Jump to content

Changes to “Holding the Ball” Rule

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 
 
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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Clap 1
     
    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?

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1
    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. 

  • Quote
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    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 by John Crow Batty

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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..

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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...

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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 by Dr. Gonzo

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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 by John Crow Batty

  • Quote
    •  

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • 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
      • 230 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
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All