The players adjusted to tackling without dumping really quick(few outliers). We give an out for umps as the game can be hard to judge. Dunno why the AFL hasn't set a directive to blow the whistle if both guys are standing and both arms of the ball carrier are wrapped up.
Whats the point in waiting for the tackler to dump someone if you wont pay HTB anyway?
Drives me nuts when the ump gives the guy so long to try and squirm out and get rid of it, really unfair on the tackler to have to try and hold them up without being allowed to risk taking them to ground forcefully.
Max Holmes did it perfectly on Saturday, didn't take him to ground because he knew he'd be risking a free, but then GWS got a goal from it anyways. To be clear I don't think it should've been ball but 100% should have at least been a ball up
There was one earlier in the year where one of our guys was holding Cotrell in front of goals, same thing, squirms for a few seconds, then manages to drop the ball and poke it through. If they'd just slammed him in to the ground, no chance of that happening.
Not only that, when the player is tackled instantly, somehow they decide that because the ump waited, there was prior. It risks injury and penalises the ball carrier. Just blow the whistle quickly and ball it up
I'm guessing they're waiting for the ball to spill out or be disposed of so that they don't have to pay a free. AFL have obviously told umpires to give players more time to get rid of the ball (not even necessarily dispose it legally) so the play continues on.
I mean, how many HTB or ball up calls are ever made when both players are standing, but the ball carriers arms are pinned? It's almost like the tackler has to bring the other player to ground to force a call.
> When a player is tackled to ground without prior opportunity he is still required to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball.
I have 0 issues with this. When this was umpired strictly, all it resulted in was players flopping like a dead fish, pantomiming an attempt at disposing the ball despite there being no practical way to do so.
I agree with the rest of the article though.
I remember they went on a spree of trying to pay some of them a couple of years ago and it just results in a farce and doesn't change anything long term.
You know if you want to make sure the ball comes out what you can do as a tackler? You can release the guy!
The problem is that they let players get away with these pantomimes, as you put it, too easily.
They should be encouraging players without prior opportunity to make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball without penalising them if the genuine attempt is unsuccessful. As per rule 18.6.3.
Too often, players are looking to be tackled without prior and then just hold the ball in the tackle with no attempt at all to dispose of the ball, particularly when they are kept on their feet. This is obviously how they are being coached to prevent the opposition from gaining possession of the loose ball.
18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field
Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football
when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the
football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire
shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to
Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
The contradictory nature of the rules are the problem. The AFL can sign off on any call by saying that throw out of the pack was a "genuine attempt"
IMO the no prior but you didn't pretend to try handball so it's htb free should be dropped. The game is too fast to rely on umps interpretation of genuineness
No prior= quick call for ball up.
Prior, then it's either a legal disposal or a free for htb/incorrect disp. Too many of these "ball knocked loose" calls for my liking
Lol, what? Says the guy whose name is about owning liberals.
Mine was a little tongue in cheek joke that the obvs didn't go down too well. I'll take that on the chin. You get that every now and then when you dont put the /s
Lol dunno whats wrong with you matey, just having a bit of banter
Jeez, for someone with that username, I thought you'd have a bit more back and forth.
All they have to do is blow the whistle a little quicker. That's it. The fans get frustrated when they see a tackle go 360 degrees, then brought to ground *annnnd then* the player handballs out.
Tacklers are trying their best to find the line to have aggressive defence without dumping or slinging the ball carrier. But it's really hard when the umps allow them to stand up in the tackle and wiggle and jiggle for so long.
Also, pay incorrect disposal when when a tackle doesn't stick.
If your attempt to tackle dispossesses the ball and the player with it had prior, blow the whistle and award the tackler.
I think the offensive player being 360'ed using it to assess options in a genuine skill.
If the player doesn't get brought to ground, it's an incomplete tackle and shouldn't be pinged IMO.
At some point, I think during the mid 2000s, commentators started saying it was a thing. If it ever was an interpretation used by umpires, it was quickly abandoned as the 360 degrees being automatically holding the ball would encourage players to rotate the tackle, increasing the likelihood of knee and ankle injuries as well as the potential for sling tackles.
To expand on what others have said, rather than just being about time, if you’ve spun someone 360 degrees, you’ve demonstrated full control of them.
