Holding the ball / prior opportunity / incorrect disposal

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

4 minutes ago, mrtwister said:

David King showed some footage to the world regarding the Bulldogs' questionable disposals from the weekend on AFL360 tonight. He said they counted about 15 overall. And they didn't even show the footage of Stringer's first goal, or his first goal in the last quarter.

See my post above - they all looked fine to me bar one which was a blatant throw. What did you think of the ones they showed?

[mrtwister 652]

Half could quite easily have been throws, hard to tell with speed and body position. No doubt they get away with plenty though.

Still think Stringer's first 4th quarter goal was the worst of the day.

[Macca 17,013]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

On 360 they showed a compilation of Dogs "throws" from the weekend.  There was only one that was a throw, I think it was Dahlhaus scooping it out the back to Bont. The rest were fine, just very quick hands. There was one where the older  (Hunter?) held the ball for a handball and punched with the top of his knuckles instead of the thumb side of his fist. There is nothing wrong with this according to the rules as the rules state you must hold the ball in one hand and hit it with a clenched fist from the other. It doesn't say which side of the fist you must hit with. It's essentially a modified flick pass but with the laws of the game. 

I also agree the dropping the knees searching for a high tackle is dicing with severe injury. There is a reason the high tackle is banned it is to protect the player going for the ball. The rules state that a player with the ball who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary target will be deemed to have had prior opportunity. Pay a couple of holding the balls against these players (Dylan Grimes is another culprit) and they'll stop doing it. Someone will get injured/paralysed playing for free kicks and the AFL will have noone to blame but themselves. 

There are at least 3 ways to milk an "Around the neck" free kick.

1 - Ducking ones head - that one is mostly obvious and the offending player should be pinged every time - we don't actually see a lot of players do that anyway (what players often do these days is covered in points 2 & 3 below) The ducking can result in a severe injury so they need to be hot on that (the people instructing the umpires)

2 - Shrugging the arms up Selwood style - I don't believe it can be seen consistently in real time by the umpires - so, we're going to get inconsistent outcomes (unless the interpretation of the rule is changed)

3 - The dropping of the knees or body - again, I don't believe it can be seen consistently in real time by the umpires - so, we're going to get inconsistent outcomes (unless the interpretation of the rule is changed)

If you watch closely, McLean is often doing both (points 2 and 3) yet it's hard to pick up in real time ... a slight of hand, so to speak.  He's accentuating the contact which therefore makes the action/outcome look more dangerous. 

My solution would be to not pay a free kick for "incidental" contact to the head, neck and shoulders area.  Around the neck needs to be blatant with intent from the tackler (like what we saw with Lindsay Thomas)  A dangerous tackle (so to speak)  Some tackles are crude and dangerous and only those type of tackles should be penalised (primarily)

Otherwise, I can easily see the issue getting worse with more and more players doing what McLean is doing.  I don't believe that what he does is that difficult to copy. 

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Macca

[RalphiusMaximus 6,078]

On 16/05/2016 at 10:48 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

If a player has had prior opportunity the player must dispose of the ball correctly when tackled correctly.

If a player has not had prior opportunity the player must attempt to dispose of the ball correctly when tackled correctly.

Since when is an attempt good enough?  Do you give six points for trying to kick a goal?  Do you pay a mark because they tried to get two hands on the ball?  To quote a rather famous fictional character, "Do or do not.  There is no try."

On 16/05/2016 at 11:35 AM, Devil is in the Detail said:

I still love it when the umpires say the ball was disposed/knocked out in the tackle and call play on. I see that is incorrect disposal when being tackled.

It's been a while, but last time I looked over the rules they specifically said that if you'd had prior opportunity and the ball was knocked free this constituted incorrect disposal and a free kick should be awarded. 

[Macca 17,013]

Considering we see so many 'high tackles' in the sport these days, one would think that we'd have an epidemic of broken jaws and the like ... you would also reckon that the umpires would admonish the high tacklers with a warning about tackling in a dangerous way ... they don't of course because most of the high tackles are never dangerous at all with many of the tackles being initially aimed at the torso or hips (or trying to pin the arms or at least one arm)

More often than not, the tacklers don't have an intent to tackle high in the first place.  Why would tacklers deliberately tackle high (so many times) given the virtual zero tolerance to tackling high?

