5 minutes ago, old55 said:

"No prior" is "no prior opportunity to legitimately dispose of the ball"

Not sure I understand. In your hypothetical scenario if 'no prior' rule is abolished, ball winner player grabs the ball, is tackled by players sweating on him and free kick is given against him. I'm suggesting that all he has to to is make a legitimate *attempt* in that situation and a ball up would result. 

2 minutes ago, Demonised said:

Not sure I understand. In your hypothetical scenario if 'no prior' rule is abolished, ball winner player grabs the ball, is tackled by players sweating on him and free kick is given against him. I'm suggesting that all he has to to is make a legitimate *attempt* in that situation and a ball up would result. 

There's a significant proportion of tackles where the arms are pinned and a legitimate attempt to dispose is not possible. Free kick against the ball winner. ANB and Jack Viney will each have 5 free kicks against per game.

11 hours ago, Redleg said:

The AFL in its memo to clubs included a video of “Legal” tackles, demonstrating how to tackle “Legally,” included the Sparrow tackle, where he got a week.

The game is run by morons.

We lost the game he missed by a kick and it could cost us a home final.

 

I saw that and thought nah, it must have been a different one..

 

They really are idiots

I thought the Butler  tackle was the most vicious of all, and was worth 3 weeks. I particularly disliked the two little extra shoves he gave Blakey  while he was stunned and prostrate.

24 minutes ago, old55 said:

There's a significant proportion of tackles where the arms are pinned and a legitimate attempt to dispose is not possible. Free kick against the ball winner. ANB and Jack Viney will each have 5 free kicks against per game.

We see countless times each week where a player is tackled and one arm is pinned but the arm holding the ball is free. The player holds on for dear life and makes no attempt to dispose because he knows that an incorrect disposal will give a free away or the ball will spill to an opponent.

Players (like ANB) are coached to bring the ball to ground and create a stoppage. Players are holding on to the ball for too long and the tackler has no choice in most cases other than to bring the player to ground or risk them getting their arms free and dishing the ball off. 

IMO a player who makes no attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled should be penalised, regardless of whether he has an arm pinned etc This actually is the rule currently but not enforced. The only exception should be when the player has both arms pinned and can't release the ball.

And while we are at it, you wont convince me otherwise that all of these issues stem from the increase in interchange back in Kevin Bartlett's day.

Players today can run for 4 quarters at full tilt (with lots of interchanges). Makes for bigger, harder collisions, more congestion and more of the ball pinging from end to end. A lot less one on one contested footy and more rolling mauls. All for TV

 

34 minutes ago, old55 said:

There's a significant proportion of tackles where the arms are pinned and a legitimate attempt to dispose is not possible. Free kick against the ball winner. ANB and Jack Viney will each have 5 free kicks against per game.

I guess we're seeing things differently. Arms pinned but still with the ball in hand? Making some movements towards disposing of the ball would be enough to be considered a legitimate attempt. At least it was before the prior opportunity rule ...

29 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

We see countless times each week where a player is tackled and one arm is pinned but the arm holding the ball is free. The player holds on for dear life and makes no attempt to dispose because he knows that an incorrect disposal will give a free away or the ball will spill to an opponent.

Players (like ANB) are coached to bring the ball to ground and create a stoppage. Players are holding on to the ball for too long and the tackler has no choice in most cases other than to bring the player to ground or risk them getting their arms free and dishing the ball off. 

IMO a player who makes no attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled should be penalised, regardless of whether he has an arm pinned etc This actually is the rule currently but not enforced. The only exception should be when the player has both arms pinned and can't release the ball.

And while we are at it, you wont convince me otherwise that all of these issues stem from the increase in interchange back in Kevin Bartlett's day.

Players today can run for 4 quarters at full tilt (with lots of interchanges). Makes for bigger, harder collisions, more congestion and more of the ball pinging from end to end. A lot less one on one contested footy and more rolling mauls. All for TV

 

Wow, couldn't have said it better myself. This is what the AFL has reaped from their sowing of unrestricted interchange.

The other reaping we're in the middle of witnessing is the slow death of ruckwork. All because of the AFL's insistence on perfect bounces. They don't need to be perfect! The ruckmen don't need to be opposite each other! In olden times the umps bounced the ball all day, all over the ground, on mudpatches and bowling greens alike, and the ruckmen used their skill to anticipate and manouvre this crazy oval ball. But some coaches said it could affect the outcome of a grand final. Oh. Okay. The coaches, final arbiter of all things, have spoken. Newsflash! It already has affected a grand final. 2010, Steve Milne, crazy bounce, and no one had kittens. It was all accepted as part of the game. The AFL is killing ruckwork in the name of a perfection that doesn't and can't exist.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

We see countless times each week where a player is tackled and one arm is pinned but the arm holding the ball is free. The player holds on for dear life and makes no attempt to dispose because he knows that an incorrect disposal will give a free away or the ball will spill to an opponent.

