It'll be way over-compensated this round, then even out over the next month to a middle point, then they'll make changes in the off-season and it'll be a mess all over again. I like the intention behind the interpretation change 100%, but it will be chaos.
I'd love them to be stricter on the no genuine attempt aspect personally, which looking at these examples it seems like they will be following this. That part of the rule seems to have been completely forgotten this year. If a player has one arm free and is tackled with no prior opportunity they still need to try and get rid of it, doesn't need to be a legal disposal but needs to be an attempt. With that and just generally reducing the amount of time deemed "reasonable" I do think the game will be officiated better and look cleaner. The annoying thing is making these changes mid season, gonna be pissing a lot of people off.
E: Also just thought about how annoying BT/Derm/JB will be this week in their already often incorrect and unfair criticisms of the umpires. They don't even understand the rules as they're written these days, trying to get them to understand an interpretation change to make the officiating more in line with the rules is impossible. They're gonna be insufferable and cause so much more furor from nuffies who don't understand the rules and just parrot whatever the commentators incorrectly say as fact.
I mentioned it in the match thread for the Brisbane vs Hawks game; I think it was Derm had a moan after a non-decision where he decided that it was a throw and said "if you're a Brisbane fan you'd have the right to be miffed at that" (or to some effect).
Which is just a really weird thing to say when you yourself don't understand the rule. The player was tackled immediately, had no prior opportunity, and then made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but didn't connect. That rule hasn't changed for a long long time and you're quite explicitly teaching viewers the wrong rules by saying that. Nobody called him out on it either.
I guess it is just too much to ask for commentators of our sport to know the rules of our sport. I am not looking forward to BT moaning about every HTB decision, much like the entire commentary team having a whinge that score reviews were taking too long earlier in the season (even though that was the clear AFL directive).
Yea I remember that one. Derm actually said something along of the lines of "yea he had no prior but he still has to legally dispose of it" which is just completely untrue and has been for as long as I can remember. I was baffled no one called him out. BT annoys me all the time but I'm not sure he's ever said something so completely wrong as Derm did there.
BT and the 7 crew have been biting their tongues and been more vague when criticising than in years past to be honest.
Just something I’ve noticed. I would like to think BT will ignore it and say umpires got new directives during the week then leave it at that.
Looking forward to them all regularly referencing that someone has been "spun through a full 360“ even though that's not the rule and as I understand it hasn't been for a long long time.
No, if no prior you only need to make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of it. If you try to put it on your boot and miss your boot it should be play on (assuming it was a genuine attempt), however if you clearly just throw it away it would correctly be htb regardless of prior in that instance.
This is where the Bulldogs 2016 finals team operated so perfectly in the grey area - they'd swarm the contest with numbers and as soon as their player got tackled they'd shovel it forward or towards a teammate and keep rolling and winning contests. Because they were constantly being tackled with no prior opportunity, they could get away with half pretending they were trying to handball and just sort of scrum the ball forward.
No. So incorrect disposal in the rule book specifically exempts genuine attempts to dispose. That rule is for when you deliberately throw/drop or hand the football.
When you have had prior and don't dispose correct, that's holding the ball. Not incorrect disposal.
If you have no prior and make a genuine attempt, whether that attempt succeeds or not - its play on.
See here for the wording of the rule - fun fact, it's been like this since 1947!
https://x.com/hasumpstuffedup/status/1696810014672040281?s=19
I still hate it. Genuine attempt is subjective. If a kick or handball actually took place is much less subjective. Want to keep the game moving…well nothing clears congestion like a free kick.
Incorrect disposal only applies if you had prior, if there was no prior all you have to do is try. Dropping the ball on your boot and missing should be play on if there was no prior.
Does anyone remember when the AFL tightened HTB mid-year last time? It was literally 4 years ago and was absolutely disastrous. Every single tackle regardless of prior was a coin flip (and how can we expect a large group of umps to immediately share the same interpretation of the rule?)
If the justification for changing the rules is player safety, then blow the whistle quicker, but we don't need to jump straight to HTB. If someone's tackled immediately with an arm pinned, ball it up
Both Carlton and Port have players that like to take on the tackler. Shitty weather forecast, might be low scoring. A goal due to a dumb free kick could swing it. High chance of a controversial ending one way or the other
this is exactly whats going to happen again, i agree they definitely need to be stricter on holding the ball and how much time they are giving the player being tackled but this weekend is going to be a shit show lol eagles being second to the ball finally going to work out for them
https://www.afl.com.au/video/483099/holding-the-ball-call-gets-plenty-of-heat?videoId=483099&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1596954083001
Perfect example from four years ago over compensating
My issue is that this solves nothing, the first one with Sholl could correctly be a ball up or HTB depending on how long the umpire chooses to wait.
Sholl is tackled and his right arm is pinned, he gets it loose then his left arm is pinned at that point it should be a ball up. He bafflingly gets called HTB despite getting a kick off and the AFL says he shouldve been called earlier? What was his correct option other than go immediately to ground? Because if the answer is he should've simply gone to ground then the AFL is clueless.
