls the ball back into the player he has tackled, should be free-kicked mercilessly until this practice is eliminated from the game. It's plain as day who is responsible for the ball being held instead of having it come out and the game continue to flow. And give a 50 as soon as the "tackler" argues.

Edited June 13, 2012 by robbiefrom13

[low flying Robbo 979]

By the way, there is room for the theatrical. If, for instance, a player has five seconds to dispose of the ball, dithers and gets run down from behind, everyone wants to see the ditherer penalised, as long as the tackle is fair. So don't worry about where the got a toe to it, or whether they might have dribbled a two metres handball forward. There's little worse in the game than seeing a brilliant rundown go unrewarded on a technicality.

you are contradicting yourself there, asking not to worry whether a player disposed of the ball AND saying whether the tackle is fair... If the ball is disposed of, then is brought down in a tackle, it is not fair.

[Face Your Demons 175]

I feel sorry for the poor umpires. the rules are to grey now a days.

[Fork 'em 6,556]

Last Monday, I sat close to the boundary for the first time this year - normally I like to sit higher to get a better feel for the structures and ball movement. What really struck me this time was how physical the game has become. I love how hard our boys go in and I really think that the Pies' players were intimidated in the 3rd quarter. But in the back of my mind, particularly seeing Jack Grimes head-first dive for the ball, I was wondering if there is an acceptable limit to the physicality for the players sake and ultimately for the health of Aussie Rules.

I often sit at ground level around the goals cause the kids like to be up close but I do enjoy the sence you get of physicality when there.

I miss the awareness of the amount of space players have and the structures upfield but hearing the force of hits and the crunch of big bodies around the goal square is awesome at times.

As for Grimes head 1st dive for the ball , IMO play like that is more stupid than inspiring.

It won't be long before players like Selwood and Grimes who are forever getting stitched up or concussed are seriously hirt because instead of looking after their own heads they expect some opposition player chasing the ball at top pace to look out for it instead.

Free kick is a small reward if your off to the hospital in a neck brace.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Fork 'em

[The Albino Warrior 44]

you are contradicting yourself there

I am. Unashamedly.

The game can't be umpired "by the book" - it's impossible. So why not umpire with as much common sense as possible.

If the player has an eternity to dispose of the ball, gets tackled and scrapes the ball with his foot, ping him. If the player is making the play, doing what players have done for a 150 years and an opponent drags the ball into him and keeps it there, don't penalise the ball-player.

[sue 8,463]

What I find laughable is the fake efforts to 'make an attempt' to get rid of the ball. The umps insist you pretend to punch - I've seen players in possession punching the ball into their chests to make the umps happy. Yet a guy with ten people sitting on top of him who couldn't move his arms to save his life is penalized for not making an attempt.

[drdrake 3,045]

I reckon on Monday the umpires changed their interuptation mid game, James Magner in the forward pocket Holding the ball first quarter rubbish, then in the third and last they missed 6-7 that should have been paid. Incorrect disposal is a huge issue players just drop the footy as soon as they are tackled, stronger players are skilled enought to drop/throw the ball to their teams advantage.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

There is not such rule as "dropping the ball".

[pitchfork 181]

On Monday, the interpretation was entirely different depending in whether a holding the ball decision would have resulted in a kick on goal. They paid all the "easy" ones, giving the decision to the tackler in his back line, but almost none of the "hard" ones forward of centre.

[pitchfork 181]

There is not such rule as "dropping the ball".

True. It's called a throw. Because if you take possession and don't handball or kick, you're breaking the rules. Of course, there are times when the impact of a tackle/bump breaks the ball free but it's usually not that hard to tell the difference.

I also find it interesting up consider what constitutes a possession. For mine, a player juggling the ball or standing over it tapping it from hand to hand is in possession and should never win a holding the man free, but how many times do we see these frees?

[Juicebox 628]

I feel sorry for the poor umpires. the rules are to grey now a days.

Agreed. They probably haven't got a clearer interpretation of the rule than either the players or us fans. The inconsistency in the way the rule is umpired is proof of that.

[Robbie57 1,991]

No one drops the ball these days. Its driving me nuts.

Midfielders just drop the ball usually to the advantage of teammates and on it goes to the goal.

Handballing has become almost a universal throw near a closed hand.

