Reward the Ball Winner or Tackler

[DeeSpencer 26,489]

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

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?

Without prior opportunity situation number 2 would be holding the ball, no?

Isn't that what Hardwick is calling for?

If you're caught and you don't dispose it's holding the ball?

[DeeSpencer 26,489]

27 minutes ago, Macca said:

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)

As far as I can remember (the 90's) I think you're correct. But it's also worth remembering that pressure and tackling have only come in to the game since the mid/late 2000's.

The question becomes chicken and egg.

In Hardwick's scenario the ball moves faster as players will gather and dispose in to space and therefore the constant pressure and tackling is removed, but I think that's trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube a little.

If you up the reward for laying tackles you only further incentivise tackling. 

So even if the theory is every player will become super quick and quick to dispose, with the ball bouncing out of backlines at the rate of knots, you'll also be rewarding the opposite. Teams will do all they can to flood forward again, trap the ball in and stick a tackle to get the free kick.

[Macca 17,120]

19 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

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.

Chess is even more difficult unless you're some sort of maestro!

With no prior players would become more adept at grabbing the ball and disposing in the one action (or soon after)

I have actually seen the above in action for over 2 decades.  You won't have but that's not your fault

Cue Cat Stevens

[rjay 25,349]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

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)

I probably played at a similar time 'Macca', the game was different then.

There wasn't the congestion around the ball and everyone pretty much played positional football.

I think it was more due to the thinking of the time, holding position and the fitness levels of the players. You just didn't have the fitness to run the whole ground plus you had no interchange for rotations, just a 19th and 20th man...

Also there wasn't as much emphasis on tackling.

I remember introducing proper tackling practice into our club probably late 80's early 90's using some intel from the local NRL people to develop method and drills. Hafey was doing this in Sydney.

Rather than taking away the prior I would rather see correct disposal policed better...if you get nabbed and have no prior, if the ball drops out then I would pay the free kick.

I would also get rid of that stupid idea of having to make an effort, it looks so stupid watching players punching the ball with no real intention of moving it on.

Another thing I would look at is making gang tackling illegal. Only one player can tackle...pretty much every gang tackle has an illegal aspect to it. Someone is high around the neck or head, too low grabbing the legs or jumping in the opponents back. Either get rid of it or start really policing the tackle and instead of rewarding it pay the right decisions.

 

[Macca 17,120]

Just now, rjay said:

I probably played at a similar time 'Macca', the game was different then.

There wasn't the congestion around the ball and everyone pretty much played positional football.

I think it was more due to the thinking of the time, holding position and the fitness levels of the players. You just didn't have the fitness to run the whole ground plus you had no interchange for rotations, just a 19th and 20th man...

Also there wasn't as much emphasis on tackling.

I remember introducing proper tackling practice into our club probably late 80's early 90's using some intel from the local NRL people to develop method and drills. Hafey was doing this in Sydney.

Rather than taking away the prior I would rather see correct disposal policed better...if you get nabbed and have no prior, if the ball drops out then I would pay the free kick.

I would also get rid of that stupid idea of having to make an effort, it looks so stupid watching players punching the ball with no real intention of moving it on.

Another thing I would look at is making gang tackling illegal. Only one player can tackle...pretty much every gang tackle has an illegal aspect to it. Someone is high around the neck or head, too low grabbing the legs or jumping in the opponents back. Either get rid of it or start really policing the tackle and instead of rewarding it pay the right decisions.

 

You make a lot of good points there rjay

With no prior we'd see a lot more holding the man adjudications ... the would-be tackler can't assume that the player will take hold of the ball.  If he does, the tackler gets pinged

It's way more complex than those who believe that the tackler would all of a sudden be favoured

[DeeSpencer 26,489]

9 minutes ago, rjay said:

Rather than taking away the prior I would rather see correct disposal policed better...if you get nabbed and have no prior, if the ball drops out then I would pay the free kick.

 

That means a lot of players holding the ball in and a lot of ball ups. Boring. As long as the player is legitimately trying then it’s play on, the game keeps moving. 

Im more suss on what happens when a player attempts to dispose once they’ve had prior. Those ‘disposals’ should be policed a lot more. 

10 minutes ago, rjay said:

Another thing I would look at is making gang tackling illegal. Only one player can tackle...pretty much every gang tackle has an illegal aspect to it. Someone is high around the neck or head, too low grabbing the legs or jumping in the opponents back. Either get rid of it or start really policing the tackle and instead of rewarding it pay the right decisions.