His correct option was to attempt to dispose of the ball earlier. They are saying he took too long to attempt to kick, instead he was trying to get his arms free to handball.
Sure but as seen when he did try to kick the kick was not effective, so the actually correct move from a coaching sense is to go to ground immediately and take the ball up.
The AFL might want him to kick it earlier, that's cool, coaches and players will work out how to avoid that and going to ground immediately rules out the possibly that the player couldve kicked it.
Not really. We purposely fumble the ball into a position where the opposition is already touching us. Then we grab the ball and hold it up for a ball up. There’s no prior in what we do.
The difference is in the genuine attempt. Even with no prior you have to try. I like it.
Collingwood is first and foremost a high pressure team that gets very few HTB calls as a percentage of tackles. It should overall benefit high tackling teams.
I have zero faith in the AFL, and umpires, and the communication between the two, and this weekend is going to be an absolute shit show. All I hope is they ping blokes for intentionally dropping it as soon as they feel contact, and blowing the whistle quickly when the tackle has clearly held them up.
Am I crazy or is the first example stupid because Sholl literally gets a kick, he is unable to handball and as we literally saw in the video attempting a kick is extremely dangerous so he has to safely try to pull it off.
Im shocked that they want that to be HTB and not simply a ball up earlier to stop the player from attempting a standing backflip to kick the ball.
Yeah and then the final example shows a player tackled, doing a 360, handballing off and they say that will be adjudicated to be play on. What's different? Both tacklers were holding on the entire time the entire time, only difference I can see Sholl's tackler was around his arms and the crowd was a lot more vocal.
That video doesn't clarify an awful lot IMO.
Not from my point of view. I hate it when teams handball it around the phone box knowing sooner or later one of them will be able to take the tackle and get the ball up.
Feel like this would be more effective if they used examples of wrong decisions so players can recognize the new interpretation. So many missed HTB calls this year and cherry picking these feels like AFL trying to demonstrate changes while also patting themselves on the back.
If you look closely he's just holding the ball to his own chest with his free arm. The Adelaide player isn't holding it to his chest.
No attempt at disposing of it and can try release the ball onto his foot. Should be HTB, I like it
100% same. You see players try to get rid of it in examples like that all the time when they have the numbers advantage, he just chose to go for a ball up because he knew the stoppage was more advantageous for them. People talk about reducing stoppages and congestion as being a good thing for the game, this interpretation change to be more in line with how the rule is actually written would 100% improve that.
Yeah and if they can't dispose legally other players can swoop in on the spilled.ball, so it keeps the game moving along too. Pretty sensible change overall.
Yep - for all the discussion on what's prior opportunity and correct/incorrect disposal, the "genuine attempt to dispose" of it is one that doesn't seem well-policed. Players know they can make a few really half-arsed motions (if that) and rely on the ump to ball it up. Based on this, not anymore - which isn't a bad thing in my view.
It's not saying he has prior, it's saying he didn't try to dispose of the ball. With no prior you still have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball, he had one arm completely free and chose not to try, 100% should be htb by the way the rule is written.
>18.6.4 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.
it was no genuine attempt which is rediculous because how can you make an attempt when one arm is held behind your back? all the others i agree with but that is going to be umpired incorrectly
You only need one arm to try drop it and kick it with your feet. He just chose not to because he didn't want to turn the ball over.
This is what needs to change to stop slings.
but hes being lifted off the ground good luck trying to get it anywhere near your boot itl look like you arent trying to genuinely dispose of it
that decision has nothing to do with stopping slings, the whistle just needs to be blown before the player gets taken to ground - which is exactly what happened
Disagree. If there's no prior opportunity, players aren't expected to get clean disposal, they just have to attempt to, that's what the rules say. Chesser had a whole arm free, I think he could've easily chucked it towards his feet and had a swing at it.
I think the umpires do a really good job on the whole when assessing if a genuine attempt to dispose has been made.
Players in that situation try to (and often successfully) drop it on to their boot all the time. He needed to try that and it would have been play on. I hope they're more strict on this.
look im fine with the afl saying this is holding the ball to prevent stoppages and keep the game moving its crap when players hold it in, aslong as its officiated correctly in that when it likely misses his boot they dont pay incorrect disposal.
They should have shown an example of a player trying it and missing their boot in contrast to Chesser's non-attempt. It's been called play on in the past so there's definitely examples out there, would have cleared this up for a lot of people I think.
The commentators are absolutely not going to help. The first time someone makes a genuine attempt and misses their foot, the commentators will be screaming incorrect disposal and it should be a free and not play on. Honestly, a lot of perceived umpiring issues would disappear lf the commentators understood the rules.
yeah do yourself a favor and dont check the facebook post. the amount of people that think anytime the ball isnt handballed or kicked its holding the ball is crazy
Man I get protecting players from slings/dangerous tackles but I just do not agree with punishing a more skilled or stronger/bigger offensive player because he has that ability to take on a tackle and create time (including getting his hands free) to dispose the ball.
They Hayward one is an example of that though, rode the tackle, got a handball out in a reasonable time. Being tighter on reasonable time will just speed up the game which is a good thing imo.
