Holding the ball...

[Zeke]

The interpretation of the holding the ball rule is currently a disgrace.

I watched the Hawthorn V Kangaroos match today (no idea why) and some of the holding the ball decisions were unbelievable. There have already been a few tonight.

It will get to the stage where players will not want to take possession of the ball in traffic. Players are taught to put their head over the pill, but get penalised for it.

Very bad for football.

 

[mellowyellow]

Originally posted by Zeke
.

There have already been a few tonight.

The Scott Burns decision was farcical.

It was clear to all but the ump that he had no proir opputunity.

 

[ThePope]

Re: Re: Holding the ball...

Originally posted by mellowyellow
The Scott Burns decision was farcical.

It was clear to all but the ump that he had no proir opputunity.

Haven't seen the Burns decision at all, but prior opportunity is the second thing that the umps have to consider.

If you get tackled, you must attempt to dispose of it.
If it is pinned or lost in the tackle, then if you've had prior opportunity, then you are gone.
If it is not pinned, then you must attempt a disposal. simple. The pulled underneath you rule is a bit different, but it annoys me that the old fashion HTB is so rarely paid these days. You get tackled, you've got to try to get rid of it, not just hold it in and fall to the ground.

 

[MadRyan]

How Scotty Burns was holding the ball i'll never know. That was a bloody woeful decision and a disgrace. He had no chance what so ever to get rid of the ball ... he had control of it for about 3seconds then was jumped by 3 Bulldogs.

Umpire shouldn't get a game next week. To the U14's with him.

 

[Borgsta]

well a whole heap of posts were taken away for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Ricketts]

Originally posted by Zeke
The interpretation of the holding the ball rule is currently a disgrace.

agreed.

 

[Ricketts]

Originally posted by Zeke
Players are taught to put their head over the pill, but get penalised for it.

i know, disgraceful isnt it.

 

[Ricketts]

Originally posted by Zeke
Very bad for football.

again, agreed.

 

[Roonaldo!]

Originally posted by Zeke
The interpretation of the holding the ball rule is currently a disgrace.

I watched the Hawthorn V Kangaroos match today (no idea why) and some of the holding the ball decisions were unbelievable. There have already been a few tonight.

It will get to the stage where players will not want to take possession of the ball in traffic. Players are taught to put their head over the pill, but get penalised for it.

Very bad for football.

Yes yes.
I had a chat to a fellow Rood supporter at the match and really, the Ball up is boring and they happen when the tackle is a great one.
Also when a tackle is great the umpire pings the defender.

When its ugly ****ty and crap the bad tackle is rewarded.

The umpires need to look at their rulebooks.

 

[Ricketts]

Re: Re: Holding the ball...

Originally posted by captain-boomer
The umpires need to look at their rulebooks.

that wont do anything, they're blind as collective bats.

 

[Roonaldo!]

Mark Doran talked about it on the Fifth Quarter and he's talking the truth.
If footy you get taught to always go for the footy, head over the footy and in grass roots, the umps always gives ball ups if you get the ball, head over it get hit and have no chance to get rid of it.

Bloody umps should be doing it at the top level.

 

[Hooper]

the rule is a joke and the umpires should only ping them if they have had an oppurtunity to get rid of the ball as the rule originally said

 

[Bob_vic]

Giesch obviously went over re: players not attempting when there isn't prior opportunity and the arms aren't pinned. (The correct ruling being HTB.)

Seems as if some of the umps have taken it too far. It shouldn't be HTB when the player IS wrapped up (arms pinned), with no opportunity to attempt.

Bob

 

[grayham]

The biggest blight on the game at the moment, is the number of ball ups. It seems to take 3 bounces to clear the play. Its now slower than rugby!

The reason being that once players are tackled, the dont try and dispose of it, they just take the tackle.
It seems the umps are trying to get rid of this this weekend, by paying HTB if you havent made a genuine effort.
If thats the case, then I am all for it.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Bob_vic
Giesch obviously went over re: players not attempting when there isn't prior opportunity and the arms aren't pinned. (The correct ruling being HTB.)

Seems as if some of the umps have taken it too far. It shouldn't be HTB when the player IS wrapped up (arms pinned), with no opportunity to attempt.

Bob

If one arm is pinned, you can drop the ball with the other arm, and make contact with your foot.
Commonly called a "kick", and a legitimate disposal I'm led to beleive.

 

[mickeyjuice]

Originally posted by Wizzuh
How Scotty Burns was holding the ball i'll never know. That was a bloody woeful decision and a disgrace. He had no chance what so ever to get rid of the ball ... he had control of it for about 3seconds then was jumped by 3 Bulldogs.

Three seconds is an enormous amount of prior opportunity. (I've not seen the incident yet, just saying.)

 

[teams]

More often than not players are getting to much time. In the past five years the skill to raise the arms and hold the ball outstretched from the body has allowed handballs away occurring in the period that would previously have been holding the ball.
Voss is the best at it. Tackled laid to hips. Arms up swung around hand ball to player running by. If the tackle manages to hold the arms down its gone.

 

[Z_K]

Get a look at the decision paid against Mat Ball in todays game.

Disgraceful. Petrie was actually laughing.

 

[MOJOE]

Originally posted by Zeke
The interpretation of the holding the ball rule is currently a disgrace.

I watched the Hawthorn V Kangaroos match today (no idea why) and some of the holding the ball decisions were unbelievable. There have already been a few tonight.

It will get to the stage where players will not want to take possession of the ball in traffic. Players are taught to put their head over the pill, but get penalised for it.

Very bad for football.

I wonder who was umpiring the Hawks v Roos game...

McLaren possibly???

 

[Roonaldo!]

Re: Re: Holding the ball...

Originally posted by MOJOE
I wonder who was umpiring the Hawks v Roos game...

McLaren possibly???

McBurney , Davis and Schmitt.

All were Red Rabbits today.

 

[The Candy Man]

It's the AFL who run the game, and we simply cannot expect them to take their collective noses out of the corporate trough to examine umpiring standards can we?

AFL profits are up, and everything else is superfluous in their eyes.

 

[doggies40]

Re: Re: Holding the ball...

Originally posted by mellowyellow
The Scott Burns decision was farcical.

It was clear to all but the ump that he had no proir opputunity.

Same thing happened to lindsay gilbee. There were some really stupid decisions made in that game tonight.

 

[Spook]

Re: Re: Re: Holding the ball...

Originally posted by ThePope
Haven't seen the Burns decision at all, but prior opportunity is the second thing that the umps have to consider.

If you get tackled, you must attempt to dispose of it.
If it is pinned or lost in the tackle, then if you've had prior opportunity, then you are gone.
If it is not pinned, then you must attempt a disposal. simple. The pulled underneath you rule is a bit different, but it annoys