Brereton and Walls on SEN

[The Casey Cat]

Hawthorn wouldn't have scored until midway through the 2nd quarter if it wasn't for the umpires.

Yep. Their comeback in the 2nd and 3rd was given a significant boost by pathetic umpiring.

 

[The greatest team]

"hawthorn won't lose another game this year. Will win the flag". Mark it down they reckon. Gosh these blokes are flogs.

Arrogant and pathetic. Geelong are just to good.

 

[Chewy]

Hi guys, forgive my intrusion and long post. Fabulous game last Friday night. Glad I was there. One of the greatest games I've seen. Congratulations. Too good for us over the 4 quarters. I'm still spewing we lost. I'm not superstitious in any way, but I am starting to believe we are cursed.

Just to clarify something: it wasn't just Brereton and Walls. It was everyone in the SEN booth. I think there were about five of them in there. Maybe four. They all unanimously agreed that Hawthorn would beat Geelong if they met again this September. Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just clarifying the segment for those that didn't hear it.

I can't say with 100% certainty why the SEN folks think this way, what gives them confidence Hawthorn are better than Geelong in 2012 despite them losing again last Friday night. From the overall tone of their discussion, it had something to do with Hawthorn (minus Buddy) getting jumped, giving Geelong a 9 goal head start, taking the lead with a couple of minutes remaining, only to be brought undone by last ditch heroics from Tom Hawkins. Without going into all the ins and outs, perhaps Buddy's absence was more telling than any of Geelong's omissions and it gave Geelong's defence less to worry about. Orren Stephenson did really well, so West's absence mattered not.

The questions over whether Hawthorn's skills and gameplan would hold up under Geelong's intense man-on-man pressure were answered to some degree. My guess is that the SEN guys believe a few things went your way (Missed free to Cyril, Hawkins dominating and bringing his kicking boots with him, Chappy winding back the clock with 4 goals, etc) and few things did not go Hawthorn's way (Hale & Cyril both hitting the post, Puopolo's rush of blood, Hodge struggling after a long absence, etc)

I think some people on here are being a bit precious, whereas the SEN guys are just calling it how they see it. You've listened to all the commentators praising Geelong so much over the past 5 years, you've lost a bit of perspective. The SEN guys were all very complimentary of the Cats, but they felt this was a game Hawthorn let slip and the Hawks' last three quarters were mighty impressive (15.14 to 9.7). Surely you can't argue with these points?!?

Geelong have been given a nice run in the media over the years. No need to get precious when it doesn't all go your way. How do you think Hawthorn fans felt in 2008 when nobody gave us a chance? Geelong are no longer the invincible force of 2007-2009, but they are still a great team who are capable of winning the flag. Why don't you revel in your newfound status of underdogs instead of whining about the perceived lack of respect? Everybody loves and respects Geelong, take it as read.

Brereton did not whine about the umpires as an excuse for Hawthorn losing. He gave two examples of shitty umpiring (the awful advantage given to Burgoyne and the the missed holding the ball to Cyril) and said those umpires would be lucky to have a gig this weekend. He gave both examples (one for Geelong and one for Hawthorn) to highlight what he considered to be WEAK umpiring. The umps saw both, took the easy option and called play on. As opposed to simple errors (such as the Burgoyne throw, or Podsiadly holding Gibson in the opening minute) which can be explained as simply bad positioning - the umpire at ground level did not get a view of it and missed something the spectators saw. Dermie naturally has some bias towards Hawthorn which he doesn't try to hide, but he does a damn good job of remaining impartial despite his obvious allegiance. He has always called it as he sees it, pros and cons.

Odd that people would bag Dermie for bagging the umps when that's exactly what you've all been doing. It's amusing to read/hear such angst from Geelong fans over the umpires. I thought us Hawk fans were supposed to be the whingers. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, hey? Maybe we should stop generalising about entire fan bases and just accept they're all pretty much the same. In general, they all like to have a good sook about the umpiring when the decisions go against their team.