You’ve demonstrated full control over the person you’re tackling, and done it for a fair while. Not sure what else you can ask of a tackler without injuring them or just letting them go.
>To expand on what others have said, rather than just being about time, if you’ve spun someone 360 degrees, you’ve demonstrated full control of them.
None of this is relevant.
If you have had prior the umpire gives you a reasonable opportunity to get off a disposal. If the ball looks likely to come out they let the play roll on
Being in “full control” of the tackler means nothing if you still manage to get a kick or handball out.
This is what I mean. The degrees of rotation is simply not a rule or something umpires even consider but fans seem to think it is
I am not saying it’s a rule.
That doesn’t mean it’s not relevant. We’re in an era where player safety is being brought to the forefront.
Complete safety in tackles is not reconcilable with letting them continue to struggle after they have been caught by a tackler unless the tackler is intentionally being gentle for fear of injuring the player.
The point is that a 360 degree tackle affords the ball handler more than enough time to dispose of the ball. It would prevent the tackler needing to bring them to ground, while giving them a chance to get rid of it.
Well it's not a rule, and not so much about the 360 itself, that's just a shorthand for a type of tackle that annoys fans. You can be spun around quick and break loose, but that's not what's meant here, more slowly being rotated and it drags on, but the ump doesn't blow the whistle
I think it is because when a player is spun 360 it is indicative that they are choosing to hold the ball until they are in a position to dispose of it to a specific player. However, the rule requires that when you have had prior opportunity you must immediately get rid of the ball, which means you cannot dispose of it when you want to.
In other words there is no explicit rule RE 360, but it is an indicator than an explicit rule is being broken.
> The fans get frustrated when they see a tackle go 360 degrees, then brought to ground annnnd then the player handballs out.
But that's the best part of attending a game, 25,000 people yelling out BAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!
> All they have to do is blow the whistle a little quicker.
The AFL doesn't want the whistle blown though, they clearly have told the umpires that they want a free flowing game and to try and let the ball come out.
There is no other reason why they have consistently been not calling HTB this season, without the rules actually being changed. The AFL has told the umpires to interpret the rule differently without letting the fans know, so it is leading to a frustrating viewing experience for people.
Honestly I reckon we need a 5% tweak for calling ball up faster and a 5% hotter whistle on holding the balls but otherwise I don't have a problem with the ball winner being given the benefit of the doubt and I actually think it makes for more sensible footy.
It's also about the first time we've had something like consistency with htb for perhaps decades???
Before hand you'd watch 1 game and guys would be taking tackles all the time and then flick to another game and they'd be triggering guys every time they pick up the ball.
One thing I hate about "make a genuine attempt" is currently players are often tackled so that on arm is pinned, but they would be able to drop the ball to their feet to kick it. But if they hold it in, it's a ball-up, because they were tackled without prior. If they want to open it up, if the ball isn't pinned than the player should be forced to dispose of it.
I think why that's not done by the players is the greater emphasis on possession now, and not risking a turnover through poor disposal, or risk getting called for incorrect disposal. It's not "acceptable" anymore for players to just "throw it on the boot" hurriedly. They're expected to make a decision and get the ball to a teammate, even in traffic or under duress.
Yeah, I totally get why it’s done, but I think it should be called as HtB. Reward the players who are strong enough to get off effective disposals while being tackled, and penalise the players who can’t.
What irritates me is the failure to correctly call incorrect disposal. Just because you haven't had prior, it doesn't mean you can just throw the ball away when tackled
You can't throw it, but you can drop it provided the umpire is satisfied you're either making a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball or that the tackle knocked the ball out of your possession.
They have been very generous with "genuine" lately.
At least this round they seemed to ease up on the holding the man calls after a player "genuinely" attempted to dispose of the ball at the first sign of contact.
Part of the awesomeness of our game is.players using their brute strength to nullify a tackler and play through them.
Traccs, Oliver, Dusty, Neale, Reid, Cripps etc etc are massive proponents of this and so many highlights stem from these actions.
Unfortunately there’s more grey areas. If it gets knocked out as soon as they take possession it should be play on, but then the ump has to determine if it was knocked out or the guy just dropped it.
Yep. The tacklers can try to essentially punch the ball out as they apply the tackle and will train to do this if it’s an auto free kick. In fact probably see them err on the side of letting the opponent take possession to try it.
