I noticed on numerous occasions on Sunday that the Port players would grab the Melb player's arm ,before immobilising them with the other arm.

If the tackled player has had no prior chance to dispose, and cannot get the ball to boot, he must dispose of the ball illegally, with one hand. Is that a free? There appeared to be no consistency in the umps' interpretation. (The only consistency was that we were penalised for this, but they weren't ,on the couple of occasions we managed to pin them in this way. Riley did it once....is it an Adelaide tactic?)

If a player's arm is behind his back in a "hammer lock", there is no point in trying to handball, which would just result in a throw. So it appears to the ump that he is not making a genuine attempt to dispose.

Therefore, I think it's an excellent tactic to grab one arm, and pull it back when tackling. Too often players grab the hips, and the tackled player then lifts his arms and gets a handball off.

We should copy Port 's tackling methods.

Incidentally, I would like to argue against the hackneyed myth of "rewarding the perfect tackle". However perfect the tackle, if a player has no opportunity to dispose, and is unable to kick or handball because of the tackle , it SHOULD NOT be a free . Commentators and umpires do not seem to understand this.

The over-riding principle should be to protect the player who has the courage to go in first for the ball.

of all the rubbish that pollutes the modern game, the instant free kick for being tackled with no prior opportunity just might the number one most infuriating. We copped at least 6 or 7 of these on Sunday

Getting pinned for holding the bal;l this season has been ridiculous. '

your right pining the arm is the best way, but tricky.

its been in the game for a while and as you mentioned port looked like they've been practicing it.

When they pay the free for the tackle pinning the arm, I think its paying the free against illegal disposal.

I think, if the tackler has time to pin that arm, and can force an incorrect disposal, then the player being tackled has probably had 'enough time', and the tackling effort should be rewarded.

There is always the potential to get that ball to boot.

I think it should be left as is, then we can focus more heavily on that facet of the game and take advantage of it.

to be honest, i don't really like that rule 'no prior opportunity'. if its in clean traffic as opposed to a scrap on the ground, and a tackle takes place and no prior is called, it should be a holdig the ball like it used to be. because if your play has been read well by the opposition and they know where the ball is going, why should they have to give that player a second or two with the ball before tackling in order to receive the free. Doesn't really make sense.

Of course theres times were its just a scrap on hands and knees and those should just be a ball up.

Well I found it funny that the one incorrect disposal call from the umpires was against Nate Jones when he had his back to the umpire, in a game where there were numerous opportunities to pay that free kick he totally guessed on that one.

  On 22/07/2014 at 00:41, Pates said:

Well I found it funny that the one incorrect disposal call from the umpires was against Nate Jones when he had his back to the umpire, in a game where there were numerous opportunities to pay that free kick he totally guessed on that one.

grrrr.....guessing - my pet hate. The amount of times you get pinged for not getting the ball out and it is actually no where near the player that gets pinged. guessing. grrrrrrr

The reasoning behind the wording and interpretation of the "holding the ball" rule is to encourage movement of the ball, and free flowing play. It is having the opposite effect. The game is rapidly getting more and more ugly.

In my opinion, the free kick should go against the tackler who is second to the ball, then grabs the player who went in first. He then makes every attempt to STOP him from disposing of the ball, by hugging the ball to the tackled player's chest. So in fact it is the TACKLER who is "holding the ball".

The tackler should be required to try to either wrench the ball from the opponent, or knock it free. If he causes a stoppage by hugging the ball to his opponent, it should be a free against the tackler, and it should be paid straight away, before other players dive in to generate the "rolling maul".

Everyone knows that the holding the ball rule is screwed... Gil Knows it, the media knows it, the coaches know it, the players know it and the fans know it. The AFL Umpires Association tried to change the way the game was played through interpretation and it hasn't worked. The game is hard to watch and sadly, people are become more restless. I like Gil and think he has values over and above the previous agendas. The reason he had dinner with the coaches was to iron out these things and i am sure that they will be addressed at years end. If they are not addressed then i think the game will become 'unrecognizable' and fans will lose interest in the ever evolving rules of this great game.

Only game I watched on the weekend was on Friday night and on quite a number of occasions the umpire awarded a free kick and announced it as "illegal disposal". I thought it was either "holding the ball" or "throwing the ball".

It's an area/rule of the game that needs to be stripped back and the interpretation be clearly outlined. The umpires then need to stick to that interpretation and not tweak or adjust it on a weekly basis. The fans are confused but what's even more alarming is that the players are confused.

Back on topic.

Yes port were great at the one arm tackle. And it's a great tackle as the player has to drop it on their boot indiscriminately or throw it. We got away with a couple of throws - see Jack Watts.

Some of our players have to be better and busting through those one arm tackles or if caught in them using their legs and strength to get a kick away before it's holding the ball.