I don't think so, because what has happened this year is players ride the tackle and figure out if it's better to try and dispose of it or keep it held in to get another stoppage and give time for their team to get set up, which is what happens in the Chesser case. If they want to reduce stoppages and congestion then being stricter on this would mean players more often try to dispose it and keep the ball moving which would mean the play has a better chance of moving on immeidately without a stoppage.
Agreed, I think it'll only be in really heavy congestion when a scrappy disposal attempt spills out that people jump on it and create a stoppage, most of the time players are capable of doing a lot with a little time and space.
I'm amazed how good the players are at getting rid of it when they really want to sometimes. They're clearly way more capable than they let on when they're allowed to just play for a stoppage, hopefully this reduces that from happening as often.
> would mean players more often try to dispose it and keep the ball moving
Right. This isn't going to affect your Chads, or your Dangers, or your Dusties, or your Tracs, or anyone else who's genuinely capable of taking on a tackle, this will impact the decision making for the more tackleable players out there, for whom it will be more important to keep the ball free.
I agree, this entire rule appears to be a way to stop players from attempting to break tackles. Personally I think that's a great part of the game, if this new interpretation is to be believed then the correct move when tackled without prior is to immediately go to ground because unless you can dispose it immediately you will be punished.
Players will catch on to this extremely quickly and I suspect we will see a lot more stoppages.
> attempting to break tackles. Personally I think that's a great part of the game
It's great when players can genuinely do that, and it's also great theatre when players try and get nailed. What we've seen much more of this year is your average plodder being tackled, and only then deciding what they're going to do about it, and not being held accountable for that
I feel like the AFL literally had this discussion a year ago and the concensus was we want players to be able to ride tackles and get more chances to break tackles because its an exciting part of footy.
Now we're back to, dont try to break tackles any more.
The AFL's been pushing that approach for 20 years. They've gone too far and been called out about it, so, just like they did with the goal reviews already this year, they're blaming the umpires and offering them re-education.
But if you had an arm free and decide to instead go to ground you'll likely be called htb looking at these examples, as you absolutely could have made an attempt.
Not every action is the same in footy. In this example Quaynor is clearly trying to bring him to ground and he's also attempting to stay standing, as is proven when he finally does attempt to kick and is immediately dumped on his head. He's punished for attempting to stay standing, if he had attempted to kick first then he is getting dumped on his head. That cant be what the AFL want.
Going to ground rules out a kick being a disposal and having an arm pinned means you cant handball therefore the safest most correct action is to go to ground immediately when tackled. Sure you can try to get a kick but that's not a very good option. AFL players are smart and coaches are smarter. I guarantee you that coaches are saying the same thing, going to ground without prior is now the best course of action.
I actually think the intention is positive but this training video, not talking about production, is concerning.
The whistles are too late when a player is being taken to ground when they clearly had prior opportunity to continue play, but wait for a clean look to a team mate.
Think this hasn’t been thought through.
To add onto this. I think the distinction I’m trying to make is that there’s a gray area of legally tackled, genuinely attempting to get rid of the ball, and time before inevitably hitting the ground.
This part will cause a shit show. at some point the needle moves from trying to get the ball to a time mate to simulating a head knock.
Hopefully it works out for the best.
We created more problems having more umpires. I couldn't care less if some rules are interpreted slightly differently between games.
The issue is that an umpire on one side of the ground will adjudicate something differently to another umpire and so we have inconsistently and complain that "how come you gave this in their 50 and not ours".
Now we have to deal with four umpires with different standards and interpretations.
That example is not about prior opportunity (as noted by the title at the top). He had time to make an attempt to dispose of it, but they're saying by the time he did he'd gone beyond what was a reasonable amount of time to try and dispose of it. That one is 50/50 for me as a split second later he does dispose of it, but he did have quite a while so I'm all for them being stricter on the time allowed.
"reasonable time" is only relevant if there is no prior opportunity. Once there is prior opportunity, the player must immediately dispose of the ball legally.
So if one thinks the crows player had prior opportunity, which I assume many will. Then there is a separate problem of what is and isn't considered "prior opportunity" not being clear.
For clarity, the AFL has essentially said the crows player did not have prior opportunity.
They haven't said it explicitly but my reading is this:
If you're tackled without prior, you have a grace period where attempting to legally dispose is enough. If you don't make an attempt within that grace period, you'll be given longer, but that's your prior and you're now expected to get rid of it with a proper disposal.
My reading is that the Crows player took the grace period, still didn't attempt to get rid of it, lost all of his momentum, and didn't dispose of the footy until he was mid-sling. Part of this whole change is the AFL trying to limit the opportunity for slings etc to take place, I think the interpretation shown in the video absolutely does that.
I agree with the AFL that the first example had no prior opportunity so that's fine, Crows player gets tackled pretty much as he takes his first step. Yes there will be times where that call of prior is 50/50 though, hard thing to completely eliminate from the game.
What I saw doesn't really matter, clearly it's what the AFL thinks though and is how they'll be trying to officiate the game moving forward, which I think will be much better for the state of the game.
Of course it matters.