 

There’s so little jumping in the players back or high contact that’s in any way dangerous which is why the free kicks exist. There’s a lot more players drawing those free kicks than there are on the tacklers. It’s a physical contact sport, with rules to protect dangerous actions, it’s not a non contact sport policing every instance of contact. Teams getting 2, 3, 4 in on the tackle is good footy I think. I think of Jack Watts getting mauled and it wasn’t fun for us but it’s good stuff. It’s physical and intimidating but no one gets hurt.

[rjay 25,349]

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

There’s so little jumping in the players back or high contact that’s in any way dangerous which is why the free kicks exist.

Rubbish...it is in the rules of the game, dangerous or not they are the rules and they are not being policed.

I haven't seen anywhere in the rule book that says you can tackle high so long as it's not dangerous, you can trip so longs as it's not dangerous...you can push an opponent in the back or jump into his back so long as it's not dangerous.

If you don't tackle between the knees and the neck it's a free kick.

If you  jump on top of a player on the ground or push in the back it's a free kick.

If you trip a player it's a free kick.

It happens in virtually every gang tackle now but is very rarely paid.

I'm not talking touchy frees, but how often do you see the player on the ground with one opponent holding him and another holding him in a virtual headlock. That can't keep going on.

Edited May 20, 2021 by rjay

[Demonised 1,373]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Without prior opportunity situation number 2 would be holding the ball, no?

Don't think so. The rules allow for someone to make a legitimate attempt to dispose when tackled, without penalty. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,072]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Chess is even more difficult unless you're some sort of maestro!

With no prior players would become more adept at grabbing the ball and disposing in the one action (or soon after)

I have actually seen the above in action for over 2 decades.  You won't have but that's not your fault

Cue Cat Stevens

I'm trying to interpret what this means...is DeeSpencer your son?

[jnrmac 20,306]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I probably played at a similar time 'Macca', the game was different then.

There wasn't the congestion around the ball and everyone pretty much played positional football.

 

Virtually every decision since about 1980 was about speeding up the game for TV and positional football as you call it basically died. It is all about the interchange. 

Players are fitter, running for longer and this creates more congestion

If you want to remove congestion keep reducing the interchange. Simples.

 

[Demonstone 23,440]

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm trying to interpret what this means...is DeeSpencer your son?

Perhaps he feels he is being followed by @Moonshadow.

[rjay 25,349]

43 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Virtually every decision since about 1980 was about speeding up the game for TV and positional football as you call it basically died. It is all about the interchange. 

Players are fitter, running for longer and this creates more congestion

If you want to remove congestion keep reducing the interchange. Simples.

 

This is part of the point I was making 'jnr'....

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I think it was more due to the thinking of the time, holding position and the fitness levels of the players. You just didn't have the fitness to run the whole ground plus you had no interchange for rotations, just a 19th and 20th man...

 

I don't think the solution is as simple as reducing the interchange though. As 'Macca' often says there are often unintended consequences of any rule change.

[Macca 17,120]

28 minutes ago, rjay said:

This is part of the point I was making 'jnr'....

I don't think the solution is as simple as reducing the interchange though. As 'Macca' often says there are often unintended consequences of any rule change.

Extending the 666 rule for other types of stoppages has been talked about rjay ... again, worth of debate

[DeeSpencer 26,489]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Virtually every decision since about 1980 was about speeding up the game for TV and positional football as you call it basically died. It is all about the interchange. 

Players are fitter, running for longer and this creates more congestion

If you want to remove congestion keep reducing the interchange. Simples.

 

Or limited fitness guys like Hibberd, Rivers, Petracca will be replaced by ANB x 3. No coach is going to just accept players spreading out all over the field. 

[DeeSpencer 26,489]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I'm not talking touchy frees, but how often do you see the player on the ground with one opponent holding him and another holding him in a virtual headlock. That can't keep going on.

Clear headlocks - sure. But a tackle from over the top with arms around the body isn’t high contact, and as long as they aren’t ridding in to the ground you can lie on a guy without it being a push in the back. There’s all sorts of contact after pack marks that aren’t free kicks if there was a clean mark or spoil, as the bodies collide. I see it similar to that 

[DeeSpencer 26,489]

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

Don't think so. The rules allow for someone to make a legitimate attempt to dispose when tackled, without penalty. 

Removing prior means removing that allowance. Hardwick is saying anyone caught with the ball has to dispose of it cleanly or they’ll be penalised. 

[jnrmac 20,306]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Or limited fitness guys like Hibberd, Rivers, Petracca will be replaced by ANB x 3. No coach is going to just accept players spreading out all over the field. 

The coaches should have very limited say in whats good for the game. They are not always aligned in their interests. And they will coach to whatever rules are put in place.

The same goes for Broadcasters like channel 7.

