Reward the Ball Winner or Tackler

[Nasher 33,617]

1 hour ago, P-man said:

Why go for the ball at all in that case? Just wait for your opponent to gather it, tackle him, hey presto the ball is yours.

As above - the players would still prefer to have the ball than have their opponent have it. If I pull up in a contest and let you gather it, there’s no guarantee the tackle I lay will stop you from getting it away to your teammate, or that I’ll even be able to lay one. Coach will be super pissed with me if I pull up in a contest and let you get away with it.

If I’m that worried our contest would be too close and I might get tackled, I’ll just boot or paddle it away until I or my teammate can find a cleaner possession.

[rjay 25,306]

7 hours ago, Macca said:

I'm normally very cynical of the coach's motives but their 'No Prior' is worthy of debate

I'm still cynical of Hardwick's motives...be interesting to hear Beveridge's take.

I reckon he might differ, it's all about what benefits their team.

Never listen to a coach spruiking ideas for the good of the game.

[titan_uranus 25,175]

IMO this is the biggest beat up in AFL in a long time.

The St Kilda v Geelong game had three umpires who, together, completely stuffed it up.

That doesn't mean the rule is broken.

I read some say that getting rid of prior opportunity will mean more taps and knock ons, which apparently will then open the game up more.

Think about what that is going to look like. The game will turn into a mismash of players not actually taking possession. Fewer possessions, fewer kicks and handpasses, because of the ever-present risk that the moment you seize the ball, if you are tackled you give a free kick to your opponent (the danger of which increases in this world because they can stop, re-set, and then play a keepings off kick-mark game to avoid being tackled).

The solution is not to remove prior opportunity. The solution is to better understand the rule as it currently stands, and to improve the consistency with which the rule is enforced, which can be done through investment into how the game is officiated.

[TRIGON 4,792]

15 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

John Hopoate has entered the chat.

He gave it the Thumbs Up?

[Demonstone 23,338]

He made a movie, as I recall.  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Finger.

[P-man 13,366]

25 minutes ago, Nasher said:

As above - the players would still prefer to have the ball than have their opponent have it. If I pull up in a contest and let you gather it, there’s no guarantee the tackle I lay will stop you from getting it away to your teammate, or that I’ll even be able to lay one. Coach will be super [censored] with me if I pull up in a contest and let you get away with it.

If I’m that worried our contest would be too close and I might get tackled, I’ll just boot or paddle it away until I or my teammate can find a cleaner possession.

Players are pretty clever these days, which admittedly could support either of our arguments. I just think in a 50/50 contest, removing prior is fraught with danger. One of the great elements of the game is two players whole heartedly competing for the ball. Once you tip the scales further in favour of the tackler, even slightly, that contest is no longer genuine.

Plus even in your scenario, tap ons in lieu of taking possession of the ball doesn’t sound like a very appealing spectacle skills wise.

I get what you’re saying but I’m not on board with removing prior. Better officiating is the answer for mine.

[Nasher 33,617]

7 minutes ago, P-man said:

I get what you’re saying but I’m not on board with removing prior. Better officiating is the answer for mine.

I'm not really either to be honest. rpfc's take on this is my favourite so far; to paraphrase: how about we support the umpires to officiate the game better, and the coaches mind their own business?

[P-man 13,366]

8 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I'm not really either to be honest. rpfc's take on this is my favourite so far; to paraphrase: how about we support the umpires to officiate the game better, and the coaches mind their own business?

Amen.

...especially Hardwick.

[drdrake 3,203]

52 minutes ago, rjay said:

I'm still cynical of Hardwick's motives...be interesting to hear Beveridge's take.

I reckon he might differ, it's all about what benefits their team.

Never listen to a coach spruiking ideas for the good of the game.

Beveridge will be on the same page as Hardwick as his team plays similar to Richmond, they are 2 sides that like to keep the ball moving forward be it with a correct or incorrect disposal.  Both Richmond and Bulldogs have mastered the new disposal of dropping the ball to advantage.  Geelong are getting pretty good at it as well.

That will be the issue you remove prior opportunity and teams will just work on dropping the ball to advantage. 

Common sense, if you do not correctly dispose of the ball reward the tackle, there needs to be some sort of prior opportunity allowance.  If you just did this I reckon 10-20% of tackles will be rewarded with a free kick 

Edited May 19, 2021 by drdrake

[Macca 17,113]

42 minutes ago, rjay said:

I'm still cynical of Hardwick's motives...be interesting to hear Beveridge's take.

I reckon he might differ, it's all about what benefits their team.

Never listen to a coach spruiking ideas for the good of the game.

Thanks for taking what I said out of context again rjay.  Edit out the stuff you don't like hey? I'll have to try that

You left out the thrust of my argument where the prior opportunity ruling has led to all sorts of other issues including incorrect disposal, numerous packs with congestion etc etc.  Along with supporter frustration

And I'm not at all blaming the umpires either.  They are doing a fine job given the circumstances.  This is an AFL ruling issue so the problem lies with the custodians or the rulemakers

Too many coaches are talking about ditching no prior for it to be for selfish reasons in my view

As previously stated, the current ruling has led to a compromised outcome where other issues have been created (throws, ball held in etc etc etc)

The law of unintended consequences

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,016]

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Coaches and admin around the world are trying to take decision making out of the hands of those officiating - they claim it is in the name of simplicity but it is purely because it removes another variable so that the coaches have more control.

