Interpretations

[Rampaging Demons 1]

On Sunday I was very confused as to the holding the ball rule. The current trend is the hand in the back rule but for mine, the holding the ball rule continues to baffle me. There were several examples on the weekend...

There is the following: -

no reward for the perfect tackle, where an arm is pinned and they dispose of it incorrectly;

you get reward for when you jump on top of someone, hold the ball in under them with one arm and then hail the taxi with the other.

I am sick of seeing the player making the play get pinned because he has three opponents on top of him - not protecting the ball player.. also you do not know if it is going to be paid or not - the guessometer is in play!!

It had no influence on the game but I would like to see some consistency to this rule!

The faceless men on the rules committee and in particular the recluse from Punt Road need to be accountable...

[Deelusioned 0]

Drives me nuts, the players that are actually attacking the ball are being punished. What are you meant to do? Let it dribble out and risk the opponent grabbing it or go in hard for it and be penalised? It's crap and then when players do attack, four great lugs sit on him, giving him no chance to do anything and he's pinged.

Bring back the days when a holding the ball decision made the crowd go nuts, there's no fun in shouting 'BALL' anymore bc they're a dime a dozen.

The AFLs all about these new rule changes for the better of the game yet they're the only footy comp that's adopted them, no one else is playing like this.

[deanox 9,927]

i agree with this, its a very good point you make.

players who have the ball and are run down and who simply drop it or miss the handpass or kick should be penalised, moreso than players who have a pack on top of him. the umpires should only be directed to pay holding the ball if they can see the player holding onto it and not releasing it...too many times the player no longer has the ball and is pinged.

the decisions that riled me the most on sudnay were the holding the man decisions. imo if a players has the ball and is tackled and just lets the ball go it is holding the ball, not holding the man. if the umpire decides there was no prior opportunity then call play on, but if the player had possession he is fair game to be tackled...

[CarnTheDees 52]

I wrote this in an earlier thread:

The current 'interpretations' of holding-the-ball and push-in-the-back will drive fans away from AFL football. Every year the game moves closer and closer to basketball with every little tweak that the rules committee makes, and as much as i love getting stuck into the umpires you have to feel for them when they must uphold such ridiculous rules that go against everything we love about Australian Rules.

The current holding-the-ball interpretation is my pet hate, the rule does not encourage players to attack the ball and it causes scrappiness as players wildly fling the ball away in an attempt to get rid of it before they're touched by an opponent. The rule has become so confused, you can hear umpires over the effects mic sometimes declare 'incorrect disposal', 'he dived on it', 'he tried to knock it out', 'it was held to him'. And then the commentators stuff things up more by introducing 'reward the tackler' and 'dropping the ball' into the mix as well. And whatever happened to 'prior opportunity'?

In my knowledge of the rules, you can be penalised for either 'holding-the-ball' or 'throwing the ball', nothing else. So when a player gets run down from behind whilst in the action of kicking, after having possessed the ball for all of 1 full pace and the ball is knocked free by the tackler, he was neither caught holding-the-ball (no prior opportunity) nor did he throw it, yet he will still be penalised. Surely in this situation, the tackler's reward is dispossessing his opponent? And the AFL think these changes help to speed the game up? Every instance that used to be a 'play on' call, there is now a whistle and the game is stopped so the player can take a free kick for tagging his opponent.

And then we get to the stacks-on-the-mill scenarios, of which there were 5 or 6 in today's game. I can't comprehend how a player can be penalised for trying to take possession when the ball is on the ground, only for 2 opponents and a teammate to pile on top of him. And the worst part is that most of the time the ball is pinned under his legs somewhere or is being held in by an opponent.

These rulings are killing the game of AFL. The trend away from contested footy will only continue if they are not changed.

[deanox 9,927]

...And whatever happened to 'prior opportunity'?

i believe the holding the ball decision encompasses any decision where the player is tackled and retarded and doesnt dispose of the ball correctly. if he just drops it when he is tackled it is holding the ball, same if he bounces it.

prior opportunity comes into to say, if the player has had prior opportunity as soon as he is retarded in a tackle it is holding the ball, you dont get another chance.

if you havnt had prior opportunity then once you are tackled you are given a chance to get rid of it straight away, if you dont then it is holding the ball also.

if the ball is dislodged during the tackle (ie bumped out then) it is play on. if the tackle prevents a player from disposing it, ie pins an arm, or runs them down and they dont get boot to ball, then it is holding the ball prior opportunity or not.

if the ball is pinned to the player in the tackle then it is a ball up.

i think you can get the full rules on the aflpa website.

fwiw im not disagreeing with you, just clearing up the prior opportunity thing...

[CarnTheDees 52]

....

I understand the concept of prior opportunity, just not sure if it is still being applied. For instance, when that phrase was first adopted into the rules (late 90's maybe?), the explanation given was that a (paraphrasing) player had to have a sufficient opportunity to collect the ball, balance himself, and then effectively dispose of it. In those early seasons a player was usually allowed 2-3 full paces after collecting the ball to dispose. Now, players are constantly pinged after being tackled almost instantaneously.

I used to prefer it when holding the ball meant you were tackled (after prior opportunity), and then made no attempt to dispose of the ball. Compared to current interpretations, in which you can be holding the ball if you are tackled and the ball is jarred free by the tackle.

[CarnTheDees 52]

if the tackle prevents a player from disposing it, ie pins an arm, or runs them down and they dont get boot to ball, then it is holding the ball prior opportunity or not.

Thats the bit i don't agree with

[deanox 9,927]

but isnt that rewarding a good tackle?

actually, the way they pay that rule if a player is pinned with no prior op they tend not to pay it, but if you are running with the ball and your arms are pinned you should be gone.

if you grab the ball and instead of trying to handball or kick just let go of it when you are tackled i think you should be gone as well. yoyu cant just drop it, you need to dispose of it correctly.

[CarnTheDees 52]

but isnt that rewarding a good tackle?

How about rewarding the ball player with a decent chance to use the football, since he's the one with the ability/courage to go and get it?

The tackler's reward in that instance is the fact that he has dispossed his opponent, the ball went from the opposition's possession to neutral.

[Deelusioned 0]

as much as umps infuriate me, it's a tough gig for them bc they have so many ridiculous rules that they now need to remember and trying to get in the right position to see everything is near impossible.

why take the physicallity from the game? boring....

[45HG 1,539]

does the afl have an official line on interpretation in the wet? because i'll promise you it's officialed differently

my problem is the guy who runs into a pack, picks up the ball and is immediately tackled, with no chance to get rid of it, being pinged. counter-productive in my opinion. especially given the way free kicks are taken in today's game by the majority of teams. giving free kicks against players who are 'slowing the play' because the afl assumes they're attempting to create ball up situations, is slowing the game down by affording possession to one team whilst giving the other team time to set zones, hence slowing the game down

[praha 11,240]

i thought they were consistent on Sunday. Our boys just didnt seem to get the point; jump on the ball and get pinged. Everytime either team did it, it was holding the ball. Only difference was, we did it more often.

[FitZ 0]

I was spewing when Mclean got pinned for holding the ball when 3 players were on him and the ball was at his feet..

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

I agree with you, Rampaging D's, I don't like the idea of the guy who's done what we were all taught to do.....go in and GET THE BALL, getting penalised. Usually, he is DESPERATELY trying to dispose of it. The three blokes with their knees in his back and neck are the ones who are actually holding the ball in. THEY should be penalised. They are stopping the flow of the game.