Changes to “Holding the Ball” Rule

[leave it to deever 17,517]

10 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

What is "reasonable time" ?

Reason and umpiring....hmmmm.

[chook fowler 19,546]

Another excuse for the maggots to shaft us

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[jnrmac 20,186]

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Might sound like an anathema to many but I'd be happy to see quicker decisions on HTB if you were allowed to throw the ball.

Why is the handball sacred. We lost the place kick and the drop kick but no one screams.

The time and place to trial it was with the introduction of the AFLW.

Because then it's rugby

[binman 43,762]

11 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

One of the advantages of being a Sunday game - the umpires should have ‘relaxed’ the overcorrection by then 

It says a lot that this is more a statement of fact than supposition.

[BoBo 2,941]

Make it 360 degrees, pin incorrect disposal, pin unrealistic attempt to dispose of the ball, uphold prior opportunity. 
 

I see players frequently get tackled and make ZERO attempt to get rid of the ball (not even the fake punching the ball) and it gets balled up even when they had prior opportunity. That’s not how Aussie rules works???
 

I have no idea how we got to this stage but it isn’t that hard. Keep it simple, pay the free kick and teams will adjust. 

[layzie 33,995]

By all means, let's change a rule mid-season. 

[binman 43,762]

Just now, layzie said:

By all means, let's change a rule mid-season. 

It's the annual AFL mid season confected controversy.

Gotta get that sweet content.

[Brownie 5,988]

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If it is a concern limit the throw to 15 metres. We have that distance for bouncing the ball and minimum kick length.

 

That's hilarious. Have you watched a game recently and how inconsistently those things are officiated?

[Brownie 5,988]

The ear pieces will be running hot this weekend.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,298]

It's not the only change, I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago Gerard Healy (I think) complaining about the "fend off being automatic prior opportunity" saying a player putting their arm up isn't always trying to fend off, sometimes they're trying to protect themselves from the tackler. Next weekend I noticed they had stopped paying holding the ball when players out the arm up to fend off the tackler!

Now I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation but just deciding to change the way a rule is administered halfway through a season without any communication about it is farcical.

[BoBo 2,941]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's not the only change, I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago Gerard Healy (I think) complaining about the "fend off being automatic prior opportunity" saying a player putting their arm up isn't always trying to fend off, sometimes they're trying to protect themselves from the tackler. Next weekend I noticed they had stopped paying holding the ball when players out the arm up to fend off the tackler!

Now I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation but just deciding to change the way a rule is administered halfway through a season without any communication about it is farcical.

I get the impression the AFL is about trying to play cat and mouse with coaches to how they adjust to the rules (trying to keep it free flowing) vs the media picking up audience grievances and adjusting on the fly and it makes me think, if congestion is the issue and ‘free flowing’ is the consistent aim, just make it 16 on the field? Limit interchanges more and add 2 spaces on the bench?
 

Seems a better overall (albeit large) change to the game rather than constantly micro changing rules to try and open things up which leads us to this point. How many years have we had this conversation about how messed up rules are being umpired?  
 

I’d rather they bite the bullet and make big changes than this because I love watching footy but jeezuzz it is frustrating when these situations come up. It does detract from the game and I’m not a person that often complains about the style of modern footy. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,298]

1 minute ago, BoBo said:

I get the impression the AFL is about trying to play cat and mouse with coaches to how they adjust to the rules (trying to keep it free flowing) vs the media picking up audience grievances and adjusting on the fly and it makes me think, if congestion is the issue and ‘free flowing’ is the consistent aim, just make it 16 on the field? Limit interchanges more and add 2 spaces on the bench?
 

Seems a better overall (albeit large) change to the game rather than constantly micro changing rules to try and open things up which leads us to this point. How many years have we had this conversation about how messed up rules are being umpired?  
 

I’d rather they bite the bullet and make big changes than this because I love watching footy but jeezuzz it is frustrating when these situations come up. It does detract from the game and I’m not a person that often complains about the style of modern footy. 

Removing players from the field should have happened 10+ years ago but the AFL won't do it. They've written it into their charter or whatever that 18 a side is sacrosanct for some bizarre reason. They really should reduce numbers to 14 or 15 a side, would make defensive zones less effective too as the holes in the zone would be too great and teams would pick their way through with ease forcing defense to go man on man

[BoBo 2,941]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Removing players from the field should have happened 10+ years ago but the AFL won't do it. They've written it into their charter or whatever that 18 a side is sacrosanct for some bizarre reason. They really should reduce numbers to 14 or 15 a side, would make defensive zones less effective too as the holes in the zone would be too great and teams would pick their way through with ease forcing defense to go man on man

Yeah 100%, good points. Player fitness, athleticism and zone defences mean the grounds have basically been made smaller. And the 1v1 dynamic, which I think a lot people that watched footy prior to 2000ish really miss. Will Jacovich beat Carey? Silvagni on Ablett? I would love to see that dynamic become more important as team based football isn’t really as romantic as epic 1v1 clashes. 