It must feel strange to be having ones arms around a head, neck or over the shoulders after initially aiming at the hips with a tackle.  Again, it's not an umpire issue, it's a laws of the game issue.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Macca

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

The scoop throw and flick throw have been in use for years. I would say Essendrug/Weagles started experimenting with it in the mid 2000s and Hawks/Cats/Swannies caught up with it big time a few years after.

I have no doubt they use these methods in general disputed ball "congestion" training as well as dropping the knees/shrugging for the high tackle. In addition most clubs drop their knees and flop forward to the ground when in possesion /on the run as soon as they sense a tackle from behind looking for the in the back. Most umps have at least woken up to this one however.

I have never seen the Demons do any of this professional free & scoop/throw work prior to this year. Ive seen the shrug this year on a few occasions.

I have said for years that if you are to move the ball "AWAY" from and "QUICKLY" out of congestion to have an effective spread and move the ball quickly enough into the 50 to be as competitve as these clubs we would have to start using these techniques and move into the 21st century with the other top clubs who have been doing so for over a decade.

No doubt the Hawks assistant coaches are now using/training the same techniques. No coincidence that the Doggies and to a lessor extent the Blues (surprise packet so far) are doing so well since these assistants have taken over.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

7 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Since when is an attempt good enough?  Do you give six points for trying to kick a goal?  Do you pay a mark because they tried to get two hands on the ball?  To quote a rather famous fictional character, "Do or do not.  There is no try."

For as long as the rule has been around.

What would the alternative be, penalise every player tackled with holding the ball no matter how long they had possession?

This all goes back to Ted Fidge's post about the "PURPOSE OF LAWS", in particular to "provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession".

In other words, by removing the "attempt"  part of the holding the ball rule without prior opportunity, reduces the incentive of the player to get the ball. It would be easier to just wait for another player to get it, tackle him and get an immediate free kick for holding the ball.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Clint Bizkit

[nutbean 8,838]

16 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

For as long as the rule has been around.

What would the alternative be, penalise every player tackled with holding the ball no matter how long they had possession?

This all goes back to Ted Fidge's post about the "PURPOSE OF LAWS", in particular to "provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession".

In other words, by removing the "attempt"  part of the holding the ball rule without prior opportunity, reduces the incentive of the player to get the ball. It would be easier to just wait for another player to get it, tackle him and get an immediate free kick for holding the ball.

 

Agreed.

The last thing we need is more incentive to breed lurkers.

Edited May 18, 2016 by nutbean

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

7 hours ago, Macca said:

There are at least 3 ways to milk an "Around the neck" free kick.

1 - Ducking ones head - that one is mostly obvious and the offending player should be pinged every time - we don't actually see a lot of players do that anyway (what players often do these days is covered in points 2 & 3 below) The ducking can result in a severe injury so they need to be hot on that (the people instructing the umpires)

2 - Shrugging the arms up Selwood style - I don't believe it can be seen consistently in real time by the umpires - so, we're going to get inconsistent outcomes (unless the interpretation of the rule is changed)

3 - The dropping of the knees or body - again, I don't believe it can be seen consistently in real time by the umpires - so, we're going to get inconsistent outcomes (unless the interpretation of the rule is changed)

If you watch closely, McLean is often doing both (points 2 and 3) yet it's hard to pick up in real time ... a slight of hand, so to speak.  He's accentuating the contact which therefore makes the action/outcome look more dangerous. 

My solution would be to not pay a free kick for "incidental" contact to the head, neck and shoulders area.  Around the neck needs to be blatant with intent from the tackler (like what we saw with Lindsay Thomas)  A dangerous tackle (so to speak)  Some tackles are crude and dangerous and only those type of tackles should be penalised (primarily)

Otherwise, I can easily see the issue getting worse with more and more players doing what McLean is doing.  I don't believe that what he does is that difficult to copy. 

