Tackling

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,482]

I think we sometimes miss opportunities to win a free kick with tackles.

If the opponent has taken a step after getting the ball, ( had prior opportunity), I think the tackler should attempt to knock the ball down out of his hands while grabbing him, rather than just holding him,and keeping the ball pressed against him, leading to a ball up.

There is a degree of inconsistency in the umpiring on incidents like this. Sometimes a free will be paid when the ball is knocked out of the player’s hands, even if he hardly seemed to have prior opportunity.

I realise that there is a danger of the free not being paid, and the ball falls free to a 50:50 situation, but I think it’s worth the risk.

Occasionally, a player receives the ball unaware that a potential tackler is right behind him. I think this is the time that the “ surprise” tackle should win a free, by knocking the ball down while grabbing the player.

The biggest error in this circumstance is to allow the opponent to fall forward, pulling the tackler down on his back, and getting a free, when a proper tackle would have resulted in a free the other way.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,482]

Not worth consideration, obviously.

[Demon Dynasty 13,574]

Can see the merritt but it would be handy if there was some data on the %s of how often it's paid vs isn't.

Players are most likely under instruction to try and bring opponent to ground while ensuring ball doesn't get out to force another stoppage as coaches probably feel that their method / system around stoppages is superior.

That's debatable of course but their egos probably rule out any self doubt in most cases.

[doc roet 1,137]

If you have to rely on frees for to win a game, I think i would rather go and crochet a blanket.  

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,482]

Insightful comment, no.18. Back to your blanket!

[layzie 26,587]

It's an interesting observation. As DD said above I kind of feel it's the the directive to keep things in close and not have the ball ping out into dispute in a bad area of the field. 

But I'd love to know how often the umpire pays frees when the ball gets knocked out as it definitely does happen. 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,482]

If the ball is knocked free, it’s basically the same as a ball up…pretty much 50:50.   BUT…… there’s a good chance of getting a free if you knock it out of the opponent’s hands , especially if I he may have had prior opportunity.

And I refer you back to my comment in the O P about the” surprise” tackle….. I think that’s important.

[monoccular 15,003]

22 hours ago, doc roet said:

If you have to rely on frees for to win a game, I think i would rather go and crochet a blanket.  

Red and blue blankets I hope Doc - sell them to the MCC members. 

[Stiff Arm 3,844]

23 hours ago, doc roet said:

If you have to rely on frees for to win a game, I think i would rather go and crochet a blanket.  

Not to win a game, more so for arguable frees to not decide a game.

I hate seeing high contact frees for ducks, dropping knees, lifting the wing, plowing through packs head first, tilting the head back in exaggeration. Happens every week, we do it too. Especially prevalent by small forwards looking for a cheap goal. Somehow they've got to create a disincentive to play for high frees. Some guy is going to end up in hospital after stupidly ducking his head. It's a tough enough game to umpire as it is.

While we are at it, wtf is it with the pushing out in a marking contest??? It's not holding ground, it's pushing an opponent out of the contest ffs! Tell clubs it's not on and pay the free, it will be gone in two weeks.

And player blocks in a marking contest are almost as annoying. Max got about 70 blocks on Fri night!

Rant over

Edited June 5 by Stiff Arm

[dworship 3,313]

On 6/4/2023 at 7:25 PM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Not worth consideration, obviously.

In an effort to help you out, look up the holding the ball rules, you could even post the rules here. Then we could have a discussion about your "idea" or not.

[Deefiant 408]

53 minutes ago, dworship said:

In an effort to help you out, look up the holding the ball rules, you could even post the rules here. Then we could have a discussion about your "idea" or not.

Feel like you already have the answer, but just to add. Free kicks don't get paid if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. 

"For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession."

Pretty much how the doggies got away with dropping the ball when got tackled for a long time. 

[layzie 26,587]

Mixed views on this but it's a good observation you've brought up Jumping Jack Clennett, these are the kinds of conversations I like seeing on DL. 

[Webber 9,494]

7 hours ago, Deefiant said:

Feel like you already have the answer, but just to add. Free kicks don't get paid if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. 

"For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession."

Pretty much how the doggies got away with dropping the ball when got tackled for a long time. 

The problem with the rules around ‘holding the ball’, ‘incorrect disposal’, ‘prior opportunity’, ‘dislodged from the player’s possession’ and so on, is the utter inconsistency around their interpretation. The shambles that is AFL umpiring make it impossible to predict or trust any decision. It’s by far the biggest blight and embarrassment in our game, and sadly makes many games almost unwatchable. For which there is no accountability or even discussion. How the coaches and players cope with it, I don’t know, but presumably it’s just what they’re taught to expect. 

[dworship 3,313]

10 hours ago, Deefiant said:

Feel like you already have the answer, but just to add. Free kicks don't get paid if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. 

"For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession."

Pretty much how the doggies got away with dropping the ball when got tackled for a long time. 

You have uncovered my plan to have JJC do the homework. You have also mentioned another of the misconceptions the  vast number of supporters have. Every game I hear supporters from all teams shout "that's dropping the ball". That rule no longer exists and has not been in the rules for many years. The AFL tinker with the rules all the time and many supporters get left behind and become frustrated because they think the umpires have got it wrong. Another that many have not caught up with is "deliberate" being changed to insufficient intent. I haven't minded that one as it seems to have reduced the bad calls when the skill is performed poorly or the randomness of the oval ball has an effect.

