http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay?round=CD_R201401407&matchId=CD_M20140140704

That Jenkins goal at 16:50 3rd quarter was an absolute gift from the umpires - was a real momentum changer (reducing the margin to 15 points).

They really need to clear up this holding the ball rule - I for one hate the fact that they are pinning people without prior but if they are going to do it they have to be consistent.

I can see the point of the rule. Otherwise players won't make an attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled . They'd rather cause a stoppage as making an attempt under such pressure will likely result in a less than 50-50 chance to the team with the player being tackled whereas a stoppage will bring it back to a 50-50 contest.

A good point, and that's the problem with and beauty of the game. Change one thing and you get another but it does seem a bit ridiculous watching players acting out their attempt or being totally pinned with no chance to make an attempt.

Whilst its a problem in all games, its exacerbated in our games because we get the worst umpires (I include Ray C in that!) The good umps get the big crowd TV gigs... It won't change till we get away from the bottom of the ladder

Some relevent rules for discussion. Interestingly I ntoe that the wording has changed significantly for some of these over the past 10 years.

http://www.aflvic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Laws-Of-Aust-Football-2014.pdf

15.2.3 Holding 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, Laws of Australian Football 2014

upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

© Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent, the Player shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

15.2.4 Application — 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 genuinely attempt 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.

15.2.6 Football Held to the Body of a Player

(a) The field Umpire shall bounce the football when a Player, in the act of applying a Correct Tackle, holds the football to the body of the Player being Tackled or the football is otherwise pinned to the ground, unless the Player being Tackled has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.

(b) If the player being tackled is not making a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football 15.2.3(b) shall apply.

15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled

(a) For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a tackle correctly if:

(i) the Player being held is in possession of the football; and

(ii) that Player is held (either by the body or playing uniform) below the shoulders and above and including the knees.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a tackle may be executed correctly by holding a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.

note that there is no mention of tackling the tackler

I can see the point of the rule. Otherwise players won't make an attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled . They'd rather cause a stoppage as making an attempt under such pressure will likely result in a less than 50-50 chance to the team with the player being tackled whereas a stoppage will bring it back to a 50-50 contest.

There is a real problem when the ball is genuinely knocked free in a tackle. Too often the player drops the ball and it should be incorrect disposal but the ump calls it a genuine attempt to get rid of the ball - play on. Because the umps stand 30m away from the action in defined spots, they can't see most of whats happening when there is a scrum.

The genuine attempt has become ridiculous. Players pig rooting on the ground is unedifying.

The inconsistency of prior opp is galling.

In the back is being ignored when a player is on the ground.

Deanox has identified the relevant rules, but it is the umpires who have taken it upon themselves to "go for the easy way out" .......

If THEY determine that a player has no prior opportunity then they NEVER have to call incorrect disposal. So all we see is rolling mauls as the ball is thrown, dropped and spilled ...

Secondly if they SEE no attempt to dispose of the ball when 3 players are lying on top of the ball carrier then it is holding the ball. But they will NEVER SEE an attempt because there are 3 players lying on top of the person, but this seems to have eluded Campbell and Geishen before him.....

The other truly annoying facet of umpiring in 2014 is using the whistle, then calling advantage. If there is an advantage, there is no need to whistle, just call "play on" . If you are the defensive side you don't know whether to continue or not after a whistle. Continue and you risk 50 meter penalty. Don't and the opposition run past you.....

note that there is no mention of tackling the tackler

I really think that is the thing that would fix many of the supporter frustrations with the game without changing it fundamentally.

-It will allow space around the contests for the umpires to see what actually happens.

-It will allow space around the contests making it easier for teams to knock the ball out and get clearances.

There is a risk that if you can "tackle the tackler" the defensive team will be able to double or triple team the player with the ball, resulting in a higher chance of free kicks against the isolated player. I think this is countered by the fact that the more tacklers the harder it is to get the ball out thus it becomes a ball up (i.e. If you are grabbed from each side and the ball is pinned to you it is a ball up). This will encourage players to try and win the free kick on their own or try and won the ball that spills loose.

At the moment the umpiring encourages mass scrums because players know of they can get stacks on and prevent the ball coming out they area good chance of getting a holding the ball free kick. Let's eliminate that.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay?round=CD_R201401407&matchId=CD_M20140140704

That Jenkins goal at 16:50 3rd quarter was an absolute gift from the umpires - was a real momentum changer (reducing the margin to 15 points).

They really need to clear up this holding the ball rule - I for one hate the fact that they are pinning people without prior but if they are going to do it they have to be consistent.

See I think the opposite (not on that free I couldn't see it on the replay) on the nature of prior opportunity.

I think too many players are getting too long with the ball. If you've had a couple of steps you should dispose of it legally not drop it.

But at the same time they are paying too many when a player doesn't have prior then can't get the ball out.

Holding the ball should be for when you get caught in possession by a tackle. Not for when you've been jumped on and can't do the near impossible. At the moment instead of encouraging fast kicks and handballs to get the ball moving by pinging those with prior they are encouraging the rolling maul footy by pinging those who never stood a chance.

