Holding the ball interpretation in 2012

[Guest fitness]

I don't know about anyone else but I am quite disturbed by Jeff Geischen's comments in this article:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/gieschen-rule-hasnt-changed-20120808-23ums.html

For him to contend that Cyril Rioli didn't warrant a free kick in the dying minutes of last Friday night's game demonstrates he has completely lost touch with the way holding the ball ought to be interpreted. For mine it was a clear-cut case of prior opportunity and a good tackle resulting in the ball being dispossessed illegally.

My advice to the AFL would be to look at whoever is acting in the similar role for the VFL, and get them involved at AFL level. Because if you ever watch a VFL game you'll quickly realise that their umpires:

• reward the tackler if there has been prior opportunity;
  
• don't wait 10 seconds before blowing the whistle when it's obvious a ball-up should ensue;
  
• don't ping blokes who are first to the ball and get wrapped up straight away; and
  
• generally umpire with no ego and just use their common sense as they seem to have a good feel for the game.
  

Not an MFC issue obviously, but I wanted to see if others feel similarly because for me it's one of the most frustrating things about the 2012 version of our great game.

[Johnny Karate 559]

The two things that frustrate me with the interpretation is that prior op is variable & punishes the ball winner for "slowing down" play. Jones on the weekend was a classic example, he roved a tap, was gang tackled almost before he had the ball & was ridden into the ground with no chance of getting rid of the ball. Holding the ball.

The other is incorrect disposal & how seemingly "making an attempt" constitutes disposing the ball properly. The result is an ugly rolling maul with players just dropping & throwing the ball & 44 players confined to one area of the ground. It's awful to watch.

It seems as though the "logic" is: win the ball = punished. Drop or throw the ball at the slightest hint of physical contact = making an attempt, play on!

Edited August 9, 2012 by Jimmi C

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

The two things that frustrate me with the interpretation is that prior op is variable & punishes the ball winner for "slowing down" play. Jones on the weekend was a classic example, he roved a tap, was gang tackled almost before he had the ball & was ridden into the ground with no chance of getting rid of the ball. Holding the ball.

The other is incorrect disposal & how seemingly "making an attempt" constitutes disposing the ball properly. The result is an ugly rolling maul with players just dropping & throwing the ball & 44 players confined to one area of the ground. It's awful to watch.

Yep agree. I couldn't believe the Jones free kick. Where is the prior opp when receiving a ruck tap? Also what is wrong with the old school Dropping the ball? As a kid I was taught if you don't kick or handball but just drop the ball it is dropping the ball. If they were paid it would clear up the congestion and would make more sense to us the fans when we are trying to watch a game of football.

[jnrmac 19,890]

Yep agree. I couldn't believe the Jones free kick. Where is the prior opp when receiving a ruck tap? Also what is wrong with the old school Dropping the ball? As a kid I was taught if you don't kick or handball but just drop the ball it is dropping the ball. If they were paid it would clear up the congestion and would make more sense to us the fans when we are trying to watch a game of football.

There is no rule for dropping the ball. Don't know why the umps still signal it.

[daisycutter 29,296]

There is no rule for dropping the ball. Don't know why the umps still signal it.

\

C'mon jnr don't be cute. The dropping the ball rule is the incorrect disposal rule. You know that

[pitmaster 3,442]

That the rules are subject to so much "interpretation" is one of the unfortunate distinguishing marks of Geischen's unhappy career as head of umpiring. Prior opportunity, when it became vogue, consisted of having a couple of steps - now anything goes, unless you're Nathan Jones or in a red and blue jumper.

In the back is another troublesome one - you can make contact with the forearm but not the hands? Huh?

Deliberate oob this year has become dynamite. But running more than 15 meters without bouncing is disregarded.

I just wish they'd apply the rules that are there evenly.

Geischen could not coach footballers and cannot coach umpires. He is there only to demonstrate AFL's jobs for mates program.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

The rules are pretty clear, it's just no one bothers to read them.

[nutbean 8,838]

The two things that frustrate me with the interpretation is that prior op is variable & punishes the ball winner for "slowing down" play. Jones on the weekend was a classic example, he roved a tap, was gang tackled almost before he had the ball & was ridden into the ground with no chance of getting rid of the ball. Holding the ball.

The other is incorrect disposal & how seemingly "making an attempt" constitutes disposing the ball properly. The result is an ugly rolling maul with players just dropping & throwing the ball & 44 players confined to one area of the ground. It's awful to watch.

It seems as though the "logic" is: win the ball = punished. Drop or throw the ball at the slightest hint of physical contact = making an attempt, play on!

You forgot the major glaring problem with the Jones decision apart from what you said and the thing that DRIVES ME INSANE.

Schmidt made the decision and he was on the boundary line side of the contrast- Jones back was facing him as he was on his side with the ball locked in facing the Southern Stand.Schmidt had no idea if the ball was in Jones grasp or 3 feet away from him. "Not getting the ball out" should not defined by whether it clears congestion or not but whether or not the player no longer has control of the ball - not to mention that the umpire cant see if opposition players are holding it under or into the player who pulled it in. Not knowing where the ball is, is no basis to make a decision

If you are on the wrong side of the contest, Mr Umpire, you are guessing- I repeat guessing. Schmidt - on the Jones decision you were guessing as you could only see Jones back and nothing more. GUESSING - ARRGGGHHHHHHH

Edited August 9, 2012 by nutbean

[sue 9,000]

What amazed me about Geischen's remarks were that being blindsided to the tackler was an excuse for avoiding a holding the ball or incorrect disposal penalty. Since when?

[Miles from Nowhere 199]

The rules are pretty clear, it's just no one bothers to read them.

And the trouble with umpires is they understand the rules but they don't understand the game.