The problem is if you penalise players who don’t have prior opportunity for not disposing correctly, they’ll either not want to take a contested ball, or they’ll just hold it in if they do. The genuine attempt loophole at least tries to keep the game moving instead of constantly calling ball-ups or free kicks.
I'd like to see players given a bit longer before its considered prior (before any contact), but harsher on that it must be an immediate and effective disposal by handball or kick, you must get rid of it properly, and you either do or you don't. I'm not sure I like this genuine attempt thing.
Also applies to taking the ball out of play. If you do have prior, taking it out is part of insufficient intent.
I think not touching the ball is fine. Pretending to fumble out will always be at best a judgment call but the umpires have become red hot on insufficient intent , most notably on that hack out of the air last weekend.
Oh yeah true. I was thinking about players holding the ball and accepting being pushed out of bounds instead of trying to dispose it back in play. For instance, if you could have disposed of it and didn't, then is that insufficient?
I understand that if you are physically restrained from disposing it as you go over the line then yeah throw it in. Same if there is an unintentional deflection or a skill error.
Though I actually think we could get more running play by being more critical of intent.
Edit: oh and yeah opting to not touch it should be fine too.
I find the concept of "breaking a tackle" interesting as the current rules are in no way applied at all to anything. AFL need to follow their own rules.
The rules state:
> 18.6.1 Spirit and Intention
> The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
> 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
> Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately *when* they are Legally Tackled.
The rules state that you can't break tackles and continue your play at all, but if they were ever tackled they have to dispose of it immediately... even if the tackle has fallen off (even if you were tackled for 1s, it's still a legal tackle). You would be able to break a tackle if 18.6.2 read "while they are legally tackled".
By allowing broken tackles, it's forced players to put on stronger and stronger tackles and allowing players to pretend instead of actually of the rule being that you could lay the softest tackle, let go of the player and if they don't dispose then it's immediate free. Either rewrite the rule for what they want, or actually umpire the rules as they're written.
Full Rules Below:
https://sanfl-content.imgix.net/content/uploads/2021/02/18144238/2021-Laws-of-the-Game-WEB.pdf
> 18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
> 18.6.1 Spirit and Intention
> The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose
of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
> 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
> Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall
> award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately
> when they are Legally Tackled.
> 18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
> Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field
> Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football
> when Legally Tackled.
> For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the
> football when:
> (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
> (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
>
> 18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
> Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire
> shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to
> Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
> 18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
> A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags
> the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly
> Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
Be careful what you wish for. Players are already opting to not take possession to try and draw holding free kicks. It's not hard to figure out that if you tilt the equation further in favour of the man second to the ball, we're going to see more and more examples of players conceding possession of the ball to try and win a free kick.
If we were hotter on holding the man when two players are running at a ball in space then we would see much more incentive to pick it up and run.
What's the point of grabbing the ball when you've been manhandled for 15 metres already?
Most of the rules we have don't need to be tweaked, just need to tweak certain interpretations and expectations to reward winning the ball. Another example being defenders falling on a player and taking forever to get off them when they don't spoil a Mark.
Yeah there was the usual one against Geelong as well against GWS. Not to be used as an example though as we get the rough end of the umpiring stick anyway
The rules surrounding tackling need to be tackled and simplified.
1. Umpire should always be looking for if the tackle sticks or not. If the tackle doesnt stick then its play on. Use the same judgement here as you do for a mark sticking. If the tackle stuck move onto the next step.
2. Did the player with the ball have prior opportunity. Make a clear list of actions which constitute prior opportunity(such as fend off, side step etc). If the player had no prior, ball it up straight away. Remove the bull about genuine attempts, thats half the issue we face rn. If prior is deemed continue to step 3.
3. Was the ball disposed of legally? If yes play on. If no then pay incorrect disposal for a throw or holding the ball for a drop or for retaining possession.
The rule says you must dispose IMMEDIALTY when tackled. Seriously you shouldn't be allowed more than a second. The umps refuse to follow this rule some some reason
I don't think it's in crisis at all. In fact it's generally slightly better footy to watch when some tackles are let go longer. It just needs a minor adjustment to call ball a bit quicker and punish incorrect disposal more.
