Holding the ball - wtf?

[saj_21]

Easily my biggest gripe with the game atm, oabviously the AFL's obsession to keep speeding the game up and moving it along has interferred with how this rule is interpreted.

Most holding the ball decisions are paid for a bloke who is on top of the ball with 5 players or more on top of him. But what isn't paid anymore is the bloke who chases and lays a great tackle only for the other player to a) completely drop the ball with no correct disposal or b) fall to the ground and place the ball on ground and kick or tap it away.

 

[monoccular]

The guy who takes on the personal risk of going in for the ball is not protected at all.

Just before 3/4 time Monday Davey went for the ball, ended up on his back without the ball - the Magpie opponent tackled him and held the ball on top of Davey - HTB!!!!!!!

WRONG!!!!!

And time and time again the ball carrier is tackled over the shoulder or in the back - HTB!!!!!

One problem is that these frustrated Thespians aka maggots get a big personal buzz by the theatre of stopping, bending, crossing their arms for the HTB signal - "look at me, look at me - I am just as important as the players!".

Pathetic.

Of course that failed club coach and failed umpires coach Geishen will never come out and justify these travesties.

There is no problem with the guy who takes on the pack, with prior opportunity, and is tackled correctly being pinged, but the balance is all the wrong way.

The tackle must be correct - if not the incorrect attack on the man should surely take precedence over the failure of the play maker to get rid of the ball.

Another pet hate of mine is the vulture who hovers around the man with the ball, the one who has the courage and initiative to actually go in and get it, grabs the jumper and holds his hand up looking around for the useless maggot to give him a free for no effort at all.

IMO these guys - all clubs by the way - should be penalised for bringing the game into disrepute!!!!! Show some courage and get the ball yourselves.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Easily my biggest gripe with the game atm, oabviously the AFL's obsession to keep speeding the game up and moving it along has interferred with how this rule is interpreted.

They're in a bit of a bind because the number of tackles per game is going through the roof and choking the play, although that's no excuse for inconsistent application of holding the ball/dropping the ball/incorrect disposal.

 

[saj_21]

They're in a bit of a bind because the number of tackles per game is going through the roof and choking the play, although that's no excuse for inconsistent application of holding the ball/dropping the ball/incorrect disposal.

Obviously they want to keep the ball moving, so if the ball spills free in atackle the umpires don't want to pay the free in fear of holding up the lay. Vice-versa, when the ball is trapped under a pack and not going anywhere, they will pay the free kick to get the game moving again.

It just completely frustrates me that a player can dop the ball when being tackled and the player laying the tackle is not rewarded. Whereas the player who dives on the ball, wins the contest is pinged, when 2 or more players jump on him and quite often this is a case this is done with contact to the head or in the back.

 

[giantsully]

Many many fans, players, coaches and commentators are now saying this - in the last few weeks I've seen HTB decisions that I couldn't explain to save my life.

So the big question -what is the AFL going to do about it? Encouraging players to go for the ball is at the very heart of our game. That's currently in danger.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It seems to me there are more tackles in a game, simply because players are sweating on the tackle. They pay these frees to keep the ball moving and therefore reduce tackles, when if they did not pay as many frees for HTB, the players would all want to go and get it instead of sweating on the tackle. They have it arse about face.

 

[rgill]

HTB - should be about prior opportunity to keep the ball in play and moving - if a player does not get that opportunity, then it is a ball up. It seems some umps get carried away with the drama of calling HTB!

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

So has the interpretation been adjusted over the split round?

It had definitely gone too far, now who knows? St Kilda player puts the ball under his arm and tries to get past Joel Selwood, gets tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball......ball up.

Stephen Milne takes a mark, plays on, gets tackled and doesn't dispose.....ball up.

WTF AFL.

 

[Brisvegas]

So has the interpretation been adjusted over the split round?

It had definitely gone too far, now who knows? St Kilda player puts the ball under his arm and tries to get past Joel Selwood, gets tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball......ball up.

Stephen Milne takes a mark, plays on, gets tackled and doesn't dispose.....ball up.

WTF AFL.

This is the one that got me.......I beleive/interperate Milne had prior opportunity because he took the mark, he then decided to play on stuffed up and got caught........every supporter no matter from what side would have said you stuffed up played on and got caught, holding the ball Milne you dick. The umpire explained.... that because he didnt take a few steps then no prior. So what about another player who has the mark......takes his time looking for an option......gets called play on because hes taking to long.....still standing there without taking a step and gets pinged from behind.......holding the ball says the ump........again he had prior because he had the mark, but didnt take a few steps as explained by the Milne umpire. WTF

 

[Crows1505]

Protected species.

Damn right

 

[QuietB]

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.

