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.

This was in the weekly video session justifying poor calls by the umpires. There was a query on Luke Tapscott being penalised when he was tackled with no prior opportunity. It was explained that he should have dropped the ball, even though it was pinned to his side and couldn't go anywhere. They pulled out footage of (I think) Alan Didak to illustrate the point. He was tackled without the ball being pinned and promptly dropped it, a clear case of incorrect disposal. I couldn't believe that this was being shown as the example of a legal way to cope with a tackle.

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.

I said "deliberately letting the ball drop"

I see many situations where a tackled player (deliberately) lets the ball drop (often to the advantage of a teamate, or in the direction of his goals) without making an attempt to correctly dispose

I'm not talking of those situations where the ball is knocked out or the player makes a genuine attempt (and no prior opportunity)

I thought they had the rule right a few years ago where the focus was on "prior opportunity" - the current rule is a shambles and is really a disgrace to our game. I don't mind "rugby mauls" so much as the idea that it is now OK to throw the ball out to a player in the interests of "keeping the ball moving". There is so much wrong with the current "interpretation" of not just this rule but all rules that you could write a thesis (and skills32 has made a pretty good start at it!)

The links and quotes of the current rules has given me incentive to actually read them (or some of them) as it is something that has been a huge bug bear of mine for some time. This gme should be one of the easiest in the world to umpire but it is made difficult by too many technicalities and "interpretations".

BTW skills32 I encourage you to write some more, loved your post it certainly wasn't boring me and if anyone found it boring they can just skip past.

While we are talking about holding the man / holding the ball what about the third man in - tackling the tackler?

Surely this is a blatant free against the third man in

What pisses me off most, and has done however Geishen decides they should interpret it on a particular week, or even within a particular quarter, is that the first requirement surely for a HTB "reward" should be a correct legitimate tackle.

All too often we see the poor bugger who actually risks life and limb going in and getting the ball then ridden into the ground (in the back) being penalised for HTB. If he is lying face down on the ground and one or several players jump onto his back, how can that be "correct tackle, no attempt = HTB"????

Exasperating.

Surely the benefit of the doubt should always be in favour of the play maker and not the vulture hovering outside.

What pisses me off most, and has done however Geishen decides they should interpret it on a particular week, or even within a particular quarter, is that the first requirement surely for a HTB "reward" should be a correct legitimate tackle.

All too often we see the poor bugger who actually risks life and limb going in and getting the ball then ridden into the ground (in the back) being penalised for HTB. If he is lying face down on the ground and one or several players jump onto his back, how can that be "correct tackle, no attempt = HTB"????

Exasperating.

Surely the benefit of the doubt should always be in favour of the play maker and not the vulture hovering outside.

and its no longer the player lying over the ball face down with the pack over him, it is also now the guy lying on his back with the pack over him

this is hardly the ball player pulling the ball UNDER

watching wet coke and the scum tonight they have played HTB twice now for this - FMD and you can't even see if the original ball player has the ball in his possession still

they originally said they would penalise the player WHO PULLED IT UNDER. They have gone way beyond that interpretation now

this continual tinkering with HTB rule is really pissing me

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.

WOW I really have to rethink my criticism of the umps

Thanks Skills32