you have the respectful disagreement of every person on this site that has a pair of eyes. FMD.

Ill second that.

stop cheating

one sentence message to the umpires: don't pay what you don't actually see.

Get off the grass!

"Nobody gives a flying [censored] what you call as long as you do it consistently for every player on the ground."

"Give us more free kicks please."

"Your seeing eye dog needs glasses"

The problem is not the umpires. They are interpreting the rules as they stand now correctly. The rules are wrong. I hate the way the game is going, especially the holding the ball rule. The chase down tackles go unrewarded, but stacked on by 5 players within a millisecond of getting the ball, thats holding the ball. Thats not AFL.

ok im not going to moan here but im absolutely convinced that we are umpired differently to the better teams , there is no doubt about that , why ? who knows

The umpires typically umpire in 'teams', ie the same three umpires umpire together every week. The bigger games get the 'better' teams of umpires.

The problem is not the umpires. They are interpreting the rules as they stand now correctly. The rules are wrong. I hate the way the game is going, especially the holding the ball rule. The chase down tackles go unrewarded, but stacked on by 5 players within a millisecond of getting the ball, thats holding the ball. Thats not AFL.

I think the rules are very clear.

If you have had prior opportunity you must correctly dispose of the ball immediately (which is what Dunn did however the umpire blew his whistle too early). The same thing happened when Pedersen chased down Impey, he disposed of the ball straight away only this time the umpire didn't blow his whistle before Impey disposed of the ball like he did in the Dunn case. If you don't immediately dispose of the ball it is holding the ball.

If you haven't had prior opportunity you must just attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. If the ball drops out of your hands or is knocked out, that is not a throw or incorrect disposal in this situation becuase you have not had prior opportunity so long as you are attempting to dispose of the ball.

There is and never has been a rule called "dropping the ball" and there is a very big difference between dropping and throwing. Perfect example was when Watts had the ball on the weekend and he didn't just drop the ball, he actually threw it becuase he had one arm held. It was only that the umpire was blind-sided that he couldn't see so got away with it. If the ball dropped out of his hands or fell out it would have been fine becuase he didn't have prior opportunity and you could see he was trying to free his other arm to dispose of the ball. He just got lucky that the umpire didn't see him throw the ball.

The sad part of this rule is that flopping around like a fish out of water now constitutes trying to dispose of the ball and I think that some changes to the rules in these pack situations need to be addressed.

There was a great example in the game on the weekend where a commentator literally had no idea of the rules. The situation was Howe picked up the ball and was tackled straight away, he went to kick the ball but was slung in a tackle and the ball missed his foot. Therefore, he didn't have prior opportunity but he did attempt to dispose of the ball. Anthony Hudson was then saying along the lines of "that was incorrect disposal, therefore it should be holding the ball". Anthony Hudson was wrong and the umpire correctly called play on. People watching then hear what Hudson says and think that is the rule which confuses them even more.

Edited July 21, 201411 yr by Clint Bizkit

What frustrated the hell out of me is for the greatest majority of the game when a player took possession of the ball and was jumped on the umpire quickly blew the whistle and balled it up. But on four occasions he decided to sit and wait and wait and then ping for no attempt - each time it was against us. (there was one also against wingard - although he was just lying on it with no-one on top of him). Now maybe there was no genuine attempt to get it out but why did this happen only when we were on the bottom of the pack. The Viney holding the ball. No problem if you want to call that a free against but there were about 10 others that were identical that ended up in a ball up situation. It seems we really get the rough end of the "no genuine attempt" ruling. They umpires dont pay it all - except against us.

As had been pointed out - if they want to pay that holding the ball against Viney - fine - pay others against the other mob which were no different - if they want to pay a free against Watts - then pay the same to Pederson at the other end. The problem with 3 umpires is that dont all interpret the same way and we end up with the rough end of the pineapple.

I think the rules are very clear.

If you have had prior opportunity you must correctly dispose of the ball immediately (which is what Dunn did however the umpire blew his whistle too early). The same thing happened when Pedersen chased down Impey, he disposed of the ball straight away only this time the umpire didn't blow his whistle before Impey disposed of the ball like he did in the Dunn case. If you don't immediately dispose of the ball it is holding the ball.

If you haven't had prior opportunity you must just attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. If the ball drops out of your hands or is knocked out, that is not a throw or incorrect disposal in this situation becuase you have not had prior opportunity so long as you are attempting to dispose of the ball.

There is and never has been a rule called "dropping the ball" and there is a very big difference between dropping and throwing. Perfect example was when Watts had the ball on the weekend and he didn't just drop the ball, he actually threw it becuase he had one arm held. It was only that the umpire was blind-sided that he couldn't see so got away with it. If the ball dropped out of his hands or fell out it would have been fine becuase he didn't have prior opportunity and you could see he was trying to free his other arm to dispose of the ball. He just got lucky that the umpire didn't see him throw the ball.

The sad part of this rule is that flopping around like a fish out of water now constitutes trying to dispose of the ball and I think that some changes to the rules in these pack situations need to be addressed.

There was a great example in the game on the weekend where a commentator literally had no idea of the rules. The situation was Howe picked up the ball and was tackled straight away, he went to kick the ball but was slung in a tackle and the ball missed his foot. Therefore, he didn't have prior opportunity but he did attempt to dispose of the ball. Anthony Hudson was then saying along the lines of "that was incorrect disposal, therefore it should be holding the ball". Anthony Hudson was wrong and the umpire correctly called play on. People watching then hear what Hudson say and think that is the rule which confuses them even more.

Well said. The fact that Watts felt obliged to throw the ball out rather than just let it drop while trying to free his other arm shows that even the players no longer know the rules. Well actually I expect someone like Watts knows the rules, but he also knows how the umps will misinterpret them. (He would have done better to just fall on the ball rather than risk being pinged for a throw.)

I simply cannot understand why the umps don't penalise players who jump on packs and tackle the player(s) who don't have the ball. I recall a clear case where a Melbourne player was tacked on the ground and Jamar jumped in and tackled the Port tackler who clearly didn't have the ball. No free against Jamar. But think how enforcing that would clear up the ugly stacks-on-the-mill scenes we witness at every second ball-up.