Reward the Ball Winner or Tackler

[Flemo56 383]

My pet hate and source of frustration is the amount of incorrect disposal/dropping the ball. If you take clean possession and it’s clearly not knocked out by tackle and you don’t dispose of it correctly then it’s either htb or incorrect/ dropping the ball. I haven’t ever had the desire to umpire a game, hats of to them.

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

2 hours ago, loges said:

Also a proper tackle is supposed to [censored] the ball carrier.

John Hopoate has entered the chat.

[kev martin 9,215]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Generous. I think it was closer to 720 degrees.

I have no problem with giving the player in a tackle plenty of time to dispose of it legally. The power players need some advantages that their body shape instils.

It is great when some can stand up in tackles and sometimes go again, or do amazing disposals when under that pressure. Give them the time equivalence of 15 steps, before having to get rid of or bounce it from the time they get it. Still can't bounce when tackled. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by kev martin

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

4 hours ago, Nascent said:

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.

That might have worked once, but it makes zero sense in modern footy. The scenario you described probably plays out 80 times a game, it would be crazy to pay a free kick each time. Not to mention incredibly harsh on the person getting the footy.

[Fork 'em 6,538]

2 hours ago, tiers said:

 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..

I've been noticing another variant to this.

The other day I saw one of our players (possibly Pickett) tackled to the ground by one of the opposition and the next 2 players to pile on and keep the ball locked in were ours.
I know the ball was in our forward line but .... Sheesh.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,941]

Stupid suggestion by Hardwick.

The incorrect disposal rules needs to be enforced properly. 
 

What happened to be swung in a tackle 360 degrees without disposing of the ball? 

[Nascent 7,340]

25 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

That might have worked once, but it makes zero sense in modern footy. The scenario you described probably plays out 80 times a game, it would be crazy to pay a free kick each time. Not to mention incredibly harsh on the person getting the footy.

I'll back peddle a little bit on this one and say prior opportunity should come into play.

My main gripe is players dropping the ball not being penalised as well as those not executing legal handballs or kicks. The Hunt/parks tackle being a good example. Since when did "he tried to get rid of it" suffice for a valid reason for not doing so legally? If you try and fail, you have illegally disposed of the ball and its a free kick in my view. If you've been tackled immediately and the ball spills out then prior opportunity can come into play then. It's a hard rule, but at the moment there are too many incorrect disposals and just plain dropping of the ball, sometimes deliberately, that escapes penalty.

Probably too harsh to penalise players for a ball being dislodged after immediately being tackled and I'm not advocating for a stoppage free or less contested game. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Nascent

[Fork 'em 6,538]

Seeing were on top of the ladder we should be able to do what we want like all ladder leaders that have proceeded us.

[kev martin 9,215]

9 minutes ago, Nascent said:

I'm not advocating for a stoppage free

I am, if the ball is stopped, give a free against whoever had the ball and caused that to happen (within reason).

Clears the congestion and reduces stoppages, also reduces the amount of time on, therefore, will stop them changing time of quarters to 18 instead of 20 minutes and so help the broadcaster's.  

Edited May 19, 2021 by kev martin

[rufus 916]

If a player tackles another player, it's either:

- holding the man if the umpire deems the player did not have posession

- incumbent on the player who has posession to move the ball out legally, via kick or handball, otherwise holding the ball, regardless of 'prior opportunity' (the opportunity was to not take posession and knock the ball forward if under pressure).

Personally think this is pretty simple and will keep the game moving.

[Fanatique Demon 2,408]

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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

this is the rule now, isn’t it?

[Fanatique Demon 2,408]

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

What happened to be swung in a tackle 360 degrees without disposing of the ball? 

That was never a rule. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It’s pretty clear from reading the thread that most people don’t know what the rule is now.

The key thing that is being missed is when a player has not had prior opportunity they only need to attempt to dispose of the ball.

If the AFL removed this then no player will ever take the risk of getting the ball, they will just sit back and wait to tackle.

[tiers 2,783]

1 hour ago, Fork 'em said:

I've been noticing another variant to this.

The other day I saw one of our players (possibly Pickett) tackled to the ground by one of the opposition and the next 2 players to pile on and keep the ball locked in were ours.
I know the ball was in our forward line but .... Sheesh.

