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

    • PREVIEW: Carlton

      Good evening, Demon fans and welcome back to the Demonland Podcast ... it’s time to discuss this week’s game against the Blues. Will the Demons celebrate Clayton Oliver’s 200th game with a victory? We have a number of callers waiting on line … Leopold Bloom: Carlton and Melbourne are both out of finals contention with six wins and eleven losses, and are undoubtedly the two most underwhelming and disappointing teams of 2025. Both had high expectations at the start of participating and advancing deep into the finals, but instead, they have consistently underperformed and disappointed themselves and their supporters throughout the year. However, I am inclined to give the Demons the benefit of the doubt, as they have made some progress in addressing their issues after a disastrous start. In contrast, the Blues are struggling across the board and do not appear to be making any notable improvements. They are regressing, and a significant loss is looming on Saturday night. Max Gawn in the ruck will be huge and the Demon midfield have a point to prove after lowering their colours in so many close calls.

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: North Melbourne

      I suppose that I should apologise for the title of this piece, but the temptation to go with it was far too great. The memory of how North Melbourne tore Melbourne apart at the seams earlier in the season and the way in which it set the scene for the club’s demise so early in the piece has been weighing heavily upon all of us. This game was a must-win from the club’s perspective, and the team’s response was overwhelming. The 36 point win over Alastair Clarkson’s Kangaroos at the MCG on Sunday was indeed — roovenge of the highest order!

        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Werribee

      The Casey Demons remain in contention for a VFL finals berth following a comprehensive 76-point victory over the Werribee Tigers at Whitten Oval last night. The caveat to the performance is that the once mighty Tigers have been raided of many key players and are now a shadow of the premiership-winning team from last season. The team suffered a blow before the game when veteran Tom McDonald was withdrawn for senior duty to cover for Steven May who is ill.  However, after conceding the first goal of the game, Casey was dominant from ten minutes in until the very end and despite some early errors and inaccuracy, they managed to warm to the task of dismantling the Tigers with precision, particularly after half time when the nominally home side provided them with minimal resistance.

        • Thanks
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Carlton

      The Demons return to the MCG as the the visiting team on Saturday night to take on the Blues who are under siege after 4 straight losses. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 222 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: North Melbourne

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 14th July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees glorious win over the Kangaroos at the MCG.
      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
        • Like
      • 29 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: North Melbourne

      The Demons are finally back at the MCG and finally back on the winners list as they continually chipped away at a spirited Kangaroos side eventually breaking their backs and opening the floodgates to run out winners by 6 goals.

        • Haha
        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 253 replies
      Demonland
    View All