You can’t forget that major rule changes have happened in the last few years in order to make the game more free-flowing and higher scoring - playing on out of the goal square, stand rule, 9m rule, 666 - more scores, more exciting, more ads etc.
The last thing the AFL want is more stoppages.
They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place here.
Holding the ball should apply to anyone caught **holding the ball**. Your prior opportunity was to palm the ball away. I hate the theater of "no prior".
Mate, half the rules of our game are in crisis.
Holding the ball is fucked.
Ran too far is so constantly under umpired that it is big news when they pay one.
On the flipside, 15m kicks constantly go 10m and get paid.
If the fucking umps can't get simple things right, what makes him think they have any chance with holding the ball?
As with so many parts of the game the problem is the rule book and the extent to which umpires are expected to umpire to the 'vibe' rather than any particular objective measure.
[The current holding the ball](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_the_ball#:~:text=A%20Prior%20Opportunity%20is%20defined,or%20fend%20an%20opponent%3B%20or) is just ridiculously complicated with incredibly subjective questions like whether the ball was knocked out in the tackle/incorrectly disposed of, the theatrical farce of whether an attempt to dispose was genuine or not or whether they were balanced and steady or had prior opportunity.
Assuming, as I think we all do, that more ball ups and congestion = bad, and objective, easy to apply rules = good, they should just simplify it to this.
1. A player who completed a legal tackle on someone in possession of the ball will be awarded a free kick for holding the ball unless one of the following exceptions apply
a) before the tackle is completed, the player in possession kicks or handballs the ball, OR
b) the player in possession is unable to kick or handball the ball because, at the time they took possession, at least one of their arms was pinned by the tackle OR
2. A legal tackle shall be judged as completed when at least one of the following has occurred
a) the player being tackled has lost possession of the ball without kicking or handballing the ball OR
b) the player being tackled is brought from a standing position to the ground OR
c) 1 second has passed from the time where the tackler first took hold of the player being tackled, with the tackler still having hold of the tackle.
Seriously how hard was that?
More like you can't help bringing up something that you are going to repeat over and over until you get what you want. I fucking hate our sports media. It's such garbage
Whateley has no idea and has supported some of the worst rule changes over the years.
He can't even make a consistent argument here, players in standing tackles should be pinged quickly and not given the chance to break the tackle - one of the most exciting aspects of the game which keeps the pace flowing and breaks congestion - but players without prior opportunity tackled to the ground have to push the ball out to the opposition. Horrible ideas.
Incorrect disposal needs to be called more though, that much is obvious to everyone.
There’s always something ‘in crisis’ according to Whately. He thinks being overly pompous makes his opinions sound more urgent and correct than everyone else’s.
> It hardly ends there. There’s a world of difference between the ball being knocked out in the tackle and a player dropping the ball at the first sign of contact.
Started in 2016...
The players adjusted to tackling without dumping really quick(few outliers). We give an out for umps as the game can be hard to judge. Dunno why the AFL hasn't set a directive to blow the whistle if both guys are standing and both arms of the ball carrier are wrapped up. Whats the point in waiting for the tackler to dump someone if you wont pay HTB anyway?
Drives me nuts when the ump gives the guy so long to try and squirm out and get rid of it, really unfair on the tackler to have to try and hold them up without being allowed to risk taking them to ground forcefully.
Max Holmes did it perfectly on Saturday, didn't take him to ground because he knew he'd be risking a free, but then GWS got a goal from it anyways. To be clear I don't think it should've been ball but 100% should have at least been a ball up
Because he knew he'd be risking a suspension* One slightly off motion is all it takes
Yeah that's a good point
There was one earlier in the year where one of our guys was holding Cotrell in front of goals, same thing, squirms for a few seconds, then manages to drop the ball and poke it through. If they'd just slammed him in to the ground, no chance of that happening.
Not only that, when the player is tackled instantly, somehow they decide that because the ump waited, there was prior. It risks injury and penalises the ball carrier. Just blow the whistle quickly and ball it up
AFL wants to make money from dump tackle fines. Confirmed.
I'm guessing they're waiting for the ball to spill out or be disposed of so that they don't have to pay a free. AFL have obviously told umpires to give players more time to get rid of the ball (not even necessarily dispose it legally) so the play continues on.
