Holding the ball - wtf?

[muckypup]

What is going on with HTB at the moment? Did the rule suddenly change a few weeks ago?

This is my take on what has been happening:

Pack forms over ball.
Gentlemen take a raffle ticket.
Man in white/green/yellow/pink/cyan calls a number.
Some unlucky sucker gets pinged.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

It's taken me a while, but the Giesch finally confirmed some things the other week.

The most important stat for the umpires is "In play" time. Stoppages, the ball isn't in play. Rolling mauls with players dropping the ball are.

So the umpires are encouraging players to drop the ball any time they are tackled - hence why players are no longer pinned for taking on tacklers and failing - so long as the ball comes loose.

If you use that 'filter' to watch the umpires decisions, suddenly they all make sense. Whatever you do, don't take possession of the ball in a pack, as the normal frees (in the back, high tackle, ankle tackle, etc) don't apply.

I disagree with it in principle (and also it goes dead against Hawthorn's ball-winning and clean disposal style) but if you use that interpretation, it fits the umpires.

 

[muckypup]

I hate the interpretation. Mainly because many times it is impossible for the ump to see into the pack. I am sure a large % of the decisions that come out of there are 'edumacated guesses'. Thats no basis for umpiring. Its not in the spirit of the game.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

So the umpires are encouraging players to drop the ball any time they are tackled - hence why players are no longer pinned for taking on tacklers and failing - so long as the ball comes loose.

This statement is precisely what's wrong with umpiring. The rules no longer matter. To quote, "umpires are encouraging players to drop the ball". Sorry, but there is a rule in relation to correct disposal. It clearly states a player can only dispose of the ball by foot (kicking) or fist (handballing). Should a player bounces or drop the ball, they are deemed to still be in possession.

Somewhere in the past decade or so, they've introduced a saying "the ball was forced out in the tackle", and therefore play on. Sorry again, that's holding the ball. That has progressed to what we are seeing now, the player with the ball just drops it prior to being tackled.

By the rule, holding the ball ... by umpiring 2010 style, play on. Why do we have rules at all if we just elect to ignore them? And holdding the ball isn't the only one being butchered, they may as well take the rule in relation to shepherding in ruck and rip it out of the book altogether.

 

[imperial_oz]

This statement is precisely what's wrong with umpiring. The rules no longer matter. To quote, "umpires are encouraging players to drop the ball". Sorry, but there is a rule in relation to correct disposal. It clearly states a player can only dispose of the ball by foot (kicking) or fist (handballing). Should a player bounces or drop the ball, they are deemed to still be in possession.

Somewhere in the past decade or so, they've introduced a saying "the ball was forced out in the tackle", and therefore play on. Sorry again, that's holding the ball. That has progressed to what we are seeing now, the player with the ball just drops it prior to being tackled.

By the rule, holding the ball ... by umpiring 2010 style, play on. Why do we have rules at all if we just elect to ignore them? And holdding the ball isn't the only one being butchered, they may as well take the rule in relation to shepherding in ruck and rip it out of the book altogether.

Couldn't agree with you more. Half the time, I'm at a loss to explain decisions by umpires as I'm really not convinced they actually know what the rules are this year, month, week.

God knows how Gieschen keeps his job. If I performed in a similar fashion, my employer would have booted me years ago. I guess there is more here than doing your job correctly.

I think the comment about umpires 'guessing' what happened rather than 'seeing' it happen is the critical point. Too many umpires make decisions on things they could not have possibly seen but 'think' happened. If we could actually get umps to award frees only on offences they clearly see, then we could halve the free kicks in a game and let the players decide who wins not the whistleblowers.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Somewhere in the past decade or so, they've introduced a saying "the ball was forced out in the tackle", and therefore play on. Sorry again, that's holding the ball. That has progressed to what we are seeing now, the player with the ball just drops it prior to being tackled.

That interpretation was in vogue at least 20 years ago, but has been in hiatus. I agree with the OP - it has made a return in recent weeks.

Applied correctly, it's a common sense interpretation that is both fair to the ball carrier and encourages the game to flow. However when e.g. Leon Davis is allowed to throw the ball away - literally - it's little wonder football followers in general are disillusioned with the state of umpiring.

Commentators of late also seem at pains to avoid focusing on poor decisions, even to the point of attempting to justify them. Methinks an edict has been issued to that effect by Demetriou.

 

[saladin]

judging by the last few minutes of the swans / dons game and what happened to dempsey, you're much more likely to be penalised for holding the ball if you aren't actually tackled!

 

[james_omahoney]

I think what happened with the Dempsey decision is what I occasionally see happen - the umpire deems that a series of missed tackles constitutes one big tackle resulting in holding the ball.

To clarify, Dempsey shrugged a few separate tackles and then disposed of the ball. He was deemed to have held the ball too long (due to the congested tackles being applied).