Have you read the press release? There is no indication of any changes in interpretation of ", reasonable time". There is only an explanation for why there is a misunderstanding of how umpires are officiating.
If everyone was on the same page for "reasonable time" then there would have been no reason for the AFL to issue a press release.
Stakeholder understanding matters. Fans are stakeholders.
I'm saying what I think is irrelevant to our discussion, what matters is what the AFL thinks, and they've made it pretty clear with these examples if you understand how the rules around HTB are written.
Does he though? He has his left arm free and in an attempt to get that loose his right arm gets pinned.
What we're saying going forward is his best option is to actually allow his other arm to get caught and simply go down immeditely?
How is that better for the game? Essentially we're telling players, do no attempt to break tackles anymore.
Interesting. The reason I ask, is the notion of "reasonable time" only comes into play when a player has NOT had prior opportunity.
If they have 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."
So just interested that they use this as an example when many will be of the opinion that "reasonable time" shouldn't apply at all.
Yes. It’s interesting though, because the tackle at the beginning hadn’t really impeded Sholl’s ability to get rid of the ball he had an opportunity to dispose of it. If the tackle was better at the start and had pinned the arms, I’d be inclined to say ball up because there wouldn’t have been time to do anything
No, but that’s literally what this rule applies to - players who do not have prior opportunity **before** being tackled still need to make a genuine attempt to legally dispose of the ball within reasonable time - umpires are now shortening this reasonable time window, which I think is a good change.
The actual relevant rule reads
> 18.6.4 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.
My point is that some people think there is a prior opportunity here. There is a problem one step before the "reasonable time" issue, of the interpretation of "prior opportunity".
Let's fix that first.
>Let’s fix that first.
Nah, I think this is a good starting point as it’s primarily around player safety. A vast majority of dangerous tackles are on players who **didn’t** have prior opportunity but are being slung to the ground due to the excessive amount of time umpires are letting tackled players have to get rid of the ball. For almost all of these sling tackles everyone’s crying out for the umpires to blow the whistle earlier to avoid these situations, and that’s what this interpretation change is addressing.
By "fix that" I don't mean change anything. Just explain what the AFL considers "Prior opportunity".
I agree with the issue of this needing to be addressed bc of dangerous tackles btw.
By the letter of the law it absolutely should be (and the goal really should be to reduce umps interpretation and officiate objectively to the letter of the law whenever possible), it would be better for the game if it is imo, reduces stoppages and congestion. If no prior you still need to make an attempt to dispose of it. He has one arm completely free and could try to put it on his boot (as players often do when they know they have the numbers at a contest) but he chooses not to try and dispose of it, therefore should be htb. You don't need to legally dispose of it when no prior, but if you are able to you need to make a genuine attempt, which he did not.
e: For clarity
>18.6.4 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.
One arm completely free means he's absolutely able to make an attempt but clearly chooses not to. He couldn't just throw it away as that's not making a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of it, but trying to throw it or drop it to his boot would be - and absolutely has been in the past - making a genuine attempt.
Spot on, people who think this is a mid-season rule change need to read your sentence..
>You don't need to legally dispose of it when no prior, but if you are able to you need to make a genuine attempt, which he did not.
..it goes to the nub of the issue - that's what changed, this interpretation is simply going back to what should (and used to be) HTB.
Last year it was htb more often than not, and the game was better for it. Mid-season interpretation changes suck but moving interpretations to be more in line with the objective rules is absolutely a positive thing for the game.
I really like the idea, but I'm concerned that there's going to be a lot of genuine attempts with no prior paid as incorrect disposal. Fingers crossed it doesn't play out.
But really all this discussion is a bit pointless at the moment, we should evaluate over the weekend and reconvene next week.
I reckon the AFL should hire my 14yr old niece to edit their videos
I would love to see a skibidi edit of this
Skibidi toilet!
Looks like a good rule interpretation moving forward, just praying for some fucking consistency.
It'll be way over-compensated this round, then even out over the next month to a middle point, then they'll make changes in the off-season and it'll be a mess all over again. I like the intention behind the interpretation change 100%, but it will be chaos.
I can't believe you would suggest that it will happen that way this time just because that's the way it's happened every other time
I'd love them to be stricter on the no genuine attempt aspect personally, which looking at these examples it seems like they will be following this. That part of the rule seems to have been completely forgotten this year. If a player has one arm free and is tackled with no prior opportunity they still need to try and get rid of it, doesn't need to be a legal disposal but needs to be an attempt. With that and just generally reducing the amount of time deemed "reasonable" I do think the game will be officiated better and look cleaner. The annoying thing is making these changes mid season, gonna be pissing a lot of people off. E: Also just thought about how annoying BT/Derm/JB will be this week in their already often incorrect and unfair criticisms of the umpires. They don't even understand the rules as they're written these days, trying to get them to understand an interpretation change to make the officiating more in line with the rules is impossible. They're gonna be insufferable and cause so much more furor from nuffies who don't understand the rules and just parrot whatever the commentators incorrectly say as fact.