 

I disagree- what McLean, Hunter, Grimes et al do is a variation on 3. They drop the knees and fall towards the tackler head/neck first actively looking for a free. Sometimes they do this as soon as they get the ball when they could otherwise have avoided/evaded the tackle. They are not merely dropping the knees when about to be tackled, they take possession and their first instinct is to drop the knees and fall towards the nearest opponent. I would argue this is "driving the head" into a stationary or near stationary player and should be seen as prior opportunity. If they fail to correctly dispose of the footy afterwards they should be pinged holding the ball. All it takes is for a few of these calls to go against them and you'll see the practice stamped out overnight. 

The alternative is it keeps occurring until someone breaks a neck or paralyses themselves. Just because a severe injury hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the risk isn't there for it to happen in the future. When/if it does happen the AFL will have noone to blame but themselves. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Dr. Gonzo

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Interestingly there's nothing there about the aesthetics of the game when over the last decade the AFL has used the umpires for this precise purpose. Not to ensure the match is played in a fair manner and protect the player going for the ball but to make sure the game flows and looks nice. Where in the rules does it give them the mandate to do that?

Good point. There are quite a few things that are not in the rules.

Example: 6 seconds to kick after a free. Not in the rules. 30 seconds to kick if it's a shot on goal. Not in the rules. The word "seconds" does not appear in the rules at all.

The AFL use their primary management technique, "make it up as you go", when it comes to the umpiring of the game. Who can forget Jeff Gieschen, when confronted with fact that Buddy Franklin when taking a set shot on goal actually plays on, inventing on the spot a new rule "natural arc".

The AFL are perfectly happy to ignore the written word and rely on nebulous and shifting "interpretation", which seems not to exist in the rules of any other game.

Given that, how can we expect any consistency from the umps when the rules are only one part of what they are expected to adjudicate by?

Having said that, it does annoy the hell out of me when the umps disregard the things that actually ARE in the rule book. In the Essendon game Matthew Stokes had a set shot on goal and wanted to kick a banana. He chose a spot from where to kick, 2 or 3 metres off the mark line, so he could run more or less sideways to the line to have his kick. Not permitted in the rules. Umps happily allowed it.

[Macca 17,013]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I disagree- what McLean, Hunter, Grimes et al do is a variation on 3. They drop the knees and fall towards the tackler head/neck first actively looking for a free. Sometimes they do this as soon as they get the ball when they could otherwise have avoided/evaded the tackle. They are not merely dropping the knees when about to be tackled, they take possession and their first instinct is to drop the knees and fall towards the nearest opponent. I would argue this is "driving the head" into a stationary or near stationary player and should be seen as prior opportunity. If they fail to correctly dispose of the footy afterwards they should be pinged holding the ball. All it takes is for a few of these calls to go against them and you'll see the practice stamped out overnight. 

The alternative is it keeps occurring until someone breaks a neck or paralyses themselves. Just because a severe injury hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the risk isn't there for it to happen in the future. When/if it does happen the AFL will have noone to blame but themselves. 

You may be right but it still all happens far too quickly for the umpires to be able to adjudicate on the matter in a consistent manner ... they may get a few right but they'll miss plenty.

It's just the nature of the sport  There will be others like McLean, it's inevitable.

They may clamp down on these types of incidents and the umpires might see some of the goings on ... but they'll miss plenty so we'll therefore get inconsistent outcomes ... and we'll still be talking about it in 5, 10, 20 years time.  These types of adjudications have been argued about for over a hundred years - it's the same type of theme every single season.

My advice is to somehow come to terms with it all otherwise it will do your head in.  Try watching that McLean video without ever watching any of the slo-mo replays.  The ducking of the head is one thing - I agree with you on that. 

But the bigger picture issue is the shrugging of the arms in an upward motion and the dropping of the body - both quite legal as far as I know.  How do you fix that?

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Driving your head into an opponent is considered having prior opportunity (15.2.3 a (iii)). So you've got to get rid it or give up a free.

The umps dept should rule that if you CAUSE high contact, eg by lifting your arm in a tackle, that's prior opportunity and you have to get rid of it or give up a free.

In the McLean video, (eg) where N Jones gave away a free because his arm moved high, McLean would have had prior opp and because he made no attempt to get rid of it, holding the ball.

They already have an "interpretation" (in a video on the AFL web site, and naturally not in the official rules) where drawing high contact by ducking into a tackle is considered play on. (Yet they're still not allowed to be tackled high?? Gets more confusing the more I think about it.)