And if we could do a few of those tackles it would be nice but they do seem risking. We are still allowing too many opponents to get clean handballs out of our tackles. It was better on Sunday but needs to go to another level.

  On 22/07/2014 at 01:40, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

We got away with a couple of throws - see Jack Watts.

I know what you are talking about and yes he threw it but he had zero prior opportunity - there was an identical one that Dawes DIDN'T get away with, he got tackled within one second of taking possession, he would have had a better chance of getting a 'ball up' call from the umpire if he just absorbed the tackle and went to ground, but he did what we have all been taught you are supposed to do which was attempt to dispose of it but he didn't get his boot to it. Yes - it was illegal disposal but it's the type of thing 5 or 10 years ago a player would not have attempted to dispose in that situation because he would know there is no danger of being called for holding it because there was no prior. So infuriating.

if I was out there in that situation I would deliberately fumble gathering the ball and take a free kick for getting tackled without the ball, it's the only thing you can do now in a situation where you beat your opponent to the ball by one second

  On 22/07/2014 at 01:40, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

Back on topic.

Yes port were great at the one arm tackle. And it's a great tackle as the player has to drop it on their boot indiscriminately or throw it. We got away with a couple of throws - see Jack Watts.

Some of our players have to be better and busting through those one arm tackles or if caught in them using their legs and strength to get a kick away before it's holding the ball.

And if we could do a few of those tackles it would be nice but they do seem risking. We are still allowing too many opponents to get clean handballs out of our tackles. It was better on Sunday but needs to go to another level.

I noticed Jack Viney was good at getting his held arm free for a handball when tackled. Strong kid.

  On 22/07/2014 at 00:13, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I noticed on numerous occasions on Sunday that the Port players would grab the Melb player's arm ,before immobilising them with the other arm.

If the tackled player has had no prior chance to dispose, and cannot get the ball to boot, he must dispose of the ball illegally, with one hand. Is that a free? There appeared to be no consistency in the umps' interpretation. (The only consistency was that we were penalised for this, but they weren't ,on the couple of occasions we managed to pin them in this way. Riley did it once....is it an Adelaide tactic?)

If a player's arm is behind his back in a "hammer lock", there is no point in trying to handball, which would just result in a throw. So it appears to the ump that he is not making a genuine attempt to dispose.

Therefore, I think it's an excellent tactic to grab one arm, and pull it back when tackling. Too often players grab the hips, and the tackled player then lifts his arms and gets a handball off.

We should copy Port 's tackling methods.

Incidentally, I would like to argue against the hackneyed myth of "rewarding the perfect tackle". However perfect the tackle, if a player has no opportunity to dispose, and is unable to kick or handball because of the tackle , it SHOULD NOT be a free . Commentators and umpires do not seem to understand this.

The over-riding principle should be to protect the player who has the courage to go in first for the ball.

Good post, I wrote something similar this morning:

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.

  On 22/07/2014 at 00:13, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I noticed on numerous occasions on Sunday that the Port players would grab the Melb player's arm ,before immobilising them with the other arm.

If the tackled player has had no prior chance to dispose, and cannot get the ball to boot, he must dispose of the ball illegally, with one hand. Is that a free? There appeared to be no consistency in the umps' interpretation. (The only consistency was that we were penalised for this, but they weren't ,on the couple of occasions we managed to pin them in this way. Riley did it once....is it an Adelaide tactic?)

If a player's arm is behind his back in a "hammer lock", there is no point in trying to handball, which would just result in a throw. So it appears to the ump that he is not making a genuine attempt to dispose.

Therefore, I think it's an excellent tactic to grab one arm, and pull it back when tackling. Too often players grab the hips, and the tackled player then lifts his arms and gets a handball off.

We should copy Port 's tackling methods.

I agree that it's nigh on a perfect tackle, but it's not far off from a 'chicken wing' tackle and from memory, Cyril got weeks for one of those last year (or the year before). Grabbing by the wrist is fine, but personally I don't like to see the players arm wrenched behind their back which leaves them in a vulnerable position when both standing and on the ground. I'd much prefer to see a proper tackle that pins an arm in the motion of wrapping the other players body up.

While on the topic of tackling, they need to crack down on some of the less than tasteful stuff that happens at the bottom of packs. It's not uncommon to see a tackler applying some form of submission move while lying on top of a prone player. It's hard for the umpires to spot, but it should be an unwritten rule among players. There are a number of other players I've seen do it, but Heath Hocking is a regular offender - Melb v Essendon, rd 13 this year, the tackle that Hocking applies before Jones gets a free kick and slots the goal - one of the camera angles of the tackle clearly shows Hocking applying a kimura while lying on top of Jones, it looks innocuous but there's big potential for damage in that incident.