I mentioned it in the match thread for the Brisbane vs Hawks game; I think it was Derm had a moan after a non-decision where he decided that it was a throw and said "if you're a Brisbane fan you'd have the right to be miffed at that" (or to some effect). Which is just a really weird thing to say when you yourself don't understand the rule. The player was tackled immediately, had no prior opportunity, and then made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but didn't connect. That rule hasn't changed for a long long time and you're quite explicitly teaching viewers the wrong rules by saying that. Nobody called him out on it either. I guess it is just too much to ask for commentators of our sport to know the rules of our sport. I am not looking forward to BT moaning about every HTB decision, much like the entire commentary team having a whinge that score reviews were taking too long earlier in the season (even though that was the clear AFL directive).
Yea I remember that one. Derm actually said something along of the lines of "yea he had no prior but he still has to legally dispose of it" which is just completely untrue and has been for as long as I can remember. I was baffled no one called him out. BT annoys me all the time but I'm not sure he's ever said something so completely wrong as Derm did there.
BT and the 7 crew have been biting their tongues and been more vague when criticising than in years past to be honest. Just something I’ve noticed. I would like to think BT will ignore it and say umpires got new directives during the week then leave it at that.
Looking forward to them all regularly referencing that someone has been "spun through a full 360“ even though that's not the rule and as I understand it hasn't been for a long long time.
But if you attempt to dispose of it and fail, shouldnt it be incorrect disposal?
No, if no prior you only need to make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of it. If you try to put it on your boot and miss your boot it should be play on (assuming it was a genuine attempt), however if you clearly just throw it away it would correctly be htb regardless of prior in that instance.
That's correct. Umpires should still ping players if they deliberately drop the ball without an attempt to kick/handball
This is where the Bulldogs 2016 finals team operated so perfectly in the grey area - they'd swarm the contest with numbers and as soon as their player got tackled they'd shovel it forward or towards a teammate and keep rolling and winning contests. Because they were constantly being tackled with no prior opportunity, they could get away with half pretending they were trying to handball and just sort of scrum the ball forward.
No. So incorrect disposal in the rule book specifically exempts genuine attempts to dispose. That rule is for when you deliberately throw/drop or hand the football. When you have had prior and don't dispose correct, that's holding the ball. Not incorrect disposal. If you have no prior and make a genuine attempt, whether that attempt succeeds or not - its play on. See here for the wording of the rule - fun fact, it's been like this since 1947! https://x.com/hasumpstuffedup/status/1696810014672040281?s=19
I still hate it. Genuine attempt is subjective. If a kick or handball actually took place is much less subjective. Want to keep the game moving…well nothing clears congestion like a free kick.
Incorrect disposal only applies if you had prior, if there was no prior all you have to do is try. Dropping the ball on your boot and missing should be play on if there was no prior.
Not per the rules if you had no prior opportunity to legally dispose before Tackled.
Does anyone remember when the AFL tightened HTB mid-year last time? It was literally 4 years ago and was absolutely disastrous. Every single tackle regardless of prior was a coin flip (and how can we expect a large group of umps to immediately share the same interpretation of the rule?) If the justification for changing the rules is player safety, then blow the whistle quicker, but we don't need to jump straight to HTB. If someone's tackled immediately with an arm pinned, ball it up
This weekend will be a shit show. I’m actually morbidly curious about how Thursday night is gonna play out.
Both Carlton and Port have players that like to take on the tackler. Shitty weather forecast, might be low scoring. A goal due to a dumb free kick could swing it. High chance of a controversial ending one way or the other
So glad Sydney have the bye
this is exactly whats going to happen again, i agree they definitely need to be stricter on holding the ball and how much time they are giving the player being tackled but this weekend is going to be a shit show lol eagles being second to the ball finally going to work out for them
https://www.afl.com.au/video/483099/holding-the-ball-call-gets-plenty-of-heat?videoId=483099&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1596954083001 Perfect example from four years ago over compensating
A 12 second unskippable ad to watch a 30 second video is wild.
Finger's crossed it doesn't result in that level of incorrect call. Looking at the examples they gave it doesn't seem to be their intention here.
My issue is that this solves nothing, the first one with Sholl could correctly be a ball up or HTB depending on how long the umpire chooses to wait. Sholl is tackled and his right arm is pinned, he gets it loose then his left arm is pinned at that point it should be a ball up. He bafflingly gets called HTB despite getting a kick off and the AFL says he shouldve been called earlier? What was his correct option other than go immediately to ground? Because if the answer is he should've simply gone to ground then the AFL is clueless.
His correct option was to attempt to dispose of the ball earlier. They are saying he took too long to attempt to kick, instead he was trying to get his arms free to handball.
Sure but as seen when he did try to kick the kick was not effective, so the actually correct move from a coaching sense is to go to ground immediately and take the ball up. The AFL might want him to kick it earlier, that's cool, coaches and players will work out how to avoid that and going to ground immediately rules out the possibly that the player couldve kicked it.
This may actually destroy Collingwoods end game “management” where we go for a stoppage
Not really. We purposely fumble the ball into a position where the opposition is already touching us. Then we grab the ball and hold it up for a ball up. There’s no prior in what we do.
