Jump to content

Changes to “Holding the Ball” Rule

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 

This must be the only sport in the world where senior coaches get to have a whinge about a rule in the middle of the season and it gets changed by Tuesday.

It’s a good change, but why does Damian Hardwick get to decide the rules of the game? 

  • Quote
    • Like 9
    • Angry 2
    34 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

    This must be the only sport in the world where senior coaches get to have a whinge about a rule in the middle of the season and it gets changed by Tuesday.

    It’s a good change, but why does Damian Hardwick get to decide the rules of the game? 

    Agree wholeheartedly. Purely bizarre. 

    I am glad we're playing on Sunday as hopefully it's bedded in better by then after the umpires completely eradicate the notion of prior opportunity Thursday to Saturday

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Haha 1
    • Clap 2
     

    According to N Buckley it is more to do with the fact a player has the arm holding the ball free. Umpires have been told that if that arm is not held in the tackle, then the current 360 degree tackles arent "Holding the Ball". He also said that umpires may change interpretation this week.

  • Quote

    Has anyone told the umpires?

    Watch the overreaction this weekend

     

    Rule of the week will see 30 HTBs every game

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    Well know the rule works if Cripps can no longer do 720degree turns while looking to dish off a handball

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    • Clap 1

    A lot of the problems are because players are now tackling at 80% force, not wanting to bring the ball carrier to the ground and risk suspension.

    For the umpires, it is not as simple as paying holding the ball more often, as the rules require the ball carrier to have prior opportunity before the tackle is laid. IMO the umpires need to it ball up more, even if there is a bit of momentum in the player being tackled.

    If I were coaching, I think I would tell players to tackle at close to 100% force and risk suspensions. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

    Well know the rule works if Cripps can no longer do 720degree turns while looking to dish off a handball

    That won't be changing. He can also run 35 metres without bouncing.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Haha 2

    This will be another overcorrection and disaster. Prepare for another unwatchable round of football ruined by umpiring, this time with even more game deciding unnecessary free kicks 💩

    Edited by Lord Travis

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Clap 2
    2 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

    This will be another overcorrection and disaster. Prepare for another unwatchable round of football ruined by umpiring, this time with even more game deciding unnecessary free kicks 💩

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

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    3 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

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

    After Alice umps will have no fear of being ‘sent to the country’ so hopefully ignore HQ’s rule of the week.

  • Quote

    Seriously what other sport in the world would do this?

    Just leave the game alone during the season.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1

    Sorry to disagree with everyone, but I think it is great. 
     

    Alistair Clarkson said years ago that if they want to get the game more free flowing, they should enforce holding the ball.

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    I just wish they would stop changing the rule 20 times per game and especially when Clarrie gets the ball.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Clap 1
    6 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

    I just wish they would stop changing the rule 20 times per game and especially when Clarrie gets the ball.

     

    Clarry gets pinged for throws all the time and Cripps nothing.... different rules for different players as we all know

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Clap 2
    • Angry 2
    • "It has become clearer throughout the season that  in discharging their duty of care whilst executing a tackle, tacklers are positively electing not to take tackled players to ground in the tackle or are generally doing so in a reasonable way including by not using excessive force," the AFL said in a statement on Wednesday morning. 
    • "As a consequence, we are seeing players hold onto the ball slightly longer and challenging the definition of “reasonable time”.

    So, the AFL is saying the reason players are able to hold on to the ball too long is that they no longer get instantly smashed to the ground.  Something just doesn't ring true and is a recipe for further interpretations to come. 

    • "Our umpires are clear on the interpretation of holding the ball and it continues to be a focus of umpire coaching each week. We want to ensure our Clubs, Coaches and Players understand the rules and how they are being officiated."

    Typical poli-speak. If they are so clear on the interpretation why do we see so many inconsistencies?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Vomit 1

    The test is the dropping of the ball whilst being tackled with prior opportunity.

    If these adjustments to the rules mean anything it should be holding the ball/ incorrect disposal come Thursday night.

    The rules as they currently stand benefit 2 teams greatly, 1 of them is playing Thursday night.

    Edited by YesitwasaWin4theAges

  • Quote

    mid season rule change

    decided on a couple of days analysis after saying no problem here

    to be implemented within less than a week

    scores of umpires to be "re-educated" (when, how?)

    what could go wrong?

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Haha 1
    • Clap 1

    I don't find myself subject to the Mandela Effect very often, but AFL rule interpretations is an exception. 

    I could have sworn that shortened reasonable time interpretations were instituted at the start of year maybe two or three seasons ago and very quickly dispensed with. Did I just imagine this? 

    Another that I'm certain was tried many years ago (and which made sense, but would have been difficult to umpire) was that if the tackling player dragged the ball in and held it to the player over the ball, they (the tackler) got done for holding the ball. This happens all the time these days. 

    Another was that a push in the back was a free kick. Ha ha. What a duffer I am. As if that would ever be a rule. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Clap 1
     
    1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

    What is "reasonable time" ?

    It should be immediate. 

    If you get tackled you have to immediately attempt to dispose of the ball. Simples.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    3 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

    I don't find myself subject to the Mandela Effect very often, but AFL rule interpretations is an exception. 

    I could have sworn that shortened reasonable time interpretations were instituted at the start of year maybe two or three seasons ago and very quickly dispensed with. Did I just imagine this? 

    Another that I'm certain was tried many years ago (and which made sense, but would have been difficult to umpire) was that if the tackling player dragged the ball in and held it to the player over the ball, they (the tackler) got done for holding the ball. This happens all the time these days. 

    Another was that a push in the back was a free kick. Ha ha. What a duffer I am. As if that would ever be a rule. 

    The front on rule is also a joke.

    As is the Goodes sliding the knees. The way Goodes used to slide in was dangerous. Now we have players theatrically diving over a player on the ground to try and elicit a free (ANB is a culprit)

    While we are at it the Intentional OOB, the protected area, the stand rule

    The interpretations of all of these are farcical.

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 170 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 46 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 328 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All