  On 22/07/2014 at 01:46, Curry & Beer said:

I know what you are talking about and yes he threw it but he had zero prior opportunity - there was an identical one that Dawes DIDN'T get away with, he got tackled within one second of taking possession, he would have had a better chance of getting a 'ball up' call from the umpire if he just absorbed the tackle and went to ground, but he did what we have all been taught you are supposed to do which was attempt to dispose of it but he didn't get his boot to it. Yes - it was illegal disposal but it's the type of thing 5 or 10 years ago a player would not have attempted to dispose in that situation because he would know there is no danger of being called for holding it because there was no prior. So infuriating.

if I was out there in that situation I would deliberately fumble gathering the ball and take a free kick for getting tackled without the ball, it's the only thing you can do now in a situation where you beat your opponent to the ball by one second

When you have an arm free you have prior opportunity, that's my view. And usually the umpires. The issue is you are right it's better to fumble than to get stuck with the ball in one arm then drop it. If you can't break the tackle you should drop the ball immediately. Watts is a repeat offender as he doesn't break tackles but he tries to get out in to space and instead he should just drop the ball at times.

  On 22/07/2014 at 02:36, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

When you have an arm free you have prior opportunity, that's my view. And usually the umpires. The issue is you are right it's better to fumble than to get stuck with the ball in one arm then drop it. If you can't break the tackle you should drop the ball immediately. Watts is a repeat offender as he doesn't break tackles but he tries to get out in to space and instead he should just drop the ball at times.

That is a strange view. You can have that 'free' arm grabbed immediately (or even before) you get the ball. How does that mean you have had more prior opportunity than someone who is immediately grabbed around the waist?

I agree dropping the ball is the best tactic given the current interpretations. The current interpretations are supposed to prevent ugly packs forming. It is not working. As I posted elsewhere, for a start they could penalize the blokes who jump on pack and tackle the tackler who hasn't got the ball by definition (though I agree with Jumping Jack C when he says it is often the tackler who is the one holding the ball in).

Clint has it nailed.

The problem is when the AFL try to change the game by adding interpretations to that basic rule such as "diving on the ball constitutes prior opportunity so it must be knocked free immediately", which in itself is reasonable, however when umpires reward tackles that hold the ball to players it is broken.

The easy solution is to call ball ups almost instantaneously on close scrimmages.

  On 22/07/2014 at 01:23, SPC said:

Everyone knows that the holding the ball rule is screwed... Gil Knows it, the media knows it, the coaches know it, the players know it and the fans know it. The AFL Umpires Association tried to change the way the game was played through interpretation and it hasn't worked. The game is hard to watch and sadly, people are become more restless. I like Gil and think he has values over and above the previous agendas. The reason he had dinner with the coaches was to iron out these things and i am sure that they will be addressed at years end. If they are not addressed then i think the game will become 'unrecognizable' and fans will lose interest in the ever evolving rules of this great game.

  On 22/07/2014 at 01:29, Juicebox said:

Only game I watched on the weekend was on Friday night and on quite a number of occasions the umpire awarded a free kick and announced it as "illegal disposal". I thought it was either "holding the ball" or "throwing the ball".

It's an area/rule of the game that needs to be stripped back and the interpretation be clearly outlined. The umpires then need to stick to that interpretation and not tweak or adjust it on a weekly basis. The fans are confused but what's even more alarming is that the players are confused.

I used to watch three or four games each weekend on TV (and get to the MFC one whenever I could) - nowadays frankly it is so ugly that I rarely watch a 'neutral game' in full, and IMO it is the inconsistent and unpredictable HTB interpretations that is the prime cause of the ugliness. Rewarding predators who hover over the guy getting the ball, then ramming him into the ground should never be rewarded with HTB: it should in most cases be in the back, or high tackle, and be promptly penalised. IF, big IF, that was applied consistently (a concept apparently completely unknown amongst the umpiring fraternity) it should get the game moving, and people back watching. (And curbing drastically the number of interchanges would IMO help too).

  On 22/07/2014 at 01:40, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

Back on topic.

Yes port were great at the one arm tackle. And it's a great tackle as the player has to drop it on their boot indiscriminately or throw it. We got away with a couple of throws - see Jack Watts.

Some of our players have to be better and busting through those one arm tackles or if caught in them using their legs and strength to get a kick away before it's holding the ball.

And if we could do a few of those tackles it would be nice but they do seem risking. We are still allowing too many opponents to get clean handballs out of our tackles. It was better on Sunday but needs to go to another level.

If the one armed tackle results in the ball spilling free it should be play on: only if it is actually thrown should incorrect disposal be paid.

And isn't the one armed tackle applied by a strong opponent in a fast moving game a bit of a recipe for shoulder dislocation, almost akin to Judd style chicken-winging?