The incorrect interpretation is that the umpire seems to have added up all the tackles and decided that he had been caught with the ball/held it too long. What the umpire should have realised is that each tackle was a discreet tackle that had no bearing on the time Dempsey was allowed in the next tackle.

He shrugged each one, didn't run too far and correctly disposed of the ball after a few tackling attempts were laid. This is NOT the same thing as being tackled and turning 360 degrees and being penalised for holding the ball.

 

[scattman3]

Players only need to immediately and legally dispose of the ball if they have had prior opportunity. If they havent then all they have to do is attempt to legally dispose of it. It's quite simple.
As to the OP, the decision you are talking about is when a player dives on the ball. If a player dives on the ball(on his hands and knees or laying on the ground) then he has an obligation to move the ball on and not form a pack. If the ball gets locked in then it is deemed holding the ball as he is seen to have caused the pack. It's taken me a few years to get used to it but once you realize whats going on its pretty easy to tell when the umpire is and isn't going to call it. There trying to create a situation where players only try to gain pocession of the ball while standing up, this keeps play moving and creates a more free flowing game.
Holding the ball is one rule i think has been well judged this year.

 

[King Elvis]

What is going on with HTB at the moment? Did the rule suddenly change a few weeks ago?

This is my take on what has been happening:

Pack forms over ball.
Gentlemen take a raffle ticket.
Man in white/green/yellow/pink/cyan calls a number.
Some unlucky sucker gets pinged.

See the one with Stevens yesterday? One of your boys actually had the ball, running away from the pack, when the umpire pinged Stevens for holding the ball

The rule is a joke; you can throw the ball out of a tackle and you wont get done, but god forbid you actually try and contest the ball when you aren't on your feet.

As said above, the AFL/Umpires are trying to minimise the number of pauses in play, allowing players to throw the ball out of a tackle does that; keeps the game fast and free flowing.... which we better cap the number of interchanges to address.

They're idiots.

PS - Also thought there were quite a few instances of players being legged over the weekend, which seemed to go unpunished.

 

[Crows1505]

the decision you are talking about is when a player dives on the ball. If a player dives on the ball(on his hands and knees or laying on the ground) then he has an obligation to move the ball on and not form a pack. If the ball gets locked in then it is deemed holding the ball as he is seen to have caused the pack.

I can see the intention of this rule and on paper it makes sense BUT, does it not seem like this rule is punishing players first to the ball.
It used to be mainly in open space with 2 or three players, but in the last two weeks it has been happening right at the center bounce! the umps shouldnt be able to ping a player when all the on ballers jump on it at once, but they do!
I dont know about everyone else but i dont think players should be punished for being first to the ball.

 

[JHF1870]

Biggest load of crap going round.

Take me to the WCE Geelong game on Saturday night, Ablett gets tackled after running 3 metres incorrect disposal, no decision.

Hawks Port game Sunday.

THREE times, Port were caught Holding the ball once on Salopek I think who got the ball immediately tackled. The rule is complete BS. I don't mind awarding for diving on the ball, but when it gets to the point the player can't take the ball on a handpass because he's hot and will get caught holding the ball. thats crap, there are too many inconsistencies. The more frees the umps give away the more the umps get it wrong.

 

[Strawbs]

Biggest load of crap going round.

Take me to the WCE Geelong game on Saturday night, Ablett gets tackled after running 3 metres incorrect disposal, no decision.

Hawks Port game Sunday.

THREE times, Port were caught Holding the ball once on Salopek I think who got the ball immediately tackled. The rule is complete BS. I don't mind awarding for diving on the ball, but when it gets to the point the player can't take the ball on a handpass because he's hot and will get caught holding the ball. thats crap, there are too many inconsistencies. The more frees the umps give away the more the umps get it wrong.

That's the one that's killing me at the moment. First free of Friday night, Nahas took possession (standing), absolutely no prior opportunity, hurled to the ground, then pinged for not making a 'reasonable attempt' when a reasonable attempt was completely impossible. That pause before they pay those ones is hilarious too. It's as though they're saying to the poor sap with the ball, "Well, I gave you extra time to dispose of it mate" even though an extra hour wouldn't help anyway after a crushing tackle is laid without prior opp. You can see the exasperation on so many players' faces when they have had no chance to do anything bar take possession. Greg Baum was spot on in The Age today - better off being the tackler than the bloke actually trying to get the ball these days. Not good.

 

[Notorious_29]

I have absolutely had it with this disgrace of a rule.

Here's what we know

- If you get tackled with prior opportunity to get rid of the ball its HTB.
- Prior opportunity is defined as anything over half a step after getting the ball.

- If you get tackled without prior opportunity but make no attempt to get rid of it it's holding the ball.
- If you have both arms restricted/the ball is not in a position to be touched (opposition player holding it in) it's deemed not making a legitimate effort.

Now that would all be OK with me IF everything was paid consistently which it isn't by any stretch of the imagination but this next one ****s me off.

- Dragging the ball in.

The first player who gets to the ball and wins possession then gets tackles gets pinged for HTB. This is just insane, pinging the one guy going for the footy.