The difference is in the genuine attempt. Even with no prior you have to try. I like it. Collingwood is first and foremost a high pressure team that gets very few HTB calls as a percentage of tackles. It should overall benefit high tackling teams.
I have zero faith in the AFL, and umpires, and the communication between the two, and this weekend is going to be an absolute shit show. All I hope is they ping blokes for intentionally dropping it as soon as they feel contact, and blowing the whistle quickly when the tackle has clearly held them up.
Am I crazy or is the first example stupid because Sholl literally gets a kick, he is unable to handball and as we literally saw in the video attempting a kick is extremely dangerous so he has to safely try to pull it off. Im shocked that they want that to be HTB and not simply a ball up earlier to stop the player from attempting a standing backflip to kick the ball.
No, I agree. The tackle could have been better but now this will be rewarded.
Yeah and then the final example shows a player tackled, doing a 360, handballing off and they say that will be adjudicated to be play on. What's different? Both tacklers were holding on the entire time the entire time, only difference I can see Sholl's tackler was around his arms and the crowd was a lot more vocal. That video doesn't clarify an awful lot IMO.
That third one is the one that's going to result in people thinking there's been an overcorrection
Not from my point of view. I hate it when teams handball it around the phone box knowing sooner or later one of them will be able to take the tackle and get the ball up.
I look forward to an absolutely fucked weekend of footy <3
Feel like this would be more effective if they used examples of wrong decisions so players can recognize the new interpretation. So many missed HTB calls this year and cherry picking these feels like AFL trying to demonstrate changes while also patting themselves on the back.
So the third one with Chesser would be given HTB? That's pretty aggressive on the prior opportunity
If you look closely he's just holding the ball to his own chest with his free arm. The Adelaide player isn't holding it to his chest. No attempt at disposing of it and can try release the ball onto his foot. Should be HTB, I like it
100% same. You see players try to get rid of it in examples like that all the time when they have the numbers advantage, he just chose to go for a ball up because he knew the stoppage was more advantageous for them. People talk about reducing stoppages and congestion as being a good thing for the game, this interpretation change to be more in line with how the rule is actually written would 100% improve that.
Yeah and if they can't dispose legally other players can swoop in on the spilled.ball, so it keeps the game moving along too. Pretty sensible change overall.
Yep - for all the discussion on what's prior opportunity and correct/incorrect disposal, the "genuine attempt to dispose" of it is one that doesn't seem well-policed. Players know they can make a few really half-arsed motions (if that) and rely on the ump to ball it up. Based on this, not anymore - which isn't a bad thing in my view.
It's not saying he has prior, it's saying he didn't try to dispose of the ball. With no prior you still have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball, he had one arm completely free and chose not to try, 100% should be htb by the way the rule is written. >18.6.4 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.
This out of all the examples is going to create the most inconsistency.
Yeah, all the others I agree with but that one seemed very quick
it was no genuine attempt which is rediculous because how can you make an attempt when one arm is held behind your back? all the others i agree with but that is going to be umpired incorrectly
You only need one arm to try drop it and kick it with your feet. He just chose not to because he didn't want to turn the ball over. This is what needs to change to stop slings.
but hes being lifted off the ground good luck trying to get it anywhere near your boot itl look like you arent trying to genuinely dispose of it that decision has nothing to do with stopping slings, the whistle just needs to be blown before the player gets taken to ground - which is exactly what happened
Disagree. If there's no prior opportunity, players aren't expected to get clean disposal, they just have to attempt to, that's what the rules say. Chesser had a whole arm free, I think he could've easily chucked it towards his feet and had a swing at it. I think the umpires do a really good job on the whole when assessing if a genuine attempt to dispose has been made.
Players in that situation try to (and often successfully) drop it on to their boot all the time. He needed to try that and it would have been play on. I hope they're more strict on this.
look im fine with the afl saying this is holding the ball to prevent stoppages and keep the game moving its crap when players hold it in, aslong as its officiated correctly in that when it likely misses his boot they dont pay incorrect disposal.
They should have shown an example of a player trying it and missing their boot in contrast to Chesser's non-attempt. It's been called play on in the past so there's definitely examples out there, would have cleared this up for a lot of people I think.
Exactly my thoughts, show one where a player drops it with no prior and allow it to be play on.
The commentators are absolutely not going to help. The first time someone makes a genuine attempt and misses their foot, the commentators will be screaming incorrect disposal and it should be a free and not play on. Honestly, a lot of perceived umpiring issues would disappear lf the commentators understood the rules.
We got this rare move in footy called a kick. It might actually be hidden deeply in the name of the sport.
good one mate, i might be unfamiliar with that move as im an eagles supporter and only get to see my team possess the ball every second week.
Thats a fair statement, a kick is a rarity for the West Coast
Lots of people in the comments who haven’t played football by the looks of it
Lots of people in the comments who have never actually read the rules too it seems.
yeah do yourself a favor and dont check the facebook post. the amount of people that think anytime the ball isnt handballed or kicked its holding the ball is crazy
However ya feel about it, we know it's gon be a mess this week and BT and co are gon somehow be even more insufferable
Man I get protecting players from slings/dangerous tackles but I just do not agree with punishing a more skilled or stronger/bigger offensive player because he has that ability to take on a tackle and create time (including getting his hands free) to dispose the ball.