Agree 100%. If you lose the ball in a tackle it should be instantly dropping the ball. There has to be some onus on the ball carrier to have some sort of ball security. It is absolutely infuriating when someone lays a good tackle, the ball comes lose and a team mate of the ball carrier runs onto it and runs away. A perfect tackle has been laid and the guy who laid it gets no reward.

This rule should be so simple.

1. You must be given prior opportunity after having competed for the ball.
2. You have to dispose of the ball properly by kicking it or handballing it. Anything else is a free kick. Punched free, spilled in the tackle, slipped out, whatever, ball security is the ball carriers responsibility.
3. Ban stacks on the mill. Like rugby, a player should only be allowed to compete for the ball if they are on their feet.
   • If you are not on your feet then your obligation is to get up and re-enter the contest.
   • If you dive in for the ball your only obligation is to either get up and run away or dispose of the ball legally without 10 people on top of you.
   • If anyone jumps on top (ooposition or teammate) it is an automatic free to the opposite team.

Any time you are tackled, the only decision the umpire should have to consider is 1) did you have prior opportunity, 2) did you dispose of it properly, 3) did anyone jump in on top.

SIMPLE. Any doubt, that is why there are ball ups and a ball up is a fair 50/50 contest.

 

[Crows1505]

1. • If you dive in for the ball your only obligation is to either get up and run away or dispose of the ball legally without 10 people on top of you.
   • If anyone jumps on top (ooposition or teammate) it is an automatic free to the opposite team.

Yeah that works on paper, but, i have seen a free kick's payed this year where there were quite obviously several members of both teams all grabbing at the ball and then it gets held up, then the umpire seems to randomly pick someone to give a free!

U just cant give those free kicks away when everyone dives on it at the same time, but they are doin it more and more, mostly when there is a second ball up in the centre.

Basically umpires have stopped awarding first to the ball, and its crap

 

[Strawbs]

What I find amusing is that so many supporters have been calling for years for the AFL to give the bloke making the play some chance. This year it gets to an all-time worst so Lethal writes an article about it and the AFL changes the interpretation mid-season! Obviously the AFL couldn't work out for themselves that the second man in was getting a fairer go than the first man in.

 

[Beckers]

- 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.

Spot on!

Once again, this can all be solved by allowing someone to tackle ONLY if they are on their feet. Stops the packs from forming and players from holding it under the ball winner stopping the ball from coming out.

 

[Beckers]

Stephen Milne takes a mark, plays on, gets tackled and doesn't dispose.....ball up.

WTF AFL.

I am sure that was an umpiring stuff up!

Remember 'Whats your decision' on the old Sunday footy show. It wouldn't work in 2010 because the umpires always have an out (interpretation related). The ump could say no prior opportunity and Giesh would back him up 100%. That is how they get their 98% umpiring accuracy rate

There are too many grey areas and technicalities these days and no one knows what is going on, especially the players .

 

[stevebull]

I don't really care for either side though swans dropping a game hasn't hurt us & with them playing nth next week which will go close to konocking 1 of them out of the picture, did like hearing the tigers song it is a cracker.

But back to the point, 1st qtr if Mattner is holding the ball whih I don't think he should of been called then surely not long after when J. Bolton had a kicked smoothered & it went to ground the only people with their hands on the footy as it was on the deck were 2 tigers (Jackson was 1 can't remeber the other) & both being held/tackled by a swan & somehow ump calls locked in I'll have it I was of the understanding when it is 2 players from the same team holding it in it was a free to the other mob.

It is the total lack of consistancy that does your head in either when watcing a nuetral game.

Didn't cost the swans the game they managed that themselves but must drive players nuts when they have no idea which thing umps will pluck out.

 

[jko'neal]

I don't really care for either side though swans dropping a game hasn't hurt us & with them playing nth next week which will go close to konocking 1 of them out of the picture, did like hearing the tigers song it is a cracker.

But back to the point, 1st qtr if Mattner is holding the ball whih I don't think he should of been called then surely not long after when J. Bolton had a kicked smoothered & it went to ground the only people with their hands on the footy as it was on the deck were 2 tigers (Jackson was 1 can't remeber the other) & both being held/tackled by a swan & somehow ump calls locked in I'll have it I was of the understanding when it is 2 players from the same team holding it in it was a free to the other mob.

It is the total lack of consistancy that does your head in either when watcing a nuetral game.

Didn't cost the swans the game they managed that themselves but must drive players nuts when they have no idea which thing umps will pluck out.

That game yesterday was a shocker for letting players get away with holding the ball after having prior oppurtunity. But IMO Sydney got off a lot more than my boys. How often did a Sydney player take on the tackler and get dragged down and somehow get away with it?? Martin was pinned deep in the last qtr for taking on guys in the middle and getting dragged down, and so he should have been. But Sydney did it all day and got away with it, I'm just at a loss with the prior oppurtunity rule