The fans are confused, the players are confused the umpires are obviously confused and the umpiring over the holding the ball rule is ruining game after game. You can see the players look straight to the umpires at every contest just waiting to see what way he gives it.

The AFL needs to have a serious look at this in the off season, it's going against the very basics of the game - attacking and winning the hard ball.

 

[exit]

wtf is right. Umpires don't have a clue about the spirit of the game. Legit tackles going unrewarded while players trapped at bottom of pack trying to get the ball out while others hold it in and lie on top of him get pinged. AFL is becoming a farce.

 

[What do you pay]

The umpire then paid two 50 metre penalties against Dempsey which in some circumstances can be quite legitimate. The umpire told him that it was a '100 metre penalty' for 2 breaches. The last time that I looked in the rule book there was no such thing as a 100 metre penalty. The umpire is doing nothing more than showing he can count.

 

[slingers]

FIRST EVER POST!!!, count yourselves lucky whoever sees this
about the holding the ball, tis a harsh rule because the umpires have different views on the rule, some are likely to pay htb in a circumstance where the player has no chance of releasing the ball, others will call for a ball up, probs a attempt by the afl to keep the game flowing...

 

[raskolnikov]

Why do Geelong never get pinned for holding the ball? On Saturday night there were at least five occasions, a lot of them involving Gary Ablett, which other teams would have got a HTB decision against them for. They seem to get an extra second than any other team to get rid of the ball.

My mate is a mad Cats fan and we go to a lot of games together. He agrees with me that Geelong get an awful lot of leeway with this.

 

[Notorious_29]

Why do Geelong never get pinned for holding the ball? On Saturday night there were at least five occasions, a lot of them involving Gary Ablett, which other teams would have got a HTB decision against them for. They seem to get an extra second than any other team to get rid of the ball.

My mate is a mad Cats fan and we go to a lot of games together. He agrees with me that Geelong get an awful lot of leeway with this.

Protected species.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

wtf is right. Umpires don't have a clue about the spirit of the game. Legit tackles going unrewarded while players trapped at bottom of pack trying to get the ball out while others hold it in and lie on top of him get pinged. AFL is becoming a farce.

It's not the umpires' fault, it's the idiots instructing them on interprestations. The thing that's driving me mad at the moment is the classic ... a guy gathers the footy, he's being tackled as he's taking possession, sometimes even before.

He gets his arms pinned, ridden into the ground, has'nt got a hope in hell of disposing of the footy. Opposition players dive over the top to lock the ball in, the player at the bottom of the pack has arms tied up, he can't even attempt to get rid of it, let alone get it out.

Whistle goes and he's penalised for not making an attempt. I'd seriously like to see how the umpire would have got the ball out.

The other thing that annoys me is certain "glamour" players given far more opportunities to dispose of the footy than others.

 

[Stoddy]

this WAS the best rule in the game

was one of the best rules in any sport IMO

its RIDICULOUS now

prior oppotunity...the player actually attacking the ball getting penalised!!!!!!

STUPID

a blight on the game

 

[scottywiper]

Dear god the one on Davey today was horrific.
The whole basis of the game is swinging from protecting the player that wants the ball to rewarding the seagulls that don't.
Massive change and not for the best.

 

[Suma Magic]

It's been mentioned before, but:

what annoys me massively, is

when someone is pinged for holding the ball, when they don't have the ball.

 

[Testekill]

Why do Geelong never get pinned for holding the ball? On Saturday night there were at least five occasions, a lot of them involving Gary Ablett, which other teams would have got a HTB decision against them for. They seem to get an extra second than any other team to get rid of the ball.

My mate is a mad Cats fan and we go to a lot of games together. He agrees with me that Geelong get an awful lot of leeway with this.

Look at the name you dropped.


That is the best explanation.

 

[richoatthedisco]

It's taken me a while, but the Giesch finally confirmed some things the other week.

The most important stat for the umpires is "In play" time. Stoppages, the ball isn't in play. Rolling mauls with players dropping the ball are.

So the umpires are encouraging players to drop the ball any time they are tackled - hence why players are no longer pinned for taking on tacklers and failing - so long as the ball comes loose.

If you use that 'filter' to watch the umpires decisions, suddenly they all make sense. Whatever you do, don't take possession of the ball in a pack, as the normal frees (in the back, high tackle, ankle tackle, etc) don't apply.

I disagree with it in principle (and also it goes dead against Hawthorn's ball-winning and clean disposal style) but if you use that interpretation, it fits the umpires.

You've nailed it. It's a disgrace that players are encouraged to drop the ball.

Somewhere in the past decade or so, they've introduced a saying "the ball was forced out in the tackle", and therefore play on. Sorry again, that's holding the ball.

If the tackle legitimately forces the ball free it should be play on.

The AFL needs to have a serious look at this in the off season, it's going against the very basics of the game - attacking and winning the hard ball.

Goddamn right.