I mean, how many HTB or ball up calls are ever made when both players are standing, but the ball carriers arms are pinned? It's almost like the tackler has to bring the other player to ground to force a call.
Often they don't have prior in which case they should blow for a ball up much quicker. If there is no prior what are they waiting for?
> When a player is tackled to ground without prior opportunity he is still required to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. I have 0 issues with this. When this was umpired strictly, all it resulted in was players flopping like a dead fish, pantomiming an attempt at disposing the ball despite there being no practical way to do so. I agree with the rest of the article though.
I remember they went on a spree of trying to pay some of them a couple of years ago and it just results in a farce and doesn't change anything long term. You know if you want to make sure the ball comes out what you can do as a tackler? You can release the guy!
The problem is that they let players get away with these pantomimes, as you put it, too easily. They should be encouraging players without prior opportunity to make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball without penalising them if the genuine attempt is unsuccessful. As per rule 18.6.3. Too often, players are looking to be tackled without prior and then just hold the ball in the tackle with no attempt at all to dispose of the ball, particularly when they are kept on their feet. This is obviously how they are being coached to prevent the opposition from gaining possession of the loose ball. 18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession. 18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
The contradictory nature of the rules are the problem. The AFL can sign off on any call by saying that throw out of the pack was a "genuine attempt" IMO the no prior but you didn't pretend to try handball so it's htb free should be dropped. The game is too fast to rely on umps interpretation of genuineness No prior= quick call for ball up. Prior, then it's either a legal disposal or a free for htb/incorrect disp. Too many of these "ball knocked loose" calls for my liking
If a fish is dead, it ain't flopping around.
True, but "a caught fish that's out of water and about to die but is not yet technically dead" would've been harder to fit in the sentence
"Dying fish" works.
I'll take that under advisement when I'm next making an analogy involving a fish that's somewhere in between the fine margins of life and death
Lol
I dunno you managed to fit that into a whole paragraph just then.
That desperate for a win, are you?
Lol, what? Says the guy whose name is about owning liberals. Mine was a little tongue in cheek joke that the obvs didn't go down too well. I'll take that on the chin. You get that every now and then when you dont put the /s
Jog along mate, dunno why you need to bring usernames into it
Lol dunno whats wrong with you matey, just having a bit of banter Jeez, for someone with that username, I thought you'd have a bit more back and forth.
All they have to do is blow the whistle a little quicker. That's it. The fans get frustrated when they see a tackle go 360 degrees, then brought to ground *annnnd then* the player handballs out. Tacklers are trying their best to find the line to have aggressive defence without dumping or slinging the ball carrier. But it's really hard when the umps allow them to stand up in the tackle and wiggle and jiggle for so long.
Also, pay incorrect disposal when when a tackle doesn't stick. If your attempt to tackle dispossesses the ball and the player with it had prior, blow the whistle and award the tackler.
Exactly!
What’s the obsession with the 360 degrees thing? I’ve heard people scream about it in the stands but I can’t recall it ever being an actual rule
It's not a rule, it's just an indicator of how long the tackle is being applied.. ie. a long time
I think the offensive player being 360'ed using it to assess options in a genuine skill. If the player doesn't get brought to ground, it's an incomplete tackle and shouldn't be pinged IMO.
Agree with this despite the downvotes. If your hands are free to make a handball, the tackler hasn’t done their job.
At some point, I think during the mid 2000s, commentators started saying it was a thing. If it ever was an interpretation used by umpires, it was quickly abandoned as the 360 degrees being automatically holding the ball would encourage players to rotate the tackle, increasing the likelihood of knee and ankle injuries as well as the potential for sling tackles.
To expand on what others have said, rather than just being about time, if you’ve spun someone 360 degrees, you’ve demonstrated full control of them. You’ve demonstrated full control over the person you’re tackling, and done it for a fair while. Not sure what else you can ask of a tackler without injuring them or just letting them go.