Hardwick is turning into an entitled blowhard and you shouldn’t listen to him. The umpires need to judge whether; someone has had a chance to get rid of the footy, the tackle is fair, and the ball was correctly disposed of.

The rules are fine, the umpires need support and guidance and the coaches need to [censored] off.

I'm not sure I agree about the first point in this excellent final sentence, but I'm 100% on board with respect to the other two points. 

What is fascinating, though, is how diverse the opinions are in this thread about what the rule should be. Some like it as it is, some just want greater consistency in the way it is officiated and others want to change it significantly. I like the robust debate this thread has encouraged.

[rjay 25,306]

17 minutes ago, Macca said:

Thanks for taking what I said out of context again rjay.  Edit out the stuff you don't like hey? I'll have to try that

Sorry 'Macca'...didn't mean to distort what you were saying but wanted to make the point re the coaches. Interesting that Blight just said similar on SEN, don't listen to what they say.

My opinion on the prior opportunity thing was expressed in an earlier post where I thought that it goes hand in hand with a legal tackle. We seem to have moved away from the idea of a legal tackle and now players can tackle high, low and in the back. Particularly with a gang tackle.

24 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Beveridge will be on the same page as Hardwick as his team plays similar to Richmond, they are 2 sides that like to keep the ball moving forward be it with a correct or incorrect disposal.  Both Richmond and Bulldogs have mastered the new disposal of dropping the ball to advantage.  Geelong are getting pretty good at it as well.

I don't think so...he certainly didn't agree with Clarkson when he came out with similar to Hardwick last year.

[P-man 13,366]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Thanks for taking what I said out of context again rjay.  Edit out the stuff you don't like hey? I'll have to try that

You left out the thrust of my argument where the prior opportunity ruling has led to all sorts of other issues including incorrect disposal, numerous packs with congestion etc etc.  Along with supporter frustration

And I'm not at all blaming the umpires either.  They are doing a fine job given the circumstances.  This is an AFL ruling issue so the problem lies with the custodians or the rulemakers

Too many coaches are talking about ditching no prior for it to be for selfish reasons in my view

As previously stated, the current ruling has led to a compromised outcome where other issues have been created (throws, ball held in etc etc etc)

The law of unintended consequences

But is congestion really as much of an issue as it once was? The general consensus is that the game has opened up a lot more this year. The new man on the mark rule has helped to some degree but there are also noticeably far less rugby games. In fact I can’t think of any off hand.

This points to what we believe is actually broken. I don’t think the rule itself is broken. The application is what needs improving. If the umpires were more stringent on HTB, as we saw against Carlton, and more players were penalised more often for incorrect disposal, i.e. dropping it with no attempt made, the game would be in better shape.

Although to be honest, I think it’s in pretty decent shape. At least in a viewing sense.

[Macca 17,113]

9 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure I agree about the first point in this excellent final sentence, but I'm 100% on board with respect to the other two points. 

What is fascinating, though, is how diverse the opinions are in this thread about what the rule should be. Some like it as it is, some just want greater consistency in the way it is officiated and others want to change it significantly. I like the robust debate this thread has encouraged.

My opinion is that the ruling should be open to debate not shut down (because people are afraid of change?)

Personally, I want to watch football, not scramble-ball.  And I'm tired of all the complaints about the umpiring (the tin-foil hat brigade)

The way it is right now is unacceptable even though I believe the game is being umpired quite well

The man on the mark ruling is artificial but it has opened the game up for the better

But more needs to be done with regards to the actual ruling with regards to the tackling adjuducation

If nothing is done the argument will rage on for years with the umpires copping the brunt of the frustration

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

I get what you’re saying and I think it’s got merit, but is that what would happen in practice?

Picture two players competing for a loose ball, and they arrive at the ball at the same time. Are they both going to stop and say “you get it”, “no you get it”? 

It’s a silly example but the point is, in the heat of the moment and only having a quick second to decide what to do, I think most players would still choose to try and beat their opponent to the ball, even if there’s an increased risk of getting caught holding the ball. It will also increase prevalence of padding the ball away and soccer kicking instead of trying to gather in congestion, which I don’t think is a bad thing. 

I don’t see players electing to be second to the ball as a plausible outcome in a game where territory (current buzzword) is king. The opposing risk is the player who does get the ball gets away because you gave way to him in the contest. I doubt the coach would be real happy with that in the match review.

In a nutshell, my issue is if in this scenario player A does get the ball and quickly goes to fire off a hand pass, player B goes to tackle and as a result the ball falls out of player A’s hand (meaning they don’t fully execute the hand pass) then it will be holding the ball.