By the way, nobody on SEN singled out Harry Taylor for derision. I think it was Robbo who piped up and said "How about Harry for All Australian?" and the others said no, maybe a chance for the squad. They were not derogatory. They probably thought Richards, Glass or McPharlin were ahead of Taylor. I think Harry is fantastic. What a great overhead mark he is! Great play to run back with Cyril on that fast break and save that goal.

It doesn't matter what the guys on SEN say. We can all agree on that. Football is played on the MCG, not on paper or behind a microphone. As for Tom Harley's professionalism and non-bias towards Geelong, he does a pretty good of trying to get Hawthorn players suspended. Last week it was Roughead and this week it was Guerra twice. Nothing in any of it. Suspensions, my arse. It was also noted on Channel 7 this morning that Ling reckons Christenson "can't remember anything" about the incident with Shiels. For a club who felt so aggrieved about Guerra "dobbing" in Selwood last season, their ex-players do a pretty good hatchet job themselves. Pretty weak, I reckon.

Anyway, thanks for reading, if you made it this far. Let's hope we can renew our hostilities this September. It might be 10-2 over the past six years, but I've loved every second of our rivalry. Except for the bit immediately after the siren! The Kennett Curse, the Chappy factor or the Cat's "9 Lives", whatever you wanna call it, it adds to the mystique. How can such a good rivalry always end the same way? Anyway, it's privilege to watch our teams do battle. Wouldn't it be fantastic if Hawthorn and Geelong could knock off these interstate franchises and meet in another Grand Final? Hawk fans are nervous about meeting a resurgent Geelong in September, but I'm praying we meet again this season. Bring it on! Hawthorn vs Geelong games are the best.

 

[The Casey Cat]

TL DR - Go Hawks, go Cats, leave Dermie alone, stop sooking about umpires and the media and just enjoy the fantastic footy our teams produce

Geez that's rich coming from a Hawk fan. What did you think of some of Clarko's sore, umpire sooking over the years? Piss off. We will talk about what we want to here. If we think we are getting a raw deal from the media who appear biased and sick to death of us we will say so.

 

[Chewy]

Geez that's rich coming from a Hawk fan. What did you think of some of Clarko's sore, umpire sooking over the years? Piss off. We will talk about what we want to here. If we think we are getting a raw deal from the media who appear biased and sick to death of us we will say so.

I was full of shit with that "TL DR" bit. It doesn't even represent what I posted. I will remove that bit now. Of course you guys are free to do and say as you please. I wasn't really telling anyone to do anything. I was simply correcting some inaccurate reporting of the SEN show and replying to a few things raised in this thread.

As for Clarko's umpire sooking, I'm not sure what you mean. Coaches aren't allowed to sook or else they get fined. Clarko was fined $5000 on one occasion when they asked him about one particular white maggot who paid several crucial dodgy frees against us. He laughed and sarcastically said "Yeah, he's a ripper that umpire..." I thought that was pretty funny. Earlier this season, he raised awareness over the West Coast Eagles ducking and diving, which i thought was fair enough. Why should coaches remain silent about these things if the media aren't going to write about it and will only quote the coaches? He wasn't whinging. He just put it on the table. He was asked about it and instead of saying "No comment" he answered them. Good on him. It's a shame that umpires need guidance from gagged coaches in order to do their job properly.

 

[The Casey Cat]

I was full of shit with that "TL DR" bit. It doesn't even represent what I posted. I will remove that bit now. Of course you guys are free to do and say as you please. I wasn't really telling anyone to do anything. I was simply correcting some inaccurate reporting of the SEN show and replying to a few things raised in this thread.

Fair enough.

As for Clarko's umpire sooking, I'm not sure what you mean. Coaches aren't allowed to sook or else they get fined. Clarko was fined $5000 on one occasion when they asked him about one particular white maggot who paid several crucial dodgy frees against us. He laughed and sarcastically said "Yeah, he's a ripper that umpire..." I thought that was pretty funny.