 

[Macca 17,013]

Bottom line is that these type of incidents all happen far too quickly for the umpires to be able to adjudicate on these matters in a consistant way. 

The ideal outcomes that people talk about are impractical in all reality.  

At best the decisions made are intelligent guesses.  It's almost impossible to clearly notice what a player does when he is milking a free.  

A replay facility would solve a lot of the issues but that's impractical as well.  So it's either vent or don't vent. 

[The heart beats true 18,128]

Agreed Macca - except the AFL uses slow motion footage to suit it's arguments in a tribunal situation and it does it for one reason - because trial by media is occurring via that same footage. They aren't actually adjudicating the incident, they are now adjudicating the instance of said incident in the public realm.

Since there is no way around this in real time the least the AFL can do is come out after these ducking/dropping incidences and create a warning system for the players. McLean - you took a dive on the weekend - thats a 1st warning. 3 strikes and you get suspended. Just like they do with fines for rough play.

3 weeks into that rule and the problem would go away. No competitive athlete wants to be the first player suspended for ducking.

 

 

 

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Bottom line is that these type of incidents all happen far too quickly for the umpires to be able to adjudicate on these matters in a consistant way. 

The ideal outcomes that people talk about are impractical in all reality.  

At best the decisions made are intelligent guesses.  It's almost impossible to clearly notice what a player does when he is milking a free.  

A replay facility would solve a lot of the issues but that's impractical as well.  So it's either vent or don't vent. 

So the AFL has no recourse but to have an unclear and confusing, unsatisfactory adjudication of their game?

Take the throwing the ball. At worst, it's clear throwing of the ball. At best, it's so borderline that maybe it really is technically legal?

Is it in the spirit of the game?

Is it a good look for the game?

No.

A bit of tough love would go a long way.

Anything that is not a clear cut handball gets pinged as throwing the ball. The players would adjust in a jiffy. The price you pay is that a few legal handballs get pinged. Better that than have a growing and continuous blight on the game because the AFL sits on their hands.

Result: no more suspect throwing the ball.

Same with the raising of the arm to draw high contact. Is it in the spirit of the game? Is it a good look for the game? No. Penalise it. Don't reward it. Especially borderline instances.

The players will rapidly adjust and we'll have a better game and better spectacle.

The AFL has done this very thing with deliberate out of bounds. What's stopping them with these more egregious and offensive incidents?

[Macca 17,013]

6 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Agreed Macca - except the AFL uses slow motion footage to suit it's arguments in a tribunal situation and it does it for one reason - because trial by media is occurring via that same footage. They aren't actually adjudicating the incident, they are now adjudicating the instance of said incident in the public realm.

Since there is no way around this in real time the least the AFL can do is come out after these ducking/dropping incidences and create a warning system for the players. McLean - you took a dive on the weekend - thats a 1st warning. 3 strikes and you get suspended. Just like they do with fines for rough play.

3 weeks into that rule and the problem would go away. No competitive athlete wants to be the first player suspended for ducking.

 

 

 

 

Good points ... I'd go with that 'thbt' 

But as for on the spot, it's too difficult to get right on a consistent basis. 

[Macca 17,013]

What we want from umpiring and what we get from the umpiring of the game will be mutually exclusive. 

The sport will never be umpired to the satisfaction of the masses.  

It's not giving up either ... it's the nature of the sport. 

[3Dee 1,153]

15 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

 players being coached to drop their leg/shoulder to get free kicks for high tackles. Someone compiled this video of Toby Mclean in 2016 and it's damning. What a disgraceful footballer.

We're playing Bundy Christensen this weekend.. he is an absolute master at drawing the high tackle..

[mrtwister 652]

9 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

It's been a while, but last time I looked over the rules they specifically said that if you'd had prior opportunity and the ball was knocked free this constituted incorrect disposal and a free kick should be awarded. 

I assumed this was correct. Viney (twice) and Watts got done for this on the weekend yet it stank of inconsistency when the very same call didn't seem to apply to the Doggies.