[Demonised 1,373]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Removing prior means removing that allowance. Hardwick is saying anyone caught with the ball has to dispose of it cleanly or they’ll be penalised. 

And that's where I differ with him. Removing prior doesn't *have* to mean that. If it means what I'm suggesting, it'd be fairer all round. 

[P-man 13,367]

16 minutes ago, Demonised said:

And that's where I differ with him. Removing prior doesn't *have* to mean that. If it means what I'm suggesting, it'd be fairer all round. 

So under your application, someone who is chased down over 20 metres, dispossessed of the ball but makes an attempt to dispose it is not called for holding the ball? Cause that it me is arguably even worse.

[Demonised 1,373]

42 minutes ago, P-man said:

So under your application, someone who is chased down over 20 metres, dispossessed of the ball but makes an attempt to dispose it is not called for holding the ball? Cause that it me is arguably even worse.

Yep, that's right. Player has opened up the play by twenty metres,  avoiding the ugly rolling maul, the ball has spilled free for anyone to swoop on. Sounds fine to me.

[rpfc 28,966]

11 hours 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.

The reference to coaches pushing for decision making to be taken out being the world over - an example that comes to mind is the ‘clear path’ rule in the NBA where if you foul someone in transition and you are the last person it is a ‘CP foul’ and is treated more severely than if there is one defender ahead of that person even if that defender is nowhere near impacting the ability for the offensive player to score. It is silly; the player was certain to score and the defender has stopped that - the fact of where an extra defender is is really immaterial.

Again, the reason to keep ‘if no defender on front of the play then it is a CO foul’ is to avoid the officials to have to make a decision... 

Officials make decisions and sometimes they get it wrong. Boo hoo.

Thanks for indulging me if you read the above.

[Chook 15,023]

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

The reference to coaches pushing for decision making to be taken out being the world over - an example that comes to mind is the ‘clear path’ rule in the NBA where if you foul someone in transition and you are the last person it is a ‘CP foul’ and is treated more severely than if there is one defender ahead of that person even if that defender is nowhere near impacting the ability for the offensive player to score. It is silly; the player was certain to score and the defender has stopped that - the fact of where an extra defender is is really immaterial.

Again, the reason to keep ‘if no defender on front of the play then it is a CO foul’ is to avoid the officials to have to make a decision... 

Officials make decisions and sometimes they get it wrong. Boo hoo.

Thanks for indulging me if you read the above.

Totally agreed.

I haven't got a clue about basketball but this idea that umpires should never have to exercise judgment in whether a free is a free is ridiculous. Any complex game/sport/passtime is likely to have areas where only a trained individual with experience can adjudicate on the edge cases. If they get it wrong then so be it.

And here's another thing, related or not related (take your pick). Sport is not just a set of rules overlaid upon actions over a period of time, where one team wins and one team loses. It's a soap opera, in the greatest sense of the word. There is an unfolding story to sport that is constantly changing in a beautiful way. But the kind of changes caused by "interpretations" of rules destroys this beauty and replaces it with a chaos and a randomness that is hard to love. Sure, sometimes there will be unheralded success, but most of the time we just learn to cope with the change because we love the story. Just as if Masimo marries Esmarelda one week and is married to Consuela the next, the whole thing becomes a farce if the damn plot becomes so untethered that we can't keep our bearings. If the wheels keep turning, at some point we as passengers can no longer keep our bearings.

Thanks for indulging me if you read the above.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,072]

13 hours ago, rpfc said:

The reference to coaches pushing for decision making to be taken out being the world over - an example that comes to mind is the ‘clear path’ rule in the NBA where if you foul someone in transition and you are the last person it is a ‘CP foul’ and is treated more severely than if there is one defender ahead of that person even if that defender is nowhere near impacting the ability for the offensive player to score. It is silly; the player was certain to score and the defender has stopped that - the fact of where an extra defender is is really immaterial.

Again, the reason to keep ‘if no defender on front of the play then it is a CO foul’ is to avoid the officials to have to make a decision... 

Officials make decisions and sometimes they get it wrong. Boo hoo.

Thanks for indulging me if you read the above.

As John Lennon nearly said, "Imagine there's no coaches, it's easy if you try".

The two biggest problems in football are not the rules, the umpires or even Richmond. The two biggest problems are the outsize influence over the game that coaches and Channel 7 have.

 

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

If they just removed "making an attempt" so you had to dispose of the ball properly every-time it would solve the problem.

You can have the ball knocked out of the tackle then play on and if its pinned to you in the tackle with no prior its a ball up and should be called quickly by the umpire.

You can't have the ball leave your person incorrectly in any other situation in the game, so having that rule that you can dispose incorrectly if you don't have prior, I think its utter crap.