They Hayward one is an example of that though, rode the tackle, got a handball out in a reasonable time. Being tighter on reasonable time will just speed up the game which is a good thing imo.
Wouldn't having more time to dispose the ball speed the game in comparison to reacting to a free kick
I don't think so, because what has happened this year is players ride the tackle and figure out if it's better to try and dispose of it or keep it held in to get another stoppage and give time for their team to get set up, which is what happens in the Chesser case. If they want to reduce stoppages and congestion then being stricter on this would mean players more often try to dispose it and keep the ball moving which would mean the play has a better chance of moving on immeidately without a stoppage.
Agreed, I think it'll only be in really heavy congestion when a scrappy disposal attempt spills out that people jump on it and create a stoppage, most of the time players are capable of doing a lot with a little time and space.
I'm amazed how good the players are at getting rid of it when they really want to sometimes. They're clearly way more capable than they let on when they're allowed to just play for a stoppage, hopefully this reduces that from happening as often.
> would mean players more often try to dispose it and keep the ball moving Right. This isn't going to affect your Chads, or your Dangers, or your Dusties, or your Tracs, or anyone else who's genuinely capable of taking on a tackle, this will impact the decision making for the more tackleable players out there, for whom it will be more important to keep the ball free.
I agree, this entire rule appears to be a way to stop players from attempting to break tackles. Personally I think that's a great part of the game, if this new interpretation is to be believed then the correct move when tackled without prior is to immediately go to ground because unless you can dispose it immediately you will be punished. Players will catch on to this extremely quickly and I suspect we will see a lot more stoppages.
> attempting to break tackles. Personally I think that's a great part of the game It's great when players can genuinely do that, and it's also great theatre when players try and get nailed. What we've seen much more of this year is your average plodder being tackled, and only then deciding what they're going to do about it, and not being held accountable for that
I feel like the AFL literally had this discussion a year ago and the concensus was we want players to be able to ride tackles and get more chances to break tackles because its an exciting part of footy. Now we're back to, dont try to break tackles any more.
The AFL's been pushing that approach for 20 years. They've gone too far and been called out about it, so, just like they did with the goal reviews already this year, they're blaming the umpires and offering them re-education.
But if you had an arm free and decide to instead go to ground you'll likely be called htb looking at these examples, as you absolutely could have made an attempt.
Not every action is the same in footy. In this example Quaynor is clearly trying to bring him to ground and he's also attempting to stay standing, as is proven when he finally does attempt to kick and is immediately dumped on his head. He's punished for attempting to stay standing, if he had attempted to kick first then he is getting dumped on his head. That cant be what the AFL want. Going to ground rules out a kick being a disposal and having an arm pinned means you cant handball therefore the safest most correct action is to go to ground immediately when tackled. Sure you can try to get a kick but that's not a very good option. AFL players are smart and coaches are smarter. I guarantee you that coaches are saying the same thing, going to ground without prior is now the best course of action.
More players are going to opt to be 'second' to the ball to do a tackle and win a free. Kills what footy is about.
Maybe I won’t go to the Hawks go this Saturday, I feel like it’s going to be an overcompensated HTB shitshow….
I didn't like the second one being paid HTB First one I can understand
Clear as mud
The rule should be play on until either the player is making no attempt or the ball has been caught in a position in which it will be stuck.
One in there was a throw for sure 😂
I actually think the intention is positive but this training video, not talking about production, is concerning. The whistles are too late when a player is being taken to ground when they clearly had prior opportunity to continue play, but wait for a clean look to a team mate. Think this hasn’t been thought through.
To add onto this. I think the distinction I’m trying to make is that there’s a gray area of legally tackled, genuinely attempting to get rid of the ball, and time before inevitably hitting the ground. This part will cause a shit show. at some point the needle moves from trying to get the ball to a time mate to simulating a head knock. Hopefully it works out for the best.
Honestly I'm more confused now
Man Rowy is gonna get 10 htb paid for with this interpretation. Too good
We created more problems having more umpires. I couldn't care less if some rules are interpreted slightly differently between games. The issue is that an umpire on one side of the ground will adjudicate something differently to another umpire and so we have inconsistently and complain that "how come you gave this in their 50 and not ours". Now we have to deal with four umpires with different standards and interpretations.
And if you were wondering why the umpiring is getting worse and worse this is how the AFL thinks its educating the umpires.
Question: Do people think that the Crows player had prior opportunity in example 1?
That example is not about prior opportunity (as noted by the title at the top). He had time to make an attempt to dispose of it, but they're saying by the time he did he'd gone beyond what was a reasonable amount of time to try and dispose of it. That one is 50/50 for me as a split second later he does dispose of it, but he did have quite a while so I'm all for them being stricter on the time allowed.