Coaches are doing it as well because you are better off dropping the ball and staying in the contest than hacking it forward and potentially turning it over. Change the interpretations of the rules to how they should be and the game will have more pinball style footy rather than in close scrum.

There is a real problem when the ball is genuinely knocked free in a tackle. Too often the player drops the ball and it should be incorrect disposal but the ump calls it a genuine attempt to get rid of the ball - play on. Because the umps stand 30m away from the action in defined spots, they can't see most of whats happening when there is a scrum.

The genuine attempt has become ridiculous. Players pig rooting on the ground is unedifying.

The inconsistency of prior opp is galling.

In the back is being ignored when a player is on the ground.

Agree with all of the above except maybe the last point.

The issue there is footy isn't meant to be played on the ground. Once a player is tackled to the ground it should be a free kick or ball up almost straight away. I agree if a player lands in the back it's a free but particularly last year any contact to the back of a player on the ground was a free and there were stupid frees everywhere. Now they aren't paying them which is fine by me but it still appears dumb because the game goes on for too long on the ground.

This all came about because the AFL decided repeat stoppages where killing the game. So instead of a stoppage we just have continuous in close play which is just as bad as a stoppage but instead of actual skills (hit outs, tackles, in close hand balls, clearances) we have this pick the ball up and drop it over and over mess.

Did anyone else notice how good Sydney were at playing in close clearance footy without even handballing the ball? Guys like Kennedy, McVeigh and Hannebery just pick the ball up and drop it out to their linking team mate all without ever getting punished.

The other truly annoying facet of umpiring in 2014 is using the whistle, then calling advantage. If there is an advantage, there is no need to whistle, just call "play on" . If you are the defensive side you don't know whether to continue or not after a whistle. Continue and you risk 50 meter penalty. Don't and the opposition run past you.....

I've mentioned this before, massive issue I agree.

...

Did anyone else notice how good Sydney were at playing in close clearance footy without even handballing the ball? Guys like Kennedy, McVeigh and Hannebery just pick the ball up and drop it out to their linking team mate all without ever getting punished.

This is spot on.

Players are being coached to fumble the ball towards team mates.

Because of the congestion they get away with it. It only gets picked up when it is in open play eg 1 on 2 on the wing.

Thus outlawing "tackling the tackler" will prevent clumps of 3-5 players wrestling on the floor. Combine that with "as soon as the umpires cannot see the ball and it is not clear what has happened and it is not moving, call for a ball up".

At the moment they are trying to take as long as they can in the hope that it gets knocked out. But it doesn't get knocked out because there is a scrum of players on top of it, thus the rolling maul.

Blow the whistle quicker, and get the players out of congestion.

I think it is a better solution than reducing the teams from 18 to 16 or having zones on the field (virtually an offside rule), both of which fundamentally change the game and are intensive to umpire.

This all came about because the AFL decided repeat stoppages where killing the game. So instead of a stoppage we just have continuous in close play which is just as bad as a stoppage but instead of actual skills (hit outs, tackles, in close hand balls, clearances) we have this pick the ball up and drop it over and over mess.

Did anyone else notice how good Sydney were at playing in close clearance footy without even handballing the ball? Guys like Kennedy, McVeigh and Hannebery just pick the ball up and drop it out to their linking team mate all without ever getting punished.

Exactly which seems to be more of a "rugby" style and worse than just calling for a ball-up.

I really think that is the thing that would fix many of the supporter frustrations with the game without changing it fundamentally.

-It will allow space around the contests for the umpires to see what actually happens.

-It will allow space around the contests making it easier for teams to knock the ball out and get clearances.

There is a risk that if you can "tackle the tackler" the defensive team will be able to double or triple team the player with the ball, resulting in a higher chance of free kicks against the isolated player. I think this is countered by the fact that the more tacklers the harder it is to get the ball out thus it becomes a ball up (i.e. If you are grabbed from each side and the ball is pinned to you it is a ball up). This will encourage players to try and win the free kick on their own or try and won the ball that spills loose.

At the moment the umpiring encourages mass scrums because players know of they can get stacks on and prevent the ball coming out they area good chance of getting a holding the ball free kick. Let's eliminate that.

It's a really interesting idea you've come up with Deanox, and would both de-congest and make the umpires jobs easier. The problem I reckon is the 'contested ball' situation, where the tackler both tackles the player, and gets his hands on the ball, potentially taking the bulk of possession. At what point does he then become 'tackleable?' Tricky.

The objective point on the holding the ball rule as it's being umpired now, is that it's an embarrassment to the notion of predictable adjudication. It is simply a raffle as to whether a given situation will end with a ball up, play on, or penalty to the ball carrier. I would suggest we all look at the footy (Dees or other) with NO idea of the umpires call. This is not because we don't know the rule, it's because it's adjudication is the very definition of a coin toss outcome. What we DO know is that Perth and Adelaide home games make the outcome a LOT more predictable, which is attributable to bias by crowd influence. As mentioned by others, it's a 3 to 4 goal a game influence. Stats will bear this out.