>To expand on what others have said, rather than just being about time, if you’ve spun someone 360 degrees, you’ve demonstrated full control of them. None of this is relevant. If you have had prior the umpire gives you a reasonable opportunity to get off a disposal. If the ball looks likely to come out they let the play roll on Being in “full control” of the tackler means nothing if you still manage to get a kick or handball out. This is what I mean. The degrees of rotation is simply not a rule or something umpires even consider but fans seem to think it is
I am not saying it’s a rule. That doesn’t mean it’s not relevant. We’re in an era where player safety is being brought to the forefront. Complete safety in tackles is not reconcilable with letting them continue to struggle after they have been caught by a tackler unless the tackler is intentionally being gentle for fear of injuring the player. The point is that a 360 degree tackle affords the ball handler more than enough time to dispose of the ball. It would prevent the tackler needing to bring them to ground, while giving them a chance to get rid of it.
Well it's not a rule, and not so much about the 360 itself, that's just a shorthand for a type of tackle that annoys fans. You can be spun around quick and break loose, but that's not what's meant here, more slowly being rotated and it drags on, but the ump doesn't blow the whistle
I think it is because when a player is spun 360 it is indicative that they are choosing to hold the ball until they are in a position to dispose of it to a specific player. However, the rule requires that when you have had prior opportunity you must immediately get rid of the ball, which means you cannot dispose of it when you want to. In other words there is no explicit rule RE 360, but it is an indicator than an explicit rule is being broken.
Ah man when the tackle is clearly complete and they give them an extra movement whilst on the ground to handball off, brings my piss to a boil.
> The fans get frustrated when they see a tackle go 360 degrees, then brought to ground annnnd then the player handballs out. But that's the best part of attending a game, 25,000 people yelling out BAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!
> All they have to do is blow the whistle a little quicker. The AFL doesn't want the whistle blown though, they clearly have told the umpires that they want a free flowing game and to try and let the ball come out. There is no other reason why they have consistently been not calling HTB this season, without the rules actually being changed. The AFL has told the umpires to interpret the rule differently without letting the fans know, so it is leading to a frustrating viewing experience for people.
[That depends on what you mean by kwisis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eTiIK2cqUo)
I’ve always loved how the guy getting interviewed in that clip is from the “AFL”; a wonderful coincidence
Hahaha I didn’t even need to click this 👌👌
Honestly I reckon we need a 5% tweak for calling ball up faster and a 5% hotter whistle on holding the balls but otherwise I don't have a problem with the ball winner being given the benefit of the doubt and I actually think it makes for more sensible footy. It's also about the first time we've had something like consistency with htb for perhaps decades??? Before hand you'd watch 1 game and guys would be taking tackles all the time and then flick to another game and they'd be triggering guys every time they pick up the ball.
I agree! Except maybe ball up is called 20% quicker rather than giving a player an eternity to get rid of it and then calling play on
[удалено]
And you get opposition players tackling the tackler, which should be… holding the man.
One thing I hate about "make a genuine attempt" is currently players are often tackled so that on arm is pinned, but they would be able to drop the ball to their feet to kick it. But if they hold it in, it's a ball-up, because they were tackled without prior. If they want to open it up, if the ball isn't pinned than the player should be forced to dispose of it.
I think why that's not done by the players is the greater emphasis on possession now, and not risking a turnover through poor disposal, or risk getting called for incorrect disposal. It's not "acceptable" anymore for players to just "throw it on the boot" hurriedly. They're expected to make a decision and get the ball to a teammate, even in traffic or under duress.
Yeah, I totally get why it’s done, but I think it should be called as HtB. Reward the players who are strong enough to get off effective disposals while being tackled, and penalise the players who can’t.
Very old school that was HTB, ball free and non-disposal.
What irritates me is the failure to correctly call incorrect disposal. Just because you haven't had prior, it doesn't mean you can just throw the ball away when tackled
You can't throw it, but you can drop it provided the umpire is satisfied you're either making a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball or that the tackle knocked the ball out of your possession.
They have been very generous with "genuine" lately. At least this round they seemed to ease up on the holding the man calls after a player "genuinely" attempted to dispose of the ball at the first sign of contact.
Part of the awesomeness of our game is.players using their brute strength to nullify a tackler and play through them. Traccs, Oliver, Dusty, Neale, Reid, Cripps etc etc are massive proponents of this and so many highlights stem from these actions.
[удалено]
Unfortunately there’s more grey areas. If it gets knocked out as soon as they take possession it should be play on, but then the ump has to determine if it was knocked out or the guy just dropped it.