Players (like ANB) are coached to bring the ball to ground and create a stoppage. Players are holding on to the ball for too long and the tackler has no choice in most cases other than to bring the player to ground or risk them getting their arms free and dishing the ball off. 

IMO a player who makes no attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled should be penalised, regardless of whether he has an arm pinned etc This actually is the rule currently but not enforced. The only exception should be when the player has both arms pinned and can't release the ball.

And while we are at it, you wont convince me otherwise that all of these issues stem from the increase in interchange back in Kevin Bartlett's day.

Players today can run for 4 quarters at full tilt (with lots of interchanges). Makes for bigger, harder collisions, more congestion and more of the ball pinging from end to end. A lot less one on one contested footy and more rolling mauls. All for TV

 

We're talking about doing away with no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.  If the ball winner is tackled immediately on gaining possession and even one arm is pinned then a handball is not an option, only a kick is and it's not easy to hit your boot if you're being spun in the tackle or you're being tackled from behind and front-on which happens at stoppages.  Ball winners need to be protected.  That will be holding the ball or incorrect disposal and ball-winners will be unfairly penalised.

While we're going on a tangent with interchanges, here's mine - grabbing the wrist in a tackle should be a free against the tackler because it unfairly limits the disposal options of the ball winner.  Pinning the arms is fine but grabbing the wrist is too easy.

Gee whiz!

Are Melbourne players also copping the largest financial sanctions for strikes as well now?

$5000 down to $3000 for Salem for a tap. 

2 hours ago, old55 said:

We're talking about doing away with no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.  If the ball winner is tackled immediately on gaining possession and even one arm is pinned then a handball is not an option, only a kick is and it's not easy to hit your boot if you're being spun in the tackle or you're being tackled from behind and front-on which happens at stoppages.  Ball winners need to be protected.  That will be holding the ball or incorrect disposal and ball-winners will be unfairly penalised.

While we're going on a tangent with interchanges, here's mine - grabbing the wrist in a tackle should be a free against the tackler because it unfairly limits the disposal options of the ball winner.  Pinning the arms is fine but grabbing the wrist is too easy.

They just need to enforce the rules as they are. When you get tackled you have to make an attempt to dispose of the ball. Just because you have one arm held doesn't negate that.

I don't think that discriminates against the ball winner too onerously. If the umps blow their whistles quicker you wont have tacklers spinning guys around in 360 degs and ball winners will try to dispose of the ball more quickly

But while we are at it. These are just as frustrating:

• Holding a player while he is trying to get the ball Happens to Clarry and Tracc all the time. Particulalrly in the centre bounces
• Push in the back? WTF is going on with that
• Jumping on a players back when he is on the ground? WTF
• Kicking the ball as its crossing the line. The McCreery decision was terrible. It used to be your foot could not be in contact with the ball as it crossed the line. When did that change?
• Handballs over the head.  How is that a stationary palm as it used to be
• Front on contact is now paid for the slightest of touches - in some case for no contact at all just getting in the players face as it were - and yet it was brought in to stop people being shirtfronted whilst they were in a vulnerable position
• Shepherding off the ball. You are allowed to bump a player within 5m of the ball. This is paid randomly - such as Oscar bakers ridiculous decision on the weekend  - yet Max was shepherded off the ball every single time the ball went into our 50m. And Collingwood had two shots at goal because of it.
• Sliding the knees. This was the Adam Goodes rule brought in to stop the dangerous sliding when approaching from the opposite direction - ie when you could break a players legs. Now its paid for anyone going for the ball and  the oppo player dives over the top of them. ANB does this quite often to milk a free.
• Tackles that slip down low and players get tripped. Rarely paid as a trip

Most of these rules modifications are designed for TV and faster play - supposedly more goals and more commercial breaks.

But the lack of consistency and rule of the week is infuriating. When was the last time a player got pinged for being in the 'protected zone'?  Yet you now see it all the time.

As for the 'standing the mark rule. The variation in intrpretation is mind boggling.

 

AFL are idiots.