If you get it wrong, that's fine. As long as you get it wrong consistently.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

57 minutes ago, Macca said:

Bottom line is that these type of incidents all happen far too quickly for the umpires to be able to adjudicate on these matters in a consistant way. 

The ideal outcomes that people talk about are impractical in all reality.  

At best the decisions made are intelligent guesses.  It's almost impossible to clearly notice what a player does when he is milking a free.  

A replay facility would solve a lot of the issues but that's impractical as well.  So it's either vent or don't vent. 

I disagree it happens too quickly - spectators can see it 50-100 metres away umpires within 10 metres shouldn't have an issue. The thing is its whether they want to stamp out the practice or not. When reviewing the tape through the week they can see who the culprits are so would be easy to be mindful of it. Next game don't give them an inch and pay htb against them when they duck/drop the knees and they won't do it the following week.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

45 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

So the AFL has no recourse but to have an unclear and confusing, unsatisfactory adjudication of their game?

Take the throwing the ball. At worst, it's clear throwing of the ball. At best, it's so borderline that maybe it really is technically legal?

Is it in the spirit of the game?

Is it a good look for the game?

No.

A bit of tough love would go a long way.

Anything that is not a clear cut handball gets pinged as throwing the ball. The players would adjust in a jiffy. The price you pay is that a few legal handballs get pinged. Better that than have a growing and continuous blight on the game because the AFL sits on their hands.

Result: no more suspect throwing the ball.

Same with the raising of the arm to draw high contact. Is it in the spirit of the game? Is it a good look for the game? No. Penalise it. Don't reward it. Especially borderline instances.

The players will rapidly adjust and we'll have a better game and better spectacle.

The AFL has done this very thing with deliberate out of bounds. What's stopping them with these more egregious and offensive incidents?

Anyone who is interested i cannot recommend reading "Time and Space" by Gordon Coventry enough. I've just finished it and this debate about handball/throw/flick pass has been going on for a hundred years and still isn't resolved it seems. Previously it seems it was VFL/WA on one side (handball) and SA/VFA on the other  (flick pass/throw).

[Macca 17,013]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I disagree it happens too quickly - spectators can see it 50-100 metres away umpires within 10 metres shouldn't have an issue. The thing is its whether they want to stamp out the practice or not. When reviewing the tape through the week they can see who the culprits are so would be easy to be mindful of it. Next game don't give them an inch and pay htb against them when they duck/drop the knees and they won't do it the following week.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue Gonzo .. whilst you make some decent points I see the overall issue as being far too large to conquer. 

It's a no-win situation where the arguments nearly always become circular ones.  I can honestly say that I rarely, if ever, even notice the umpires or the officiating of the sport in general. 

I'm certainly not asking you or anyone else to view the sport that way ... everyone is different.

[Chris 2,892]

5 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

For as long as the rule has been around.

What would the alternative be, penalise every player tackled with holding the ball no matter how long they had possession?

This all goes back to Ted Fidge's post about the "PURPOSE OF LAWS", in particular to "provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession".

In other words, by removing the "attempt"  part of the holding the ball rule without prior opportunity, reduces the incentive of the player to get the ball. It would be easier to just wait for another player to get it, tackle him and get an immediate free kick for holding the ball.

It is simple. If you are tackled without prior opportunity and the balls gets stuck then it is a ball up. If you have prior opportunity then you must dispose of it properly no matter what. That was how it was always adjudicated when I was younger and it was clear to understand and worked. 

[Umpire Please 120]

Simple solution  would be have the umpires set up in umpiring teams, Goal umpires, boundary and field. They are set up as a  team and stay together from the  start of the season and umpire together for the whole season. As such they would become use to the way each of  their team mates  interprets the rules and you would hope there would be more consistency on game day.

One has a bad game and they all go back to the state or bush leagues until they show they can umpire to to agreed level.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Umpire Please
Typo

[Skuit 10,031]

Shall we move on to 'in the back'? Same issues apply. The rule seems to have evolved from what I imagine was originally intended to outlaw shove-outs to now protect the carrier from being dangerously driven forward into the ground without protection. Yet, players consistently drop their knees the second they can feel a somewhat uncontrolled tackle from directly behind. Drives me nuts. But impossible to adjudicate unless there's a tweak in the interpretation.