Should be automatic free kick against piling in team. Obvious attempt to obfuscate.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

I think the umpires need to start paying htb when there is an incorrect disposal. That includes just dropping it, being tackled and it spilling out, of course this is an open to interpretation and teammate or opposition taking the ball away from you.

Holding the ball has always been an issue, that's why every fan at every game shouts BALL everytime the opposition is tackled.

[I'va Worn Smith 854]

When I played VFA footy - admittedly in the dark ages - a handball over your head or shoulder, was considered a throw.  The hand upon which the ball sat, needed to be stationary.  Otherwise, it was a throw.  Now, it is almost considered to be an art form.

When I played, before the game, the umps would come into the rooms and speak to the players, about what they would be looking at.  Particularly, if it was wet weather, the umps would advise that the bloke playing/going for the ball, would be protected.

Last Sunday, it was very wet in the 3rd quarter. ANB gathered the ball, was tackled from in front and behind - sandwiched.  How was he expected to legally dispose of the ball?  Incorrect disposal was paid against him.

I agree, the umps have a very hard gig, but we used to have umps who had a feel and understanding of our game.  Unfortunately, today, too many of them see themselves as media performers, rather than officiators of elite sport.  The nuance is not understood by the decision makers.

All we ask now is for consistency.  Is that too hard?  It is not how many free kicks are paid, rather it is where and when they are paid. 

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,941]

34 minutes ago, Fanatique Demon said:

That was never a rule. 

Apparently it’s not, but I’m sure it’s been paid.

[Pates 9,537]

If you changed it to no prior what you would find is a lot more players not take possession, so they would dribble it by tapping with the hand and foot until in space. You’d also get players feigning to take the ball so they get holding the man. 

It actually very simple, umpires aren’t rewarding good tackles. There’s too many play-ons from “legitimate attempt to get rid of it” from missed kicks and handballs. If the ball isn’t disposed of using a kick or handball with prior then reward the tackle. 

[Nascent 7,340]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It’s pretty clear from reading the thread that most people don’t know what the rule is now.

The key thing that is being missed is when a player has not had prior opportunity they only need to attempt to dispose of the ball.

If the AFL removed this then no player will ever take the risk of getting the ball, they will just sit back and wait to tackle.

My comments were what I would like to see as a theoretical change to the rules, not how they stand as now. And I have made an amendment to my original comments in a later post.

There's room to keep prior opportunity and also penalise players for not disposing of the ball correctly in my view.

[darkhorse72 1,737]

Depends if we have the ball or are the tackler :) 

crackdown on throws and just dropping it.

[Macca 16,173]

What we've got now with regards to a player being tackled are handpasses that aren't really handpasses, the ball simply being let go or allowed to dribble away,  the ball spilling free, a part of the boot barely connecting with the ball being regarded as a kick, futile fake attempts at trying to dispose of the ball along with tacklers making sure the ball is trapped in with the player being tackled etc etc

All things considered the umpires are doing a fine job sorting it all out.  What was once illegal is now legal, nothing is clear cut and quite frankly, it's a bit of a mess.  The new man on the mark ruling has improved the game as a spectacle but more needs to be done

Most watching are left frustrated and tearing their hair out.  I never see any bias or favouritism but what we see now is far removed from what we used to witness

I'm normally very cynical of the coach's motives but their 'No Prior' is worthy of debate ... it wouldn't necessarily become a tacklers league as some might imagine either. 

Lots of clearing taps, knock ons and as a result, way less congestion and packs is how I'm picturing 'No prior'

But do nothing and the frustration will remain.  There's not much more that can be done with the current prior opportunity interpretation

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Macca

[P-man 13,224]

As Clint has rightly pointed out numerous times on this topic, if you have no prior but make an attempt to dispose of the ball or the ball is knocked out in the tackle, it’s play on. Hence the umpire who called play on because he “attempted to kick it” was actually correct.

A lot of people don’t know the rule, including BT (shock horror). What frustrates me and I think many others is when they willingly just stone cold drop it and it isn’t called as incorrect disposal. Many of those are not called. 

[P-man 13,224]

As for Hardwick, to me it’s just a plainly stupid idea removing prior opportunity. 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.

Incentive to gain possession of the ball  goes to the core of the game, surely. The ball winner needs some form of protection in the laws.

Edited May 19, 2021 by P-man

[Nasher 33,114]

16 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

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

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.

[rpfc 27,534]

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.