[nutbean 8,838]

And the trouble with umpires is they understand the rules but they don't understand the game.

my exact thought on umpires summed up in 16 words

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

What amazed me about Geischen's remarks were that being blindsided to the tackler was an excuse for avoiding a holding the ball or incorrect disposal penalty. Since when?

Yeah, that had me dumb founded. Terrible excuse for a bad, game changing decision.

The holding the ball interpretation atm is pretty much the reason why I only watch the Melbourne game each week and only snippets of any thing else. I often used to watch 5 complete games a week. Going back say 10 or 15 years the rule was perfect. Very predictable and a non issue.

I think the only way to move on now is to make tackling a 1 on 1 event. No 2nd tackler allowed. No prior opportunity rule at all and the player with the ball must dispose of it legally. Easy to umpire and the rediculous cases of someone being pinged for not making an attempt when 4 tacklers are on top of him will dissappear.

[sue 9,000]

They could also outlaw the fourth player jumping on a scrum from tackling any old player they can reach. Often it is an opponent who clearly doesn't have the ball, but it is ignored.

Edited August 9, 2012 by sue

[rjay 24,577]

Don't get me started on this one....

[mrtwister 652]

And the trouble with umpires is they understand the rules but they don't understand the game.

That would suggest that Bannister would be great. ROFL

It won't be long until we see a circle of players standing around the ball all looking at each other waiting for one of them to pick it up and try and dispose of it before they are gang tackled.

[Robot Devil 1,895]

In the back is another troublesome one - you can make contact with the forearm but not the hands? Huh?

Good question. I thought "In the back" was to stop players being pushed out of contests.

I would not have thought falling into someones back as they fell over was "In the back" but that has changed over the years.

I've given up hope on the umpires being consistent.

What I want is a seat near the umpires race so I can honestly tell them how I feel.

[monoccular 17,305]

Don't get me started on this one....

I will then.....

My pet hate is that an incorrect tackle - especially in the back, driven into the ground, or "stacks on the mill" - on someone who has had the initiative and courage to get the ball is often "rewarded" with a HTB decision when clearly the mug with the ball should be rewarded, and the vulture who applies the incorrect tackle penalised.

And again the vultures "hailing the cab", not even trying to get the ball or even looking at it, but just grabbing the ballgetter's jumper and staring at the maggot.............grrrrrrr!

Edited August 9, 2012 by monoccular

[rjay 24,577]

I will then.....

My pet hate is that an incorrect tackle - especially in the back, driven into the ground, or "stacks on the mill" - on someone who has had the initiative and courage to get the ball is often "rewarded" with a HTB decision when clearly the mug with the ball should be rewarded, and the vulture who applies the incorrect tackle penalised.

And again the vultures "hailing the cab", not even trying to get the ball or even looking at it, but just grabbing the ballgetter's jumper and staring at the maggot.............grrrrrrr!

That's about where I would have started, thanks Monoccular one of my pet hates too.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Gieschen is hopeless. He's borderline incompetent. Maybe he's outright incompetent.

He's just invented a new rule out of thin air: the "blindsided" rule.

Last year he invented the "natural arc" rule for when kicking.

Gieschen has championed this concept of "interpreting" the rules, when he should be going the other way. The idea that rules need "interpreting" is bulls---. If they need interpreting, they're poorly written.

What hope do the umps have in consistently applying the rules when the top bloke doesn't seem to know what day it is?

[Nasher 33,607]

Gieschen is hopeless. He's borderline incompetent. Maybe he's outright incompetent.

He's just invented a new rule out of thin air: the "blindsided" rule.

Last year he invented the "natural arc" rule for when kicking.

Gieschen has championed this concept of "interpreting" the rules, when he should be going the other way. The idea that rules need "interpreting" is bulls---. If they need interpreting, they're poorly written.

What hope do the umps have in consistently applying the rules when the top bloke doesn't seem to know what day it is?

Well said. The invention of rules is what irks me more than anything else.

[daisycutter 29,296]

I had to laugh at the new "blind-side" rule

Is that the biggest effing joke ever. what orifice did he pull that one from?

Gieschen must have a different rule book than the one everyone has

[Cheesecake 92]

My peeve, like many others here, is the player who has had no, or very little, prior opportunity, and is tackled and sat on by multiple players who are holding the ball in, and then he cops a holding the ball decision against him because it is deemed he wasn't trying to get the ball out (or the umpire can't see it come out). If a player has made the effort or has the skill to win a contested ball he should be advantaged! The second to the ball tackler should not be!! Any rule that encourages players not to want the ball in all circumstances is crap!

I think one thing umps could do to resolve this is to only ping the player for holding the ball if the tacklers (or pile of players on top of the guy with the ball) are seen to be actively trying to dispossess the guy with the ball! If they are just holding it in, sitting on him, or preventing him from any chance of getting the ball out, it's ball up. That way, the ball is likely to bobble out and be recontested. Game on.

[45HG 1,539]

Tonight's game is yet another examples of a massively over-umpired game of footy between two good sides dominating the landscape.

I swear - Geelong are the most blessed side in the AFL when it comes to umpiring.

[Kiss of Death 732]

All I saw last night was volleyball - whenever there were a lot of players around everybody was trying to just tap the bloody ball around. Very unattractive. I blame the current interpretation of the holding the ball rule. Also, Geelong might want to learn how to shepherd again.

Also, Naitanui looks incredible when he isn't competing against anybody in marking contests etc. Does he smell? Nobody wanted to touch him/block his run, was it his media sook about bring blocked?

[Demonised 1,302]

So, according to Geischen, you can't get run down from behind. I mean, that'd be complete blindsiding, wouldn't it? You're completely blind about what's happening behind your back.