 

Edited June 15, 20231 yr by jnrmac

19 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i reject the notion that sicily was careless and had other options

when sicily made the tackle he was already in a non standing, somewhat unbalanced  position. he had to leap at the player and tackled around the hips.  at the time of the tackle he was off balance and couldn't  have much control over how the tackle ended up. he was not standing and had nowhere to go except down toward the ground. he even said he tried to be under the player so he brought him down on top off him, which he largely achieved.  because there was an angle between their respective directions there was always going to be a certain amount of twisting. on top of this another player went over the top of them making contact with the lions player which must have influenced the fall to some extent.

now the whole sequence from tackle contact to being grounded was pretty quick maybe about 1 second. It was not prolonged and there was no double action. given sicily was off his feet and had too little time to react he couldn't change what was already in motion.

if you have played the game at a decent level, you would realise it was just an unfortunate football accident that couldn't be controlled. i'd even commend sicily for being able to make the tackle in the first place when he was himself unbalanced

it wasn't nasty or careless and he didn't intentionally try to hurt.  accidental injuries do happen in a contact sport. to suspend him for 3 weeks is terrible and sends no meaningful message to other players

I get the feeling the Afl is in panic mode at present. 

On 6/14/2023 at 11:17 AM, Gawndy the Great said:

The Rozee, Hunter incident to me was one of the toughest incidents to date and yet really it was Jordan Lewis that was leading the cause that Rozee was contributing equally to the incident. I think more are starting to jump on this bandwagon and ultimately we will get to a point where the AFL will need to issue guidelines on how to enter a contest and clearly define parameters on where a player will be protected by the AFL and where it will not. Rozee is clearly opening himself up to significant injury the way he attacked that contest. 

The Cerra incident was surprising to me, it is very similar to the McCluggage - Sicily incident as far as biomechanics are concerned. Sicily was just unlucky in how McCluggage made contact with the ground and how he was concussed. 

The AFL just have to come out and define what a reportable tackle is, i.e. pinging one or two arms, head making contact with the ground, two motions etc. Whateverway you look at it, the Cerra case was clearly the incorrect outcome. 

 

I have mede this point numerous times before - there will be a life changing broken neck unless this is actively discouraged ie a free against the player who goes in head first.   Then the AFL will wring its hands and say that the player has no right to stand his ground!

8 hours ago, Demonised said:

Not sure I understand. In your hypothetical scenario if 'no prior' rule is abolished, ball winner player grabs the ball, is tackled by players sweating on him and free kick is given against him. I'm suggesting that all he has to to is make a legitimate *attempt* in that situation and a ball up would result. 

The vultures will circle and the ball getter will fade out of our great game.

6 hours ago, McQueen said:

Gee whiz!

Are Melbourne players also copping the largest financial sanctions for strikes as well now?

$5000 down to $3000 for Salem for a tap. 

Michael Christian: "Feel lucky not to get a two match suspension".   Another experimental MRO decision against our club.  Pathetic Mr Christian.

6 hours ago, McQueen said:

Gee whiz!

Are Melbourne players also copping the largest financial sanctions for strikes as well now?

$5000 down to $3000 for Salem for a tap. 

i believe it was a second offence.  might have had something to do with size of penalty?

don't know for sure but i think a third offense might be automatic suspension?

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i believe it was a second offence.  might have had something to do with size of penalty?

don't know for sure but i think a third offense might be automatic suspension?

I'd go along with that.  I seem to recall Salem doing something like this before.

On 6/14/2023 at 5:49 PM, Lucifers Hero said:

A very easy fix:  eliminate 'the 'no prior' rule:  if ball is not immediately and legally disposed of it is HTB. 

This will eliminate so many other aspects of tackle/HTB confusion and illegal disposals eg throws.  And players being taken to ground will become the exception with lower risk to a player's head. 

Not my original idea:  I heard Nathan Buckley discuss it a few years ago. 

I get that the AFL wants play to be 'free flowing' rather than have lots of frees.  What is more important free flowing game or protecting players and not have stupid suspensions.  I reckon once players get used to a new rule they will dispose of the ball faster and play will be free flowing any way.

 

My fear is that a team could have several players could before the Tribunal in finals for "accidents".  What then!  The AFL turns a blind eye to its rules and not suspend players or suspends them and disadvantages a team and compromises the integrity of the finals and possibly the GF.

100% this Lucifer.

Was watching a game from the 80s a while back and it struck me how much less time/oppertunity players had before it was considered holding the ball.  But it didn't result in the game being dominated by umpiring, or players not going in for the ball because players adjust.  Don't take on the tackler so readily, not as many rolling mauls, more kick / leading type behaviour players spread over a bigger area of the ground and everyone had more space, because the ball could be moved faster by foot than players able to flood back.

I'm not sure if it was a 'no prior' interpretation or if the threshold for holding the ball was just lower, but definitely wouldn't have had players being bought to ground with the ball and it not a free kick, so players a) generally avoided letting that happen as the ball winner and b) knew they didn't need to pile drive players to be awarded the free kick.

