Gilbert handpassed when he was caught. Hence, he wasn't holding the ball. It was a poor handpass, but the fist connected with the ball - just - so the umpire called it correctly.

But when Tyson and also Vince (I think it was Vince) were both blindside-tackled in the third, they managed to "sort of" connect with foot or hand, but got pinged anyway. In that situation, it seems you're usually pinged the moment you're tackled, whether you get a foot or hand to it or not. The Saints got a big psychological lift from those tackles, as we would have if the free was paid against Gilbert, as it should have been.

Maybe it's only paid when you can't see the tackler coming. Gilbert knew Matt Jones was there & thought he could outrun him, but got caught. Common sense would suggest that if you try to take on the tackler and lose, you should get less latitude than if you get blindsided and don't see the tackler until they hit you.

But what has common sense to do with umpiring??

That's what I like to see. Equal mix of loyalty, bias and paranoia. What would footy be without it?

In all honesty, I don't think there is a bias against us, but there is a subconscious bias against making decisions that would lead a result outside of the norm... And the norm of the last 7 years is for us to get the sharp end of the stick.

But when Tyson and also Vince (I think it was Vince) were both blindside-tackled in the third, they managed to "sort of" connect with foot or hand, but got pinged anyway. In that situation, it seems you're usually pinged the moment you're tackled, whether you get a foot or hand to it or not. The Saints got a big psychological lift from those tackles, as we would have if the free was paid against Gilbert, as it should have been.

Maybe it's only paid when you can't see the tackler coming. Gilbert knew Matt Jones was there & thought he could outrun him, but got caught. Common sense would suggest that if you try to take on the tackler and lose, you should get less latitude than if you get blindsided and don't see the tackler until they hit you.

But what has common sense to do with umpiring??

I don't recall the two instances you are referring to, but there's no doubt it's difficult for the umpires. They have to make a decision as to whether the ball hit the fist or foot before it hits the ground. Often they are not in a position which enables them to see which leaves them guessing. I don't know what the instructions are in such a situation - should they be giving the benefit of the doubt to the player with the ball or the player who makes the tackle?

To expand, there's not much fear in making a decision seen as a mistake in a match where the decision favours a team like Geelong or Hawthorn, and that team is winning comprehensively against an also-ran.

The mistake will likely be missed entirely by the majority.

There is much more fear involved in making a match influencing decision in favour of a historically poor team like Melbourne, against a team you'd expect to dispose of, maybe with a bit of a fight, but comfortably in the end.

A decision like that could shape the outcome. It could be scrutinised heavily in the media, and by those at AFL house.

It could lead to the odd nasty phone call from above.

It could lead to a spell in the 2s.

It could earn you a unenviable reputation like many umpires in the past.

I know most pundits expect St Kilda to be poor this year, much like us.

But it's been a few years since we've beaten the saints in any form and the umpires would know that.

I doubt they'd be studying our preseason form and expecting us to improve out of sight - old perceptions remain.

Just worth considering as a possibility.

To get back to the title of the thread:

The rules of the game have not changed with respect to "incorrect disposal". i.e having had opportunity to dispose of the ball, the player when tackled must dispose of the ball by hand or foot...

Sadly Geishen ( thank heavens he is now gone ) had instructed umpires to completely disregard the Rules of the game.

They don't care how the ball is disposed of, as long as it "gets out".....thrown, dropped or spilled. If it doesn't "get out" then you are pinged. If it does, it's play on.

The fans know the rules better than the umpires, and they will continue to call "ball" because they are usually right....

( except for Collingwood and Essendon, who think the rule is any opposition player who is tackled is "holding the ball" )

In all honesty, I don't think there is a bias against us, but there is a subconscious bias against making decisions that would lead a result outside of the norm... And the norm of the last 7 years is for us to get the sharp end of the stick.

I think of it as being similar to the school classroom where the badly performing kid is likely to be punished more severely by the teacher, purely because he has not earned the teacher's respect. The MFC have done nothing in the past few years to earn the respect of the umpiring fraternity, and so they tend to be punished more severely for what might normally be considered touch and go free kicks. What we need is an umpire with a Robin Hood complex.

Edited March 25, 201411 yr by hardtack

Agree entirely.

Gilbert handpassed when he was caught. Hence, he wasn't holding the ball. It was a poor handpass, but the fist connected with the ball - just - so the umpire called it correctly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Holding the Ball rule is called when a player takes TOO long to dispose of the ball?

Handball, Spillage or not. If a player has a ball, takes three bounces along the wing, gets chased down and tackled but handballs it as soon as he gets tackled that is taking TOO long to dispose the football.

The other rule is incorrect disposal, where a player would just let the ball drop once tackled.

I'm sick of seeing players take SO long to dispose of it, get tackled and get a quick cheap handball out, and the umpires call 'Play on' because they saw a correct disposal. Correct or not, they took TOO long meaning it's holding the ball.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Holding the Ball rule is called when a player takes TOO long to dispose of the ball?

Handball, Spillage or not. If a player has a ball, takes three bounces along the wing, gets chased down and tackled but handballs it as soon as he gets tackled that is taking TOO long to dispose the football.

The other rule is incorrect disposal, where a player would just let the ball drop once tackled.

I'm sick of seeing players take SO long to dispose of it, get tackled and get a quick cheap handball out, and the umpires call 'Play on' because they saw a correct disposal. Correct or not, they took TOO long meaning it's holding the ball.

that's fine........as long as he handballs straight away on being tackled (no delay, because he had prior opportunity)

that's been that way for ever

incorrect disposal is another thing. If there is no prior opportunity it must be kicked or handballed or ok if knocked out of possession by defender

if dropped (by player with ball) and not knocked out (or not disposed of) then it should be a free against.

unfortunately thanks to the geish interpretation they get away with it (for the supposed sake of keeping the game flowing)

if prior opportunity then must be an immediate valid disposal (with no delay)

some better players seem to get away with more time which is wrong