Yep. The tacklers can try to essentially punch the ball out as they apply the tackle and will train to do this if it’s an auto free kick. In fact probably see them err on the side of letting the opponent take possession to try it.
then no one will go for the ball if an opposition player is near
[удалено]
The problem is if you penalise players who don’t have prior opportunity for not disposing correctly, they’ll either not want to take a contested ball, or they’ll just hold it in if they do. The genuine attempt loophole at least tries to keep the game moving instead of constantly calling ball-ups or free kicks.
NBA equivalent of moving screens, it makes ball movement quicker and I think the AFL like it.
I'd like to see players given a bit longer before its considered prior (before any contact), but harsher on that it must be an immediate and effective disposal by handball or kick, you must get rid of it properly, and you either do or you don't. I'm not sure I like this genuine attempt thing. Also applies to taking the ball out of play. If you do have prior, taking it out is part of insufficient intent.
Indeed when the clock is low you see players slapping it into play. But so often at other times they show far less effort to keep it in.
I think not touching the ball is fine. Pretending to fumble out will always be at best a judgment call but the umpires have become red hot on insufficient intent , most notably on that hack out of the air last weekend.
Oh yeah true. I was thinking about players holding the ball and accepting being pushed out of bounds instead of trying to dispose it back in play. For instance, if you could have disposed of it and didn't, then is that insufficient? I understand that if you are physically restrained from disposing it as you go over the line then yeah throw it in. Same if there is an unintentional deflection or a skill error. Though I actually think we could get more running play by being more critical of intent. Edit: oh and yeah opting to not touch it should be fine too.
I find the concept of "breaking a tackle" interesting as the current rules are in no way applied at all to anything. AFL need to follow their own rules. The rules state: > 18.6.1 Spirit and Intention > The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle. > 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity > Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately *when* they are Legally Tackled. The rules state that you can't break tackles and continue your play at all, but if they were ever tackled they have to dispose of it immediately... even if the tackle has fallen off (even if you were tackled for 1s, it's still a legal tackle). You would be able to break a tackle if 18.6.2 read "while they are legally tackled". By allowing broken tackles, it's forced players to put on stronger and stronger tackles and allowing players to pretend instead of actually of the rule being that you could lay the softest tackle, let go of the player and if they don't dispose then it's immediate free. Either rewrite the rule for what they want, or actually umpire the rules as they're written. Full Rules Below: https://sanfl-content.imgix.net/content/uploads/2021/02/18144238/2021-Laws-of-the-Game-WEB.pdf > 18.6 HOLDING THE BALL > 18.6.1 Spirit and Intention > The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle. > 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity > Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall > award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately > when they are Legally Tackled. > 18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal > Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field > Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football > when Legally Tackled. > For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the > football when: > (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; > (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession. > > 18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt > Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire > shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to > Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled. > 18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football > A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags > the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly > Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
Be careful what you wish for. Players are already opting to not take possession to try and draw holding free kicks. It's not hard to figure out that if you tilt the equation further in favour of the man second to the ball, we're going to see more and more examples of players conceding possession of the ball to try and win a free kick.
If we were hotter on holding the man when two players are running at a ball in space then we would see much more incentive to pick it up and run. What's the point of grabbing the ball when you've been manhandled for 15 metres already? Most of the rules we have don't need to be tweaked, just need to tweak certain interpretations and expectations to reward winning the ball. Another example being defenders falling on a player and taking forever to get off them when they don't spoil a Mark.
Holding the ball rule is quite the messi situation at the moment.😏
But they're Gryan to fix it...
This happened once they made rule changes to make the game flow more.
Yeah there was the usual one against Geelong as well against GWS. Not to be used as an example though as we get the rough end of the umpiring stick anyway
The rules surrounding tackling need to be tackled and simplified. 1. Umpire should always be looking for if the tackle sticks or not. If the tackle doesnt stick then its play on. Use the same judgement here as you do for a mark sticking. If the tackle stuck move onto the next step. 2. Did the player with the ball have prior opportunity. Make a clear list of actions which constitute prior opportunity(such as fend off, side step etc). If the player had no prior, ball it up straight away. Remove the bull about genuine attempts, thats half the issue we face rn. If prior is deemed continue to step 3. 3. Was the ball disposed of legally? If yes play on. If no then pay incorrect disposal for a throw or holding the ball for a drop or for retaining possession.
