The debate is starting with Damian Hardwick saying we should remove prior opportunity, that means any player tackled that doesn't get rid of the ball or the if the ball isn't knocked out in a tackle it is holding the ball.

So who do you reward the ball winner or the tackler.

To me if the ball isn't correctly disposed of, which is a kick or handball a free kick should be paid.  Players shouldn't be able to just let the ball go when tackled.  The bulldogs and Richmond have mastered this art, the incorrect disposal to advantage.

You need to encourage players to win the ball first, if you have no prior players will wait to lay a tackle.

Pay incorrect disposal and that will reward the tackler.

The other part of this is CORRECT/LEGAL tackle.

I need to shout this as it's so frustrating.

It's ok for Hardwick to talk about back in his day, but back in his day you didn't get away with the high tackles and riding in the back in the gang tackles of today.

Should always support the player going for the ball.

Good tackles should be rewarded but not sniping as soon as a player picks up the ball.

28 minutes ago, drdrake said:

The debate is starting with Damian Hardwick saying we should remove prior opportunity, that means any player tackled that doesn't get rid of the ball or the if the ball isn't knocked out in a tackle it is holding the ball.

Well that's just plain stupid.

13 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Should always support the player going for the ball.

Good tackles should be rewarded but not sniping as soon as a player picks up the ball.

That's a more sensible approach.

All they need to do is start paying incorrect disposals properly.

If you get tackled immediately but it comes out without a legal handpass or kick then that should be holding the ball. With or without prior.

Hunt had Mathew Parks dead to rights and umpired called play on because he "attempted to kick it." Even all the players around the tackle stopped and expected a free kick to be paid. Start rewarding those then that solves a lot of issues in my opinion.

 

 

The players will learn and like Dimma said, Michael Long was the best at just tapping the ball to advantage.  There is no need for prior opportunity.

 

Also while I'm at it include the last touch rule of the women's game. Gets rid of the umpires adjudicating on deliberate.

I suspect that Hardwick, much like 95% of people who are involved in or watch football doesn’t actually know what the rule is.

Why go get the ball when you are better of just tackling the player who does get it?

Every week there has to be an area of the game or a team that comes under the microscope. This week its holding the ball because of the uneven adjudication over the 8 games on the weekend.

I think its being blown out due to media coverage. It certainly was an issue over the weekend but its more that its story of the week stuff that its being highlighted so much. The umpires will do what they usually do and review and be more consistent across the games and it will be less of a story.

Not saying the holding the ball rule shouldn't be touched or talked about as I think there's areas of concern but the games not in turmoil because of it. 

47 minutes ago, ucanchoose said:

The players will learn and like Dimma said, Michael Long was the best at just tapping the ball to advantage.  There is no need for prior opportunity.

 

Also while I'm at it include the last touch rule of the women's game. Gets rid of the umpires adjudicating on deliberate.

Michael was certainly good at tapping, ankle tapping.

Tapping has been tried already without success because the umpires do not know the difference between spoons and taps, and whose jumper is doing it. We don't want more TAPS.

In my op we introduce no prior and we could have more dangerous bumps coming back...

The biggest problem with the rules of the game is where it requires an umpire to make a subjective call. The whole suite of rules for the game should be reviewed with this in mind. However, there will always be some subjective assessment required.

I happen to think the holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule is one which will always inlcude some subjective assessment but could be made much easier for umpires to manage. To make it easier for umpires, players and supporters, I would change the rule so that a free kick is paid if a player has had a prior opportunity and does not correctly dispose of the ball in a legal manner when legally tackled. If the ball is knocked out in the tackle or dropped or misses the foot when it is dropped, so be it. Free kick to the tackler. The only subjective parts of the rule should be (1) whether the player has had prior opportunity and (2) how long the player with the ball is given to dispose of the ball correctly.    

I would also like to see another minor change. If the ball is dropped but kicked by the player after one bounce, make it play on, even if it's just a tap of the boot on ball. That would recognise that the drop kick is still a legitimate kick in football.