I just remember him carrying on a few times and in particular once where he was stating 'that number whatever it was umpire was pretty good for them tonight wasn't he?' in a pretty sore and sooky manner. I don't mind it that much just not sure you want to be talking about people from other clubs sooking about umpires when I see more from Hawk fans than anyone else and it appears to have started at the top.

Earlier this season, he raised awareness over the West Coast Eagles ducking and diving, which i thought was fair enough. Why should coaches remain silent about these things if the media aren't going to write about it and will only quote the coaches? He wasn't whinging. He just put it on the table. He was asked about it and instead of saying "No comment" he answered them. Good on him. It's a shame that umpires need guidance from gagged coaches in order to do their job properly.

I wasn't thinking of that when I brought up Clarko. I don't mind his comments there and agree that it's nice to hear that stuff rather than the usual standard shit boring coach responses.

 

[Chewy]

I just remember him carrying on a few times and in particular once where he was stating 'that number whatever it was umpire was pretty good for them tonight wasn't he?' in a pretty sore and sooky manner. I don't mind it that much just not sure you want to be talking about people from other clubs sooking about umpires when I see more from Hawk fans than anyone else and it appears to have started at the top.

I don't worry myself about opposition coaches. They've got a tough job to do and they do it well, with tons of pressure and ridiculous scrutiny. I think people are too hard on them. Who cares if Clarkson swears or punches a wall. People just like to give him shit because they don't like him. Whatever... They don't even know him... So why hate him? Silly... It's like people giving shit to James Magnussen for the way he acts out of the pool. Who cares? Did he kill someone? It's just people in the media who've got nothing better to do than pick on the latest easy target. Weak as piss!

You want to talk about sooky coaches, what about Chris Scott? Every time they show him in the coaches box, he's got his hands in the air and he's whining about a free kick. But this doesn't worry me. It's just the intrusive media pointing their camera the wrong way. I respect he's got a job to do and the umpires sometimes get in the way. How would I look at work if i hard a camera pointed at me every time I swore at my monitor or silently cursed and shook my fist at colleagues and suppliers.

Edit: Clarkson has been a very humble winner and gracious loser over the years, but people hone in on the handful of times where he let his disappointment and emotions bubble over. I would say Mick Malthouse is 100 times more of a sook than Clarko, who is normally pretty good. Depends if you want to judge someone for how they are 98% of the time or judge them for the other 2%.

 

[Grizzly_82]

I don't worry myself about opposition coaches. They've got a tough job to do and they do it well, with tons of pressure and ridiculous scrutiny. I think people are too hard on them. Who cares if Clarkson swears or punches a wall. People just like to give him shit because they don't like him. Whatever... They don't even know him... So why hate him? Silly... It's like people giving shit to James Magnussen for the way he acts out of the pool. Who cares? Did he kill someone? It's just people in the media who've got nothing better to do than pick on the latest easy target. Weak as piss!

You want to talk about sooky coaches, what about Chris Scott? Every time they show him in the coaches box, he's got his hands in the air and he's whining about a free kick. But this doesn't worry me. It's just the intrusive media pointing their camera the wrong way. I respect he's got a job to do and the umpires sometimes get in the way. How would I look at work if i hard a camera pointed at me every time I swore at my monitor or silently cursed and shook my fist at colleagues and suppliers.

Edit: Clarkson has been a very humble winner and gracious loser over the years, but people hone in on the handful of times where he let his disappointment and emotions bubble over. I would say Mick Malthouse is 100 times more of a sook than Clarko, who is normally pretty good. Depends if you want to judge someone for how they are 98% of the time or judge them for the other 2%.

TLDR...seems youre just having a go at cats supporters on their own board and telling them how they should react.

Btw if you are going to point out the "free" to Rioli you might want to read up on the rule about knocking the ball out of an opponent hands....but I doubt you will.

And to say we had a good run in the media...this might have been true in '07 &'08 but since '08 Hawks have been talked up as a great team and Preimiships favorite. Never mind 2010 when we had a 13 game winning streak and all you could read was how good the Pies were. Same deal in 2011 you know the year we won the Premiship .