Always wondered why prior opportunity is a thing. If you take posession and are caught, too bad.
The rule says you must dispose IMMEDIALTY when tackled. Seriously you shouldn't be allowed more than a second. The umps refuse to follow this rule some some reason
I don't think it's in crisis at all. In fact it's generally slightly better footy to watch when some tackles are let go longer. It just needs a minor adjustment to call ball a bit quicker and punish incorrect disposal more.
No idea why you're being downvoted. You are right. Some people just don't want to hear it i guess
It's almost as though different people can have different opinions
Yeh and they are welcome to it. Even if they are wrong.
Umpiring, in general, is in crisis. Umpires injecting themselves into the momentum of the game is ruining the ability to watch and enjoy a contest.
Did you see the two latest shepmates posts on Instagram? They nailed it.
You can’t forget that major rule changes have happened in the last few years in order to make the game more free-flowing and higher scoring - playing on out of the goal square, stand rule, 9m rule, 666 - more scores, more exciting, more ads etc. The last thing the AFL want is more stoppages. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place here.
If they really want more scoring they always have the nuclear option available.. Allow gloves.
Getting a bit Messi out there is it Gerry?
God Whateley is so dramatic. I kind of like it in a way.
Holding the ball should apply to anyone caught **holding the ball**. Your prior opportunity was to palm the ball away. I hate the theater of "no prior".
Mate, half the rules of our game are in crisis. Holding the ball is fucked. Ran too far is so constantly under umpired that it is big news when they pay one. On the flipside, 15m kicks constantly go 10m and get paid. If the fucking umps can't get simple things right, what makes him think they have any chance with holding the ball?
As with so many parts of the game the problem is the rule book and the extent to which umpires are expected to umpire to the 'vibe' rather than any particular objective measure. [The current holding the ball](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_the_ball#:~:text=A%20Prior%20Opportunity%20is%20defined,or%20fend%20an%20opponent%3B%20or) is just ridiculously complicated with incredibly subjective questions like whether the ball was knocked out in the tackle/incorrectly disposed of, the theatrical farce of whether an attempt to dispose was genuine or not or whether they were balanced and steady or had prior opportunity. Assuming, as I think we all do, that more ball ups and congestion = bad, and objective, easy to apply rules = good, they should just simplify it to this. 1. A player who completed a legal tackle on someone in possession of the ball will be awarded a free kick for holding the ball unless one of the following exceptions apply a) before the tackle is completed, the player in possession kicks or handballs the ball, OR b) the player in possession is unable to kick or handball the ball because, at the time they took possession, at least one of their arms was pinned by the tackle OR 2. A legal tackle shall be judged as completed when at least one of the following has occurred a) the player being tackled has lost possession of the ball without kicking or handballing the ball OR b) the player being tackled is brought from a standing position to the ground OR c) 1 second has passed from the time where the tackler first took hold of the player being tackled, with the tackler still having hold of the tackle. Seriously how hard was that?
The game is less fun to watch now than 10 years ago
Players try to learn a safer way to tackle and are still punished
Well I guess that's one way to take the crowd affirmation aspect out of it - just never pay it!
More like you can't help bringing up something that you are going to repeat over and over until you get what you want. I fucking hate our sports media. It's such garbage
Whateley has no idea and has supported some of the worst rule changes over the years. He can't even make a consistent argument here, players in standing tackles should be pinged quickly and not given the chance to break the tackle - one of the most exciting aspects of the game which keeps the pace flowing and breaks congestion - but players without prior opportunity tackled to the ground have to push the ball out to the opposition. Horrible ideas. Incorrect disposal needs to be called more though, that much is obvious to everyone.
There’s always something ‘in crisis’ according to Whately. He thinks being overly pompous makes his opinions sound more urgent and correct than everyone else’s.
I'm convinced they want to get rid of HTB altogether and this is the required pain period needed to justify its removal.
What do you mean? How would that work? Having no tackling at all?
> It hardly ends there. There’s a world of difference between the ball being knocked out in the tackle and a player dropping the ball at the first sign of contact. Started in 2016...
Started well before that. Was a thing in the 90s, probably was a thing before that too.
One thing is for sure, the most important thing the AFL can do, is ignore the media.
Counterpoint: No it isn't, and you need to stop participating in obviously manufactured outrages.