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

If you get tackled immediately but it comes out without a legal handpass or kick then that should be holding the ball. With or without prior.

I see this being really awkward.

You lean down to pick up the ball and are immediately tackled and the ball is knocked out (by the tackler) in the tackle. Is that holding the ball?

I think we could end up going too far if players no longer pick the ball up and instead just knock it on or even worse, just let their opponent have the ball so they can immediately win the free kick.

On the whole, the game on the weekend was adjudicated well. That standard makes for a good game. 

Stoppages are a part of our game and one we shouldn't be so quick to eradicate. They are one of the few areas of our game where the set piece comes into play.

Edited May 19, 20214 yr by Cheesy D. Pun

My pet hate at the moment is players who are over the ball just dropping to the ground on their stomachs forcing the tackler to fall on them forcing a push in the back free kick.

Bulldogs & Cats do it all the time like they actually train for that exact scenario.

As LDV has said, a drop kick should definitely be allowed but only when the ball is dropped to the foot in the attempt to kick and the ball is kicked on the half volley as in a true drop kick.

Prior opportunity must be retained as otherwise players will not attack the ball. The amount of time for prior opportunity however should be short - just enough to swing a foot or a hand in an attempt to dispose of the ball - and definitely not as long as Salem got in his 360 degree pirouette. Trying to avoid a tackle is automatically prior opportunity and should be penalised.

For a tackle to be effective, it must restrain the player with the ball. Too often a solid bump and flailing arms is adjudged to be a tackle. A tackle must be a tackle.

 

 

19 minutes ago, tiers said:

Prior opportunity must be retained as otherwise players will not attack the ball. The amount of time for prior opportunity however should be short - just enough to swing a foot or a hand in an attempt to dispose of the ball - and definitely not as long as Salem got in his 360 degree pirouette. Trying to avoid a tackle is automatically prior opportunity and should be penalised.

For a tackle to be effective, it must restrain the player with the ball. Too often a solid bump and flailing arms is adjudged to be a tackle. A tackle must be a tackle.

 

 

Generous. I think it was closer to 720 degrees.

Player in first winning the ball should always be advantaged, not the player dwelling on the outside. Also a proper tackle is supposed to [censored] the ball carrier.

2 hours ago, Nascent said:

 

If you get tackled immediately but it comes out without a legal handpass or kick then that should be holding the ball. With or without prior.

 

 

 

So why go get the ball if you are just going to be pinned every time you are tackled?

How long are you allowed to be tackled before the umpire pays holding the ball if you can’t dispose of it (if it is pinned to the body)?

13 minutes ago, loges said:

Player in first winning the ball should always be advantaged, not the player dwelling on the outside. Also a proper tackle is supposed to [censored] the ball carrier.

Players are not always "dwelling on the outside". What if one player arrives at the ball first by a split second and then the second player lays a tackle. A fair contest in accordance with the spirit of the game.

What is unacceptable is for players to pile in after the initial tackle has been laid to prevent a proper disposal. Consideration could be given to those who systematically and deliberately pile in being denied a free kick The spirit of the game demands that players be given, however briefly, the opportunity to dispose of the ball..

What about changing the definition to 'reasonable prior opportunity'? It adds more grey but it gives the ball player an option to attempt win the ball and it allows for the tackler to be rewarded.  Players like Martin already seem to get a longer buffer of 'reasonable prior' than the rest of the AFL - maybe open that version up to the rest of the players ?. 

 

Maybe the issue isn't the rule, it's the fact the interpretation of it keeps changing.  The umpires have an impossible job.

11 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

So why go get the ball if you are just going to be pinned every time you are tackled?

 

This is the exact reason why prior opportunity was brought in in the first place. There was no benefit to being the player actually trying to get the ball because they'd get smashed immediately and cough up a free kick.

The issue on the weekend was umpiring inconsistency between games. That's a matter for the umpire's coach to address and improve, but anyone suggesting taking subjectivity out of decision making is unfortunately living in Dreamland.