[daisycutter 28,636]

There is not such rule as "dropping the ball".

no, but there is an incorrect disposal rule

deliberately letting the ball drop is incorrect disposal - it happens too often

the afl let it go supposedly in the interest of letting the game 'flow' but it is NOT in the rules

[skills32 229]

The rules haven't changed and the current "interpretation" by Gieshen and his cronies is incorrect. The ball MUST be disposed of by hand or foot if the player has prior opportunity. No if's nor buts. The rule does not say it is OK if the ball is jolted free.

It has led to throwing the ball, and other incorrect disposal. Valid free kicks are not paid and the rugby scrum continues.

No problems with the dragging the ball in interpretation, because the player is considered to have prior opportunity.

However, laying on someones back is "in the back" and 3rd man in should be holding the man ( you can only tackle the man with the ball, not someone else)

If the umpires applied the rules instead of making them up, then the game would flow.

In the game that was replayed before the QB match the real highlight was the positioning of the umpires. They were in at the contest, not sheep-dogging around the periphery like they do today. They could see what was happening and not making guesses. And when a ball up was required, it was up and over quickly. Not wait, wait, wait, whistle, come in, prop, look behind,bounce.

George you know as well as I do that holding ball/man was as big a problem 60 years ago as it is today.

The AFL and the umps have no idea.

Today we have Geishen saying that if a player attempts to dispose the ball then it is play on but 9 out of 10 times the attempt results in an incorrect disposal and this is wrong.

This is the law we are talking about

15.2.3 H olding the Football — Prior Opportunity/No

Prior Opportunity

Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession

of the football:

(a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the

field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player

if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football

immediately when they are Correctly Tackled; or

( B) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the

field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if,

upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly

Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after

being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Now you tell me if we are right or wrong. There are too many people who have never read the lawbook and I know that some umpires have only given the book a cursory glance; They rely on their advisor to tell them what is right or wrong.

Here are the rules

http://www.aflcommun...SINGLEPAGES.pdf

This is the law pertaining to the ball being spilt free

15.2.4 A pplication — Specific Instances where Play

shall Continue

For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to

continue when:

(a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the

Player’s hands;

(B) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to

lose possession of the football;

© a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent

which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the

Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of

the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;

(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is

swung off-balance and does not make contact with the

football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had

a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football,

in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or

(e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes

the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the

Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose

of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.

But there is no mention of deliberately dropping the ball or pushing it away from you with an open hand. (incorrect disposal)

There are too many administrators in charge with their head up their backside which makes it impossible to listen to a rational argument.

If the umpires umpired according to the written rule we would not be having this discussion.

What's the point of having rules if the enforcers

1. Don't know them

2. Don't understand them or

3 Ignore them.

The laws were brought in for 2 reasons

1. To stop cheating

2. To protect the ball player from injury.

Umpires don't understand this and that is why we get so many tiggy touchwood free kicks.

And the idea of umpires 'putting away the whistle' in the last quarter appals me. A free kick is just as valid in the last qtr as the first.

I have a lot more to say but in the interest of fellow posters I'll leave it at that.

PS

I umpired in the NTFL for 8 years after my footy days were finished and I can tell you some stories about that 'profession' that would make you wonder if it is all worth while.

Edited June 13, 2012 by skills32

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

The Giesh said about one holding the ball/dropping the ball incident that was highlighted ... (paraphrasing) "well, he meant to dispose of it correctly, and that's why he wasn't penalised."

The Giesh invented a new rule called "the natural arc" when kicking for goal.

Do we see this [censored] in any other sport?

Tennis: "Fault-- er, correction. Mr Nadal did not mean that ball to go out. Play let."

Athletics: "Break! hang on -- he started only a little bit before the other runners."

The Giesh believes in "interpretation" of rules. Rules that require "interpretation" are poorly written.

The Giesh is doing a terrible job. Possibly he is conflicted by his higher-up masters. After all, we have three rules committees: the Bartlett one, Adrian Anderson, and The Giesh. All working in wonderful disharmony.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

no, but there is an incorrect disposal rule

deliberately letting the ball drop is incorrect disposal - it happens too often

the afl let it go supposedly in the interest of letting the game 'flow' but it is NOT in the rules

You will find in most cases the player has the ball knocked from his hands or they are attempting to dispose of the ball properly.

If a player attempts a handpass, but it misses their fist (without prior opportunity) it is play on because that player attempted to dispose of the ball.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Today we have Geishen saying that if a player attempts to dispose the ball then it is play on but 9 out of 10 times the attempt results in an incorrect disposal and this is wrong.

From the laws of the game:

Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so