Really deluded writing in your rants I would suggest taking it to your own board where if I wrote a simmilar rant after a loss to the Hawks I would be carded into next year.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Really deluded writing in your rants I would suggest taking it to your own board where if I wrote a simmilar rant after a loss to the Hawks I would be carded into next year.

Been one of the more pathetic Hawk trolls this site has seen for years. Not sure why I bothered replying to his nonsense. Can see by his follow up as usual is looking for nothing but trouble.

 

[Chewy]

Btw if you are going to point out the "free" to Rioli you might want to read up on the rule about knocking the ball out of an opponent hands

But it wasn't a free to Rioli.

I know the rules, Grizzly_82. I also know how the umpires have been interpreting those rules all season. Rioli did not hit the ball out of Duncan's hands. He tackled Duncan, knocking his arm in the process and causing the ball to spill. The crucial element is whether Duncan had prior opportunity. You could argue he did have prior opp and the free should've been paid. Or you could say he he didn't have time and the ump was right to let it go.

Personally, I don't care about umpires and free kicks. There is more to football than whinging about free kicks. I feel sorry for people who scream at umpires and can't enjoy watching footy. Some people are so biased, the only thing they watch for is free kicks. It's crazy.

But the rules and correct/incorrect interpretations interest me and seeing as you've mentioned it:
Here is the first part of the rule, which the umpires have been religiously applying -

1. 15.2.3 holding the football — Prior opportunity/No Prior opportunity
   Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
   1. (a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled; or
   2. (b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Here is the second part of the rule which you're probably referring to:

1. 15.2.4 application — specific Instances where Play shall continue
   For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:
   1. (a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands;
   2. (b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football;
   3. (c) a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;
   4. (d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or
   5. (e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.

You could argue that clause (b) was applied. Rioli knocked Duncan's arm, therefore play should continue. But this is not the correct interpretation of the rules. The rules are poorly worded, pretty vague, but I think clause (b) specifically refers to instances where there is no tackle, but one player simply knocking the arm of another player. This didn't happen. Cyril tacked Duncan. We're heading away from clause (b) and heading into clause (c) territory. How else do you explain the 200 'holding the ball' decisions almost identical to Cyril's tackle which were paid in 2012 ? Are you saying the umpire got this one decision right, but they got it wrong for those 200 other similar decisions where a player was run down and had the ball knocked from their grasp?

It would be nice to hear from Jeff Gieschen, but he's always full of shit anyway and he'll just tell us the umpire was right. It doesn't matter. The free kicks which aren't paid are part of the fabric of our game. It gives something to argue about. I'm 100% positive that if Geelong had lost the game and with a minute to go, Joel Selwood had chased down Josh Gibson, executed the same tackle (for no reward) then everyone on this board would be in uproar.

 

[Chewy]

Been one of the more pathetic Hawk trolls this site has seen for years. Not sure why I bothered replying to his nonsense. Can see by his follow up as usual is looking for nothing but trouble.

Why can't you just take me at face value instead of labelling me a pathetic troll? I thought you were decent guys who liked talking footy. You brought up the business of coaches sooking, you were looking for trouble, then you think I'm being a troll for pointing out the obvious and saying WHO CARES?!?

Never mind... I'll leave... I didn't come here to upset people.

[Sighs... Leaves Geelong Board... Continues to walk the earth...]

 

[dazbroncos]

Why can't you just take me at face value instead of labelling me a pathetic troll? I thought you were decent guys who liked talking footy. You brought up the business of coaches sooking, you were looking for trouble, then you think I'm being a troll for pointing out the obvious and saying WHO CARES?!?

Never mind... I'll leave... I didn't come here to upset people.

[Sighs... Leaves Geelong Board... Continues to walk the earth...]

Not trolling...

but to bring up umpiring and how Hawks were hardly done by....

14 to 26 frees Hawks favour in that game.
Geelong, incl rd 19, have 51 less frees paid in differential.

WC has 100 more. That is a 150 free difference over the season.

We are on the short end of the stick and the numbers prove it.