Your idea is a winner for clarity, as is making AFL umpiring a full time gig, so they can improve the standards. The fact that the biggest domestic sporting code in the country is not umpired by full timers is ludicrous.

It's a really interesting idea you've come up with Deanox, and would both de-congest and make the umpires jobs easier. The problem I reckon is the 'contested ball' situation, where the tackler both tackles the player, and gets his hands on the ball, potentially taking the bulk of possession. At what point does he then become 'tackleable?' Tricky.

The objective point on the holding the ball rule as it's being umpired now, is that it's an embarrassment to the notion of predictable adjudication. It is simply a raffle as to whether a given situation will end with a ball up, play on, or penalty to the ball carrier. I would suggest we all look at the footy (Dees or other) with NO idea of the umpires call. This is not because we don't know the rule, it's because it's adjudication is the very definition of a coin toss outcome. What we DO know is that Perth and Adelaide home games make the outcome a LOT more predictable, which is attributable to bias by crowd influence. As mentioned by others, it's a 3 to 4 goal a game influence. Stats will bear this out.

Your idea is a winner for clarity, as is making AFL umpiring a full time gig, so they can improve the standards. The fact that the biggest domestic sporting code in the country is not umpired by full timers is ludicrous.

I don't know about that though.

Some of the worst umpires are the ones who clearly pay more attention to the teaching classes (Ray!). Hence one umpire is calling play on for 20m kicks and the others are calling marks at 10m.

If we make them full time then what do we pay them? 50k? 70k? Will people do the job for that? Will you not attract better umpires by paying them 30k for 3 trainings a week and one game a week?

I mean the current crop include lawyers and businessmen who must make decent wages outside umpiring and keep their fitness levels up in their personal time. There is a risk making them full time devalues the candidates.

I would suggest havimg 9 full time umpires so each game is umpired by 1 professional who can then coach the others. You'd also then get excellent competition for those full time gigs. I'd award them as 3 sets of 3 year contracts so each year there'd be a battle for those 3 spots.

Surely tackling the tackler is already illegal if an oppo player tackles the tackler. Just needs to be enforced. Will quickly reduce ball-ups and make decisions easier.

It is more of a problem what you do about tackling the tackler by a tackler's team-mate just to cause a large pile of players and hold it up. I'd hesitate to make a new rule but maybe it is needed. But first try enforcing the current law - you can't tackle a bloke who doesn't have the ball.

Another thing which irks me is the variable amount of time before the ump calls for a ball up. There were instances on the weekend of umps waiting until 5 players had piled on and rolled about and other cases where there are only 2 guys, the player is brought to ground with the ball underneath and the ump immediately calls for a ball up without waiting to see if the player makes a genuine attempt to get rid of it regardless of prior opportunity. What are they thinking?

I've been grumbling for a long time by the convulsive acting players who can't possibly get the ball out have to do to con an ump. Now that this jerking about has become a sign of genuine effort, we will soon see blokes acting as if 1000 volts is going through them even when they can get the ball out but don't want to.

whilst I am venting - how often in all games do you see the ball dragged in - and then the huge pack develops and the umpire is blindsided - you can see the ball is now no longer with the player who dragged it in but the umpire guesses and says - "you dragged it in and it didn't come out". But umpire - the player who dragged it in no longer has the ball ??? How getting the ball OUT is out ???

Also the "in the back" rule goes straight out the window once you drag it in. You can do a Jimmy Snuka superfly splash off the top rope onto your opponent's back if he drags it in and not get pinged.

whilst I am venting - how often in all games do you see the ball dragged in - and then the huge pack develops and the umpire is blindsided - you can see the ball is now no longer with the player who dragged it in but the umpire guesses and says - "you dragged it in and it didn't come out". But umpire - the player who dragged it in no longer has the ball ??? How getting the ball OUT is out ???

The implementation of this interpretation over the past few years is an interesting case study because in theory, the risk of getting pinged for HtB when dragging it in should encourage players to knock it away from themselves rather than pull it in.

Unfortunately coaches/players have realised that it is a better percentage option to:

-drag it in then try and throw (or fumble) it out to a team mate at the risk of the inconsistent holding the ball free kick (a, it is low risk and b, after a free kick you have 5 seconds to get defensive numbers back and set up zones)

compared to

- knock the ball blindly where it will be 50/50 opposition clearance and without the benefit of defensive structure set up.

Maybe an alternative and/or additional rule/interpretation change should be that "a player cannot take possession when off their feet" (I.e. When lying on the ground) or "if a player takes possession when of their feet they are considered to have had prior opportunity" similar to the ruck contest rule.

My concern is that these rules are open to massive interpretation differences and alone and if not enforced every time, will just add to confusion.

I'd never seen that before. Sickening. I feel gutted for Fitzroy just watching that 2 minute clip. Who was the commentator voicing his absolute disgust?

I guess our game was