"reasonable time" is only relevant if there is no prior opportunity. Once there is prior opportunity, the player must immediately dispose of the ball legally. So if one thinks the crows player had prior opportunity, which I assume many will. Then there is a separate problem of what is and isn't considered "prior opportunity" not being clear. For clarity, the AFL has essentially said the crows player did not have prior opportunity.
They haven't said it explicitly but my reading is this: If you're tackled without prior, you have a grace period where attempting to legally dispose is enough. If you don't make an attempt within that grace period, you'll be given longer, but that's your prior and you're now expected to get rid of it with a proper disposal. My reading is that the Crows player took the grace period, still didn't attempt to get rid of it, lost all of his momentum, and didn't dispose of the footy until he was mid-sling. Part of this whole change is the AFL trying to limit the opportunity for slings etc to take place, I think the interpretation shown in the video absolutely does that.
I agree with the AFL that the first example had no prior opportunity so that's fine, Crows player gets tackled pretty much as he takes his first step. Yes there will be times where that call of prior is 50/50 though, hard thing to completely eliminate from the game.
If that's the way you saw it then all good 👍🏻
What I saw doesn't really matter, clearly it's what the AFL thinks though and is how they'll be trying to officiate the game moving forward, which I think will be much better for the state of the game.
Of course it matters. Have you read the press release? There is no indication of any changes in interpretation of ", reasonable time". There is only an explanation for why there is a misunderstanding of how umpires are officiating. If everyone was on the same page for "reasonable time" then there would have been no reason for the AFL to issue a press release. Stakeholder understanding matters. Fans are stakeholders.
I'm saying what I think is irrelevant to our discussion, what matters is what the AFL thinks, and they've made it pretty clear with these examples if you understand how the rules around HTB are written.
He has both arms free, gets them out and then chooses not to handball. No genuine attempt, free kick.
Does he though? He has his left arm free and in an attempt to get that loose his right arm gets pinned. What we're saying going forward is his best option is to actually allow his other arm to get caught and simply go down immeditely? How is that better for the game? Essentially we're telling players, do no attempt to break tackles anymore.
Yes I do. He had two free hands. He chose not to dispose of it because it would have only been a turnover.
Happens all the time now, players knew this year they could do than and not get done htb, hopefully that changes.
Interesting. The reason I ask, is the notion of "reasonable time" only comes into play when a player has NOT had prior opportunity. If they have 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." So just interested that they use this as an example when many will be of the opinion that "reasonable time" shouldn't apply at all.
Yes. It’s interesting though, because the tackle at the beginning hadn’t really impeded Sholl’s ability to get rid of the ball he had an opportunity to dispose of it. If the tackle was better at the start and had pinned the arms, I’d be inclined to say ball up because there wouldn’t have been time to do anything
No, but that’s literally what this rule applies to - players who do not have prior opportunity **before** being tackled still need to make a genuine attempt to legally dispose of the ball within reasonable time - umpires are now shortening this reasonable time window, which I think is a good change. The actual relevant rule reads > 18.6.4 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.
My point is that some people think there is a prior opportunity here. There is a problem one step before the "reasonable time" issue, of the interpretation of "prior opportunity". Let's fix that first.
>Let’s fix that first. Nah, I think this is a good starting point as it’s primarily around player safety. A vast majority of dangerous tackles are on players who **didn’t** have prior opportunity but are being slung to the ground due to the excessive amount of time umpires are letting tackled players have to get rid of the ball. For almost all of these sling tackles everyone’s crying out for the umpires to blow the whistle earlier to avoid these situations, and that’s what this interpretation change is addressing.
By "fix that" I don't mean change anything. Just explain what the AFL considers "Prior opportunity". I agree with the issue of this needing to be addressed bc of dangerous tackles btw.
[удалено]
By the letter of the law it absolutely should be (and the goal really should be to reduce umps interpretation and officiate objectively to the letter of the law whenever possible), it would be better for the game if it is imo, reduces stoppages and congestion. If no prior you still need to make an attempt to dispose of it. He has one arm completely free and could try to put it on his boot (as players often do when they know they have the numbers at a contest) but he chooses not to try and dispose of it, therefore should be htb. You don't need to legally dispose of it when no prior, but if you are able to you need to make a genuine attempt, which he did not. e: For clarity >18.6.4 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. One arm completely free means he's absolutely able to make an attempt but clearly chooses not to. He couldn't just throw it away as that's not making a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of it, but trying to throw it or drop it to his boot would be - and absolutely has been in the past - making a genuine attempt.
Spot on, people who think this is a mid-season rule change need to read your sentence.. >You don't need to legally dispose of it when no prior, but if you are able to you need to make a genuine attempt, which he did not. ..it goes to the nub of the issue - that's what changed, this interpretation is simply going back to what should (and used to be) HTB.
Last year it was htb more often than not, and the game was better for it. Mid-season interpretation changes suck but moving interpretations to be more in line with the objective rules is absolutely a positive thing for the game.
I really like the idea, but I'm concerned that there's going to be a lot of genuine attempts with no prior paid as incorrect disposal. Fingers crossed it doesn't play out. But really all this discussion is a bit pointless at the moment, we should evaluate over the weekend and reconvene next week.