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

    • NON-MFC: Round 15

      As the Demons head into their Bye Round, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches being played. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons if we can manage to turn our season around? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

        • Like
      • 275 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 3 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

        • Clap
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Thanks
      • 114 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
      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
      • 33 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

      The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

        • Haha
        • Thanks
      • 252 replies
      Demonland
    View All