As an aside, coaches seem to be doing more whinging than ever this year...

54 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

So why go get the ball if you are just going to be pinned every time you are tackled?

How long are you allowed to be tackled before the umpire pays holding the ball if you can’t dispose of it (if it is pinned to the body)?

If its pinned to the body with no prior opportunity then its a ball up, same as now. If you had prior opportunity and its pinned to the body then its holding the ball. If you pick up the ball, get tackled and you attempt to kick or handpass but fail to legally execute those skills then its holding the ball via incorrect disposal. If you get tackled and drop the ball immediately then its holding the ball via incorrect disposal.

Yes we want to reward the person attacking the ball but too many of the above scenarios are let go under the guise of no prior opportunity.

Edited May 19, 20214 yr by Nascent
doubled up wording

3 minutes ago, Nascent said:

If its pinned to the body then its a ball up with no prior opportunity then its a ball up, same as now. If you had prior opportunity and its pinned to the body then its holding the ball. If you pick up the ball, get tackled and you attempt to kick or handpass but fail to legally execute those skills then its holding the ball via incorrect disposal. If you get tackled and drop the ball immediately then its holding the ball via incorrect disposal.

Yes we want to reward the person attacking the ball but too many of the above scenarios are let go under the guise of no prior opportunity.

Is it? It seems to me that dropping the ball is now allowed when a player is legally tackled.

Whilst we are doing very well I will be happy if they don’t mess with the rules for now. Might scupper our mojo.

 

Edited May 19, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is it? It seems to me that dropping the ball is now allowed when a player is legally tackled.

In my view that's how it should be, the current interpretation has players getting away with it. But otherwise yes, you are correct and players are making a fine art of dropping the ball immediately when tackled then falling forwards and usually getting a free kick for push in the back.

The Hayward/Lever tackle still sticks strongly in my mind. 

Advocating for a free kick against the ball getter, when the ball is knocked out in a tackle, I think, will slow the game down and give time for the defensive team to restructure behind the play.

When the ball comes free, it sets up for more contests and a chance for either side to release the ball into spaces.

I would rather see frees for, when the ball gets buried under the pack.

If you are tackled and can't clear the ball, then the good tackle gets rewarded, prior or not.

Can't throw the ball, but can release it (momentum taken into account).

Onus remains with the ball carrier to clear the ball. Once cleared, the tackler can't pull it back in, free against. 

If the tackler pins the ball to the ball getter than a free kick is awarded after some opportunity is given to release the ball. 

The whole reason is to keep the ball moving, once it is locked in a free is preferred over a ball up.

Reward tackles with prior opportunity, a free (if illegally disposed of).

Tackles with no prior and the ball come out, no free, not out and a free. Ball can be disposed of by dropping ball, but not throwing it.

Team tackles should be rewarded if after a small period of time the ball is not cleared from the immediate area as well.

All to encourage fast ball movement and no scrums forming.

Love the game when it is loose ball gets. DON'T let the umpires reduce those opportunities after tackles. Causing a loose ball is a reward in itself. The better running teams or individuals will shine. The bad is when the ball is stopped, the game is slowed and a ball up occurs.

Addit: Has to be a legal tackles with no contact to the head or back whatsoever. Cannot lie on top of the player. If brought down onto the ball getter, then you have to attempt to roll off or roll player. No stacks on the mill or holding a ball winner away from going again.

Edited May 19, 20214 yr by kev martin

I actually think there is another way of looking at the issue. I think that they need to take a good look at holding the man and tackling a player before they take the ball. There is way too much hovering over ball getters and scragging them either too early or just as they touch the ball. If they clamp down on that then it would cause the tacklers to wait until the ball getter actually has proper possession and the split half a second might see cleaner disposals and speed up the game. Of course this would need to be coupled with a clamp down on dropping the ball, or half taking possession. This is where the no prior change would make sense to me as it will help with adjudication of dropping the ball.