7 hours ago, jnrmac said:

They just need to enforce the rules as they are. When you get tackled you have to make an attempt to dispose of the ball. Just because you have one arm held doesn't negate that.

I don't think that discriminates against the ball winner too onerously. If the umps blow their whistles quicker you wont have tacklers spinning guys around in 360 degs and ball winners will try to dispose of the ball more quickly

But while we are at it. These are just as frustrating:

• Holding a player while he is trying to get the ball Happens to Clarry and Tracc all the time. Particulalrly in the centre bounces
• Push in the back? WTF is going on with that
• Jumping on a players back when he is on the ground? WTF
• Kicking the ball as its crossing the line. The McCreery decision was terrible. It used to be your foot could not be in contact with the ball as it crossed the line. When did that change?
• Handballs over the head.  How is that a stationary palm as it used to be
• Front on contact is now paid for the slightest of touches - in some case for no contact at all just getting in the players face as it were - and yet it was brought in to stop people being shirtfronted whilst they were in a vulnerable position
• Shepherding off the ball. You are allowed to bump a player within 5m of the ball. This is paid randomly - such as Oscar bakers ridiculous decision on the weekend  - yet Max was shepherded off the ball every single time the ball went into our 50m. And Collingwood had two shots at goal because of it.
• Sliding the knees. This was the Adam Goodes rule brought in to stop the dangerous sliding when approaching from the opposite direction - ie when you could break a players legs. Now its paid for anyone going for the ball and  the oppo player dives over the top of them. ANB does this quite often to milk a free.
• Tackles that slip down low and players get tripped. Rarely paid as a trip

Most of these rules modifications are designed for TV and faster play - supposedly more goals and more commercial breaks.

But the lack of consistency and rule of the week is infuriating. When was the last time a player got pinged for being in the 'protected zone'?  Yet you now see it all the time.

As for the 'standing the mark rule. The variation in intrpretation is mind boggling.

 

AFL are idiots.

 

Agree with all that too Jnr. 

The other that frustrates the heck out of me is players doing cheap push in the back etc of their opponent towards the fence once the ball had crossed the boundary line.  I can't think of any particular culprit players or teams who are better or worse than any other and I'm sure we have many that do it repeatedly.  Maybe the AFL will just wait for a player to become concussed hitting the fence or the hard astroturf section near the fence and then any player that breaths on a player near the boundary line will get a 2 week suspension.  It's really dum if you ask me.

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Agree with all that too Jnr. 

The other that frustrates the heck out of me is players doing cheap push in the back etc of their opponent towards the fence once the ball had crossed the boundary line.  I can't think of any particular culprit players or teams who are better or worse than any other and I'm sure we have many that do it repeatedly.  Maybe the AFL will just wait for a player to become concussed hitting the fence or the hard astroturf section near the fence and then any player that breaths on a player near the boundary line will get a 2 week suspension.  It's really dum if you ask me.

Correct.

Rule of the game - 18.1.3 When a Free Kick May be Awarded

A Free Kick may be awarded when the football is or is not in play, between when a field Umpire starts and ends a quarter

I believe that the extra player, Brockman, falling on Sicily and McCluggage, is a furphy.  Sicily was going the full crocodile roll on McCluggage from the start and intended to hurt.

Why is it called 'sweating on the outside' and who came up with that term?

10 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

I believe that the extra player, Brockman, falling on Sicily and McCluggage, is a furphy.  Sicily was going the full crocodile roll on McCluggage from the start and intended to hurt.

You're welcome to that opinion but I couldn't disagree more. He dived at McLuggage. Once he was airborne had didn't have a lot if control as to what happened to MCL

Garbage decision.

On 6/15/2023 at 1:38 AM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I thought the Butler  tackle was the most vicious of all, and was worth 3 weeks. I particularly disliked the two little extra shoves he gave Blakey  while he was stunned and prostrate.

Same with Sicily on McCluggage. Give em an  extra week for being a smart a..e  Duty of care is not just an empty phase.

The Mansell appeal is going now apparently. I really hope he gets off, there's literally nothing else players can do in this situations other than pulling up and not actually going for the ball. 

It's unfathomable to me that De Goey got three for a late, high pump that was vicious and Mansell get's the same for a split second decision to brace for contact and protect himself.

the appeals are now happening after the round of footy has started?

[censored] me could they draw this out any further?

they should just assume a tribunal and an appeal and get everyone there on the tuesday.  laughable process

36 minutes ago, DubDee said:

the appeals are now happening after the round of footy has started?

[censored] me could they draw this out any further?

they should just assume a tribunal and an appeal and get everyone there on the tuesday.  laughable process

More warped than COVID times.