[daisycutter 29,738]

i'm looking forward to a round of extreme fan outrage

social media will be in overdrive

[jnrmac 20,186]

12 hours ago, BoBo said:

Yeah 100%, good points. Player fitness, athleticism and zone defences mean the grounds have basically been made smaller. And the 1v1 dynamic, which I think a lot people that watched footy prior to 2000ish really miss. Will Jacovich beat Carey? Silvagni on Ablett? I would love to see that dynamic become more important as team based football isn’t really as romantic as epic 1v1 clashes. 

None of this is news. Ever since they allowed unlimited interchange to 'speed up the game' we have had congestion.

It is a fact that if interchanges are reduced players will fatigue sooner and they simply can't run as far (except for the likes of say Langdon)

The coaches scream that injuries will increase but I don't buy it for a second. Because the players won't be able to run manically for 4 quarters. 

Collision impacts will likely reduce because you won't have powerful,  fit players cannoning into other players.They will naturally pick and choose when to run and when to tackle etc.

Never ever listen to coaches about the state of the game. They couldn't care less how it looks. 

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

One thing that has puzzled me is why too many players try to take possession of the ball in heavy traffic when the first smart option whilst they still have time is to tap, knock or soccer the ball to a team mate in an advantageous position to clear congestion. Too many players seem conditioned to make a play with their own possession rather than move the ball on expediently for their sides advantage. Every one praises a player when he makes a clever tap on to advantage but it does not happen often enough. Perhaps if stats were credited for these acts they might be encouraged to do them more often. The holding/dropping the ball problem would significantly reduce and the play flow better with this mindset.

Edited May 30 by John Crow Batty

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

On 29/05/2024 at 07:03, Demonland said:

 

How the hell did it get to having a dance before you got rid of it anyway, for some protected Clubs and Teams.

We all know who they are..

[drdrake 3,187]

There is no doubt that the AFL had a direction to umpires to let play go on till the ball came out, less free kicks, less stopages.  The clubs and players had no idea of this change.

It had to happen, we are protecting players who get tackled which had to happen but this allows players to stand more in tackles as they can't be thrown to the ground.  

You need to reward a good tackle and hopefully this will do that.

[jnrmac 20,186]

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

There is no doubt that the AFL had a direction to umpires to let play go on till the ball came out, less free kicks, less stopages.  The clubs and players had no idea of this change.

It had to happen, we are protecting players who get tackled which had to happen but this allows players to stand more in tackles as they can't be thrown to the ground.  

You need to reward a good tackle and hopefully this will do that.

Or the public

Is it any wonder the umpires get abused for not abiding by the rules when the rules are changed without watchers knowing?

 

Why the secrecy? Oh its the AFL...

[Dr. Gonzo 24,298]

4 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

One thing that has puzzled me is why too many players try to take possession of the ball in heavy traffic when the first smart option whilst they still have time is to tap, knock or soccer the ball to a team mate in an advantageous position to clear congestion. Too many players seem conditioned to make a play with their own possession rather than move the ball on expediently for their sides advantage. Every one praises a player when he makes a clever tap on to advantage but it does not happen often enough. Perhaps if stats were credited for these acts they might be encouraged to do them more often. The holding/dropping the ball problem would significantly reduce and the play flow better with this mindset.

It's been coached out of them, coaches would rather play conservative and force a stoppage than risk the ball being lost by a tap on and teams being opened up on the rebound. Coaches want slow, controlled, risk free footy. It's boring.

Edited May 30 by Dr. Gonzo

[Clayton van Oliver 1,823]

On 29/05/2024 at 00:33, Bitter but optimistic said:

What is "reasonable time" ?

I once had to use it to get over a French girl

Edited May 30 by Clayton van Oliver

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's been coached out of them, coaches would rather play conservative and force a stoppage than risk the ball being lost by a tap on and teams being opened up on the rebound. Coaches want slow, controlled, risk free footy. It's boring.

But we still see too many fumbled pickups, smothered and errant handballs all under pressure when players could easily have knocked the ball out earlier to a teammate before the opposition can apply maximum pressure.

Edited May 30 by John Crow Batty

[daisycutter 29,738]

despite my cynicism, so far (1st half) the rule change seems to be working well and scrimmages being stopped much quicker than previous and consistency better.

lot more game time to go this round so i'll hold off until then

[layzie 33,995]

Armageddon is in effect, go get a late pass.