They are having problems interpreting the tackle.

So grey with so many different interpretations. 

Some are given leeway, others pinged straight away.

I think it was Weid last night. Fumbling the ball till he gets it under control, the opposition lay him to the ground (right on his hammer), he realises he may get ping and attempts to clear the ball, but is tied up and free kick against. What is he meant to do?

My pet hate is when the tackler drags the ball back in when they are ontop of the play maker.

Why can't the tackler get pinged for dragging it back in?

If they are both holding the ball how can the one that gets it first still be penalised? 

How can a tackler stay ontop of the ball getter when the ball goes clear. They can tie up our best players by holding them down. 

As the ball goes free, it must be up to the tackler to let go and to stop impeding the player. 

Given the restrictions now on the person going the ball, I'd be encouraging frees on holding  the man after ball is released. Also, giving 50 and a free if the tackler doesn't release the player when the game goes forward.

Why can the tackler be allowed to slow it down, make a stoppage or get the free kick?

I reckon it gives too much advantage against the play makers.

Don't like those who are allowed to stand over the ball to slow the play down when a free given against, they then interfere with the player trying to pick it up.

Should be deemed in possession and a 50 given.

If they want free flowing, fast football, then the defenders need to be penalised for slowing it down.

Edited August 30, 20204 yr by kev martin

Always grateful for an opportunity for mounting my hobby horse:

Something that would lessen ugly packs forming is paying a free against a player who just jumps of 2 or more players on the ground and either:

tackles one of the tacklers - clearly a free against for tackling a player without the ball OR

attempts to pull the ball of his teammate - not a legal disposal if he suceeds, so if he does suceed, free for ilegal disposal

9 minutes ago, sue said:

Always grateful for an opportunity for mounting my hobby horse:

Something that would lessen ugly packs forming is paying a free against a player who just jumps of 2 or more players on the ground and either:

tackles one of the tacklers - clearly a free against for tackling a player without the ball OR

attempts to pull the ball of his teammate - not a legal disposal if he suceeds, so if he does suceed, free for ilegal disposal

More room for the umpires to give a free within the rules.

It will clear the scrimmage area, stop the "pile on" and not penalise the first to the ball.

The defenders are getting an easy ride to lock the game down and others gaining from incorrect disposal. 

 

Edited August 30, 20204 yr by kev martin

12 minutes ago, sue said:

Always grateful for an opportunity for mounting my hobby horse:

Something that would lessen ugly packs forming is paying a free against a player who just jumps of 2 or more players on the ground and either:

tackles one of the tacklers - clearly a free against for tackling a player without the ball OR

attempts to pull the ball of his teammate - not a legal disposal if he suceeds, so if he does suceed, free for ilegal disposal

I was thinking this exact thing the other day, totally agree.

It would clean the game up immensely.

Was it my imagination or did the Aints (more than once) when tackled last night simply drop the ball for their team mates to pick up and run off with.  Surely incorrect disposal

2 hours ago, kev martin said:

They are having problems interpreting the tackle.

So grey with so many different interpretations. 

Some are given leeway, others pinged straight away.

I think it was Weid last night. Fumbling the ball till he gets it under control, the opposition lay him to the ground (right on his hammer), he realises he may get ping and attempts to clear the ball, but is tied up and free kick against. What is he meant to do?

My pet hate is when the tackler drags the ball back in when they are ontop of the play maker.

Why can't the tackler get pinged for dragging it back in?

If they are both holding the ball how can the one that gets it first still be penalised? 

How can a tackler stay ontop of the ball getter when the ball goes clear. They can tie up our best players by holding them down. 

As the ball goes free, it must be up to the tackler to let go and to stop impeding the player. 

Given the restrictions now on the person going the ball, I'd be encouraging frees on holding  the man after ball is released. Also, giving 50 and a free if the tackler doesn't release the player when the game goes forward.

Why can the tackler be allowed to slow it down, make a stoppage or get the free kick?

I reckon it gives too much advantage against the play makers.

Don't like those who are allowed to stand over the ball to slow the play down when a free given against, they then interfere with the player trying to pick it up.

Should be deemed in possession and a 50 given.

If they want free flowing, fast football, then the defenders need to be penalised for slowing it down.