[sue 8,076]

10 hours ago, Deefiant said:

Feel like you already have the answer, but just to add. Free kicks don't get paid if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. 

"For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession."

Pretty much how the doggies got away with dropping the ball when got tackled for a long time. 

If (a) is applied, then when a player is tackled just as he goes to handpass and his punching hand does not make contact with the ball, then it is not a free for incorrect disposal if it was a genuine attempt to punch the ball.  No doubt the player was trying but failed.  But that is a free that is very often paid because often it is clear to the umpire that the fist missed. 

I am more confused than ever.  Am I missing the context?

Edited June 6 by sue

[daisycutter 27,316]

5 minutes ago, sue said:

If (a) is applied, then when a player is tackled just as he goes to handpass and his punching hand does not make contact, then it is not a free for incorrect disposal if it was a genuine attempt to punch the ball.  No doubt the player was trying but failed.  But that is a free that is very often paid because often it is clear to the umpire that the fist missed. 

I am more confused than ever.  Am I missing the context?

no, more confused than ever seems to be most accurate

[Bitter but optimistic 20,394]

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

no, more confused than ever seems to be most accurate

This is me, every time time I watch a game.

The inconsistencies in awarding free kicks is simply (cliche alert) "doing my head in".

[dworship 3,313]

2 hours ago, Webber said:

The problem with the rules around ‘holding the ball’, ‘incorrect disposal’, ‘prior opportunity’, ‘dislodged from the player’s possession’ and so on, is the utter inconsistency around their interpretation. The shambles that is AFL umpiring make it impossible to predict or trust any decision. It’s by far the biggest blight and embarrassment in our game, and sadly makes many games almost unwatchable. For which there is no accountability or even discussion. How the coaches and players cope with it, I don’t know, but presumably it’s just what they’re taught to expect. 

While I agree there is a lot for the umpires to consider in a tackle you can see them going through a process and it's why sometimes the blowing of the whistle takes more time than anyone would like. Sure there are variations in result and that is to be expected considering different umpires and positioning/view of the action. As far as supporters are concerned most don't understand the holding the ball rule and that there is a process. We often say this is inconsistant or incorrect interpretation but is it really? I sometimes go back and rewind/slowdown a play and find myself rethinking what I thought the decision should have been. I'm not saying there aren't any mistakes but some will always occur. I also think  many of the commentators contribute to the angst around decisions by not knowing or completely understanding the rules.

How does the AFL improve the decision making? That's tough, I worked in an environment where an outside party was providing training on rules and procedures that had been developed by my organisation. What we didn't know was the trainers where introducing personal interpretation into the sessions instead of following/ teaching process. I'm not saying that's what is happening with Umpires but I've started to notice some things with head high tackles lately that makes me wonder about their training. Head high tackle rules have become more complicated due to the AFL's tinkering but I'm not sure process has kept pace. What I'm seeing is a focus on the tackled player and their actions rather than the tackler. Process should always dictate that if the initial contact is high then the free should be awarded. What I'm seeing is players ducking/ shrugging/ raising the arms up to break free, when the initial tackle was high. This could become a inducement to tackle high and someone like Kozzie could be targeted because everyone knows he will try to duck /shrug etc. I know all the other issues are complex, what about charging into players with the head down/ dropping the knees? This is why process is so important, I've long held the view that the Umps need to be full time professionals, forget about this 4 umpire system and concentrate on them being better trained and educated and that is best achieved in a full time environment.

 

[Webber 9,494]

8 minutes ago, dworship said:

I've long held the view that the Umps need to be full time professionals, forget about this 4 umpire system and concentrate on them being better trained and educated and that is best achieved in a full time environment.

Same, dworship. Been banging on about this for years. I agree with you about umps going through a ‘thought process’ to make a decision, as they should (albeit they would be more instinctive if they were full time immersed), but the issue remains that it’s literally anyone’s guess what the ultimate decision will be. When I watch AFL games on TV, 80% of the time, the commentary is off (because it’s rubbish!) Live of course there is only crowd commentary. Thus, media ‘experts’ aren’t guiding my interpretations. The rules, some of which have been commented on in this thread, are my reference point. How they are arbitrated is, in my opinion, game to game and within games, simply a raffle, and it’s never been worse. The head high-ducking shambles you outline above is another perfect case in point. 

[Stiff Arm 3,844]

8 hours ago, Webber said:

The problem with the rules around ‘holding the ball’, ‘incorrect disposal’, ‘prior opportunity’, ‘dislodged from the player’s possession’ and so on, is the utter inconsistency around their interpretation. The shambles that is AFL umpiring make it impossible to predict or trust any decision. It’s by far the biggest blight and embarrassment in our game, and sadly makes many games almost unwatchable. For which there is no accountability or even discussion. How the coaches and players cope with it, I don’t know, but presumably it’s just what they’re taught to expect. 

Agreed. I think I heard Razer on SEN (yeah, I know...) say that there were about 5 or 6 different outcome interpretations from a tackle, all decided within a fraction of a second. Duck head, drop knees, shrug shoulder, ball knocked out, no prior, two steps before tackle, fend off, side step, and so on

I think I remember the Spargo forward pocket too high free on Friday was paid by the umpire in the centre of the ground, the other 3 field umpires were closer than him! Having four umps seems to make it more confusing

[Ethan Tremblay 27,092]

Duggan copped a week for that tackle?! RIP Aussie Rules. 

[layzie 26,587]

13 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Duggan copped a week for that tackle?! RIP Aussie Rules. 

That's pathetic.