This is unfair to me because player A has been the one who has attempted to play the ball and get it moving.

[Macca 17,113]

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

Sorry 'Macca'...didn't mean to distort what you were saying but wanted to make the point re the coaches. Interesting that Blight just said similar on SEN, don't listen to what they say.

My opinion on the prior opportunity thing was expressed in an earlier post where I thought that it goes hand in hand with a legal tackle. We seem to have moved away from the idea of a legal tackle and now players can tackle high, low and in the back. Particularly with a gang tackle.

I don't think so...he certainly didn't agree with Clarkson when he came out with similar to Hardwick last year.

The cry of 'ball' has always amused me ... never joined in on that bit.  But lets face it, footy fans love it when a player is pinged (yaaay etc)

So a lot want the tackler rewarded but want to keep the prior opportunity ruling ... go figure

I just want to watch footy the way it should be played ... fast, furious, open with long kicks and high marking.  Dashing wingmen, high flying forwards etc etc

Scramble ball doesn't do it for me.  Dreamteam & Supercoach freaks who love all the dinky possessions will disagree but I could care less

[jnrmac 20,276]

18 hours 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.

Watch our game against the Swans. They literally dropped the ball as soon as they were tackled. As if they were coached to do it.

That is a bastardised version of the ball 'spilling free in a tackle.'  Cut down on this and we go a fair way to resolving the issue.

[Smokey 4,389]

Of course Hardwick wants prior removed, it suits their manic pressure game style perfectly. 

I actually think this might be one of the dumbest idea's I've ever heard. It only serves to deliver 2 negative outcomes, and no positives ones: 

• Players will be less inclined to take possession of the footy. I envision A-league style tactics would come to the fore. 
• There will be a huge increase in HTB's paid, which can only slow the game down. So much so I think it would start to resemble the NRL with constant stoppages. 

Back in your box Dimma ... 

[Demonised 1,361]

Let's try a thought experiment, imagining what would happen if there was no prior opportunity rule.

1. Player takes possession, avoids tacklers, instigates play.

2. Player takes possession, is tackled correctly, makes an attempt at correct disposal,  umpire immediately calls for a ball-up.

3. Player takes possession, is tackled correctly, makes no attempt at correct disposal or disposes incorrectly,  umpire rewards tackler with a free kick.

4. Player takes possession, is tackled incorrectly, umpire pays free kick to player.

Does this make a messy situation simpler? No having to decide whether the player had prior opportunity or not. It takes one complicating factor out of the equation. Or am I oversimplifying?

[Macca 17,113]

1 hour ago, P-man said:

But is congestion really as much of an issue as it once was? The general consensus is that the game has opened up a lot more this year. The new man on the mark rule has helped to some degree but there are also noticeably far less rugby games. In fact I can’t think of any off hand.

This points to what we believe is actually broken. I don’t think the rule itself is broken. The application is what needs improving. If the umpires were more stringent on HTB, as we saw against Carlton, and more players were penalised more often for incorrect disposal, i.e. dropping it with no attempt made, the game would be in better shape.

Although to be honest, I think it’s in pretty decent shape. At least in a viewing sense.

When I played there was no prior rule nor was there such a rule in the VFL/AFL

Most have forgotten but it is true.  And it was in the rule book.

The onus was on the player grabbing the ball ... get rid of it quickly or get pinged

As a result there was very little congestion and the ball was in constant movement

I'm showing my age but others of my era will agree (if they test their memory)

[Macca 17,113]

Deliberate out of bounds?

First talked about early in the 20th century and actually implemented from 1926 through to 1939

So it's not a new thing

We can learn a lot from the past.  Or at least, we should do

Prior opportunity is a relative new rule in the whole scheme of things ... and the new rule had led to a myriad of other issues

[Macca 17,113]

For those trying to remember re prior opportunity ... does anyone remember the phrase being used back in the 70's, 80's or 90's? (if you were around back then)

[Macca 17,113]

To ease congestion the VFA went to 16 a side in the early 1950's whilst the VFL built a 'perceived' oversized ground out at Waverley ... the land was acquired in 1959

So these issues we have are far from new.  It just seems that way to the youngin's

[DeeSpencer 26,274]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Watch our game against the Swans. They literally dropped the ball as soon as they were tackled. As if they were coached to do it.

That is a bastardised version of the ball 'spilling free in a tackle.'  Cut down on this and we go a fair way to resolving the issue.

Sydney have been doing this for a decade. They know where and when to let it out. It's making life very very difficult for umpires. Hayward here is a classic example

 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by DeeSpencer

[DeeSpencer 26,274]

I don't agree with no prior. Might work fine in the midfield or forward line but are defenders really meant to paddle the ball around when they can't rush behinds outside the 9 and can't rush it over the boundary?

I think the Melb - Carl game even in the wet was nice and hot and about right for holding the ball.

The Saints - Geel game was just poorly officiated.

The rule itself is a conundrum and a difficulty but it's also just what it is. That's the sport. If you want clear cut rules go play chess.