If the tackler lies on the ballgetter then surely it is in the back, and more so when a couple more jump on top.  Encourage and protect the guy who gets the bloody ball, not the hovering vulture!!
 

Yes, anyone who impedes the flow after a free should be a 50 meter .... far far more logical than those absurd “protected zone” inconsistently applied penalties. 
 

And whilst on those rolling 50s .... surely if the recipient bounces the ball on the run to the new mark, it should be play on straight away. 

33 minutes ago, sue said:

Always grateful for an opportunity for mounting my hobby horse:

Something that would lessen ugly packs forming is paying a free against a player who just jumps of 2 or more players on the ground and either:

tackles one of the tacklers - clearly a free against for tackling a player without the ball OR

attempts to pull the ball of his teammate - not a legal disposal if he suceeds, so if he does suceed, free for ilegal disposal

While I agree with you in principle, often the "tackler" is just tackling his own team mate, which is not against the rules.

4 minutes ago, Chook said:

While I agree with you in principle, often the "tackler" is just tackling his own team mate, which is not against the rules.

Easy to change that rule since there is no situation where that would happen

Just now, sue said:

Easy to change that rule since there is no situation where that would happen

Whoa whoa whoa! where's all this talk of rule changes coming from? You sound like the AFL!

4 minutes ago, Chook said:

While I agree with you in principle, often the "tackler" is just tackling his own team mate, which is not against the rules.

It shouldn't be holding the man, however the intention is to lock the ball down.

This makes the scrimmage and encourages them to create stoppages and not a flowing game.

Could penalise with diving on ball, (on player on ball and often they grab the ball as well as their teamate).

12 minutes ago, Chook said:

Whoa whoa whoa! where's all this talk of rule changes coming from? You sound like the AFL!

The AFL want an open, flowing game. 

The NRL do the stop and start.

Open games are more enjoyable to watch as the creative skills look better than the arm wrestle. 

Small tweaks or rule interpretations are always done by the AFL.

I feel the tweeks already done, are giving advantages to the "vultures".

Time to better reward the play makers.

  

Edited August 30, 20204 yr by kev martin

19 minutes ago, Chook said:

While I agree with you in principle, often the "tackler" is just tackling his own team mate, which is not against the rules.

If the third player in is from the team in possession then he is either holding the man by "tackling the tackler" or effecting an illegal disposal by taking it off him. 

There is no situation where the third person in solely tackles his own team mate independent of the above situations. IF that did occur, they would be jointly holding the ball in, so easy decision against them.

54 minutes ago, sue said:

Always grateful for an opportunity for mounting my hobby horse:

Something that would lessen ugly packs forming is paying a free against a player who just jumps of 2 or more players on the ground and either:

tackles one of the tacklers - clearly a free against for tackling a player without the ball OR

attempts to pull the ball of his teammate - not a legal disposal if he suceeds, so if he does suceed, free for ilegal disposal

My hobby horse too. I think this would go a long way to "fixing" those common gripes with the modern game.

Currenly coaches encourage this third player in to tackle, to deliver a stalemate/stoppage instead of a holding the ball against them. But remove this tactic and they'll need to instruct their players to release the ball and knock out to players who are clear, because else you'll be caught by 2+ opposition players and definitley gove away a htb.

If the "tackle the tackler" is penalised then there is no incentives for coaches to have all their players in close together when they are attacking, and the attacking players will need to be dropping away to the outside (ie the wings) to win the ball that is knocked out of the pack. 

Space will open. Ball players will be protected. Faster movement away from stoppages.

 

Just pay it quickly though. Don't hold the whistle back. 

7 minutes ago, deanox said:

Just pay it quickly though. Don't hold the whistle back

But then where is the "Theatre"... 

55 minutes ago, grazman said:

Was it my imagination or did the Aints (more than once) when tackled last night simply drop the ball for their team mates to pick up and run off with.  Surely incorrect disposal

Right now, that is the best strategy. Dropping the ball never gets paid any more. 

Go to ground with it and you'll get pinged.

Rivers did a smart thing too towards the end by just letting the ball go when tackled. His opponent grabbed it and then he went back in.

Agree with everything Kev said, but I doubt they'll umpire it like they should, so if you've got one arm pinned, just drop it like a school case.

Just another area where the AFL have lost control of the game. At this point the only area that they have control of is the price of chips at Etihad.