Go Catters

 

[Scottland2007]

Fair enough.



I just remember him carrying on a few times and in particular once where he was stating 'that number whatever it was umpire was pretty good for them tonight wasn't he?' in a pretty sore and sooky manner. I don't mind it that much just not sure you want to be talking about people from other clubs sooking about umpires when I see more from Hawk fans than anyone else and it appears to have started at the top.



I wasn't thinking of that when I brought up Clarko. I don't mind his comments there and agree that it's nice to hear that stuff rather than the usual standard shit boring coach responses.

it was number 17, because Shannon Byrnes didn't play that night.

 

[you pick one]

Not trolling...

but to bring up umpiring and how Hawks were hardly done by....

14 to 26 frees Hawks favour in that game.
Geelong, incl rd 19, have 51 less frees paid in differential.

WC has 100 more. That is a 150 free difference over the season.

We are on the short end of the stick and the numbers prove it.



Go Catters

Das the media tart,big mention Krock Friday night Das.

 

[Berserker26]

Dermie's a toss. Whenever I see him on the sunday footy show i turn over, if i want to hear a bloke just cut everybody else to get their point across i'll start attending mature-age student Uni lectures.

 

[fpm84]

Without going into all the ins and outs, perhaps Buddy's absence was more telling than any of Geelong's omissions and it gave Geelong's defence less to worry about. Orren Stephenson did really well, so West's absence mattered not.

I liked most of your post, but the above is rubbish.

Orren Stephenson may have played a good game but West is our number one ruck, is a premiership player and had played three good games v three top 8 teams in the last three weeks. By comparison Stephenson hadn't played since round 11.

Your argument is like me saying Buddy wasn't missed because Gunston kicked four goals - more than Buddy's average v Geelong - which he would have been unlikely to do if Buddy played.

In hindsight it's all semantics. Yes Franklin would have improved your side, as Corey, West, Varcoe and Wojcinski would have improved us. Hodge was very rusty in his second game back, as was Pods in his first game back for us. If we meet in the finals no doubt both players will be in much better form.

Despite the fact we've won nine in a row against you, there's clearly very little between our two teams. Hawthorn hauling in a 51 point deficit was incredibly impressive and both sets of supporters should be proud of their teams.

 

[LongBomb]

I didn't come here to upset people.

Known troll came here to troll.

[Sighs... Leaves Geelong Board... Continues to walk the earth...]

Great. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out

 

[Berserker26]

But it wasn't a free to Rioli.

I know the rules, Grizzly_82. I also know how the umpires have been interpreting those rules all season. Rioli did not hit the ball out of Duncan's hands. He tackled Duncan, knocking his arm in the process and causing the ball to spill. The crucial element is whether Duncan had prior opportunity. You could argue he did have prior opp and the free should've been paid. Or you could say he he didn't have time and the ump was right to let it go.

Personally, I don't care about umpires and free kicks. There is more to football than whinging about free kicks. I feel sorry for people who scream at umpires and can't enjoy watching footy. Some people are so biased, the only thing they watch for is free kicks. It's crazy.

But the rules and correct/incorrect interpretations interest me and seeing as you've mentioned it:
Here is the first part of the rule, which the umpires have been religiously applying -

1. 15.2.3 holding the football — Prior opportunity/No Prior opportunity
   Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
   1. (a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled; or
   2. (b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Here is the second part of the rule which you're probably referring to:

1. 15.2.4 application — specific Instances where Play shall continue
   For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:
   1. (a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands;
   2. (b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football;
   3. (c) a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;
   4. (d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or
   5. (e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.

You could argue that clause (b) was applied. Rioli knocked Duncan's arm, therefore play should continue. But this is not the correct interpretation of the rules. The rules are poorly worded, pretty vague, but I think clause (b) specifically refers to instances where there is no tackle, but one player simply knocking the arm of another player. This didn't happen. Cyril tacked Duncan. We're heading away from clause (b) and heading into clause (c) territory. How else do you explain the 200 'holding the ball' decisions almost identical to Cyril's tackle which were paid in 2012 ? Are you saying the umpire got this one decision right, but they got it wrong for those 200 other similar decisions where a player was run down and had the ball knocked from their grasp?

It would be nice to hear from Jeff Gieschen, but he's always full of shit anyway and he'll just tell us the umpire was right. It doesn't matter. The free kicks which aren't paid are part of the fabric of our game. It gives something to argue about. I'm 100% positive that if Geelong had lost the game and with a minute to go, Joel Selwood had chased down Josh Gibson, executed the same tackle (for no reward) then everyone on this board would be in uproar.

That's all good but Burgeone (spelling) threw it out one-handed in front of our goal and that wasn't called. Even.

 

[Jemaine]

Dermie's a toss. Whenever I see him on the sunday footy show i turn over, if i want to hear a bloke just cut everybody else to get their point across i'll start attending mature-age student Uni lectures.

I wish I was able to hand out more than one 'Like'... perfect post.

Fox Footy continue to blow smoke up his arse which means he's spreading to more shows on the channel like the cancer that he is. Makes it very hard to watch when he's on.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I liked most of your post, but the above is rubbish.

Orren Stephenson may have played a good game but West is our number one ruck, is a premiership player and had played three good games v three top 8 teams in the last three weeks. By comparison Stephenson hadn't played since round 11.

Your argument is like me saying Buddy wasn't missed because Gunston kicked four goals - more than Buddy's average v Geelong - which he would have been unlikely to do if Buddy played.

A week is a long time in football. Before Friday, people were wondering if Hawthorn's forward line may have functioned better without Buddy.

 

[Asty]

That's all good but Burgeone (spelling) threw it out one-handed in front of our goal and that wasn't called. Even.

Not to mention umpires making up rules like if you tackle someone over the boundry that is holding the man?

 

[Sttew]

"hawthorn won't lose another game this year. Will win the flag". Mark it down they reckon. Gosh these blokes are flogs.

Brereton, I assume? I can't imagine Walls would refer to Hawks as "we"

 

[dazbroncos]

Das the media tart,big mention Krock Friday night Das.

Yeah twitter can be fun... don't know any of the guys but with the time difference doing something or anything while the game is on and before and after helps keep me up... as well as screaming at the laptop to get the Catters home...

Go Catters

 

[CharacterFirst]

Dermie has never respected Geelong. Has never been completely gracious towards us, always has a rider to bring the club down. He is a Hawks man, and hates Geelong as a supporter and player.

I suspect he hates the idea this Geelong side might be as good as the Hawks sides he played in, and he would be burning that his team can't beat ours.

A large part of Dermies self-identity would be tied up in the Hawks (of which he is one) are better than Geelong. He thinks Kennett was right, and the evidence against the Hawks superiority since the "curse" picks and pokes at his core.

 

[OldStyle2007]

Thanks for posting the rules Chewy. Interesting

Jeez is this game getting overcomplicated or what? It's like reading legislation.

Quite seriously, when a game gets this complicated it's getting into dangerous territory. You can see how rugby union struggles with getting audiences outside of international matches because of all the grey areas and interpretations. When anything that happens on the field can be an either-way decision, you are in a very dangerous zone indeed

They need to simplify that holding the ball rule. 15.2.3 and 15.2.4 can be read against each other in most situations and end up in different decisions all depending on this vague concept that is 'prior opportunity'

Here's a simple rule. To win a "holding the ball" decision, the tackling player must first complete a tackle properly by taking the player to the ground or halting movement (like Rugby League). The tackling player is allowed to complete the tackle without worrying about a holding the man decision - but he's not allowed to sling or bury the opponent

Forget about prior opportunity which is too loose a distinction and is in the eye of the beholder. Let's find something more tangible like time in possession or steps taken in possession.

And seriously Chewy, Rioli didn't even tackle him properly. Do we really want to see that rewarded? It certainly wouldn't have been years ago. I can't believe why the AFL has tipped the advantage of these rules to the team not in possession of the ball. And they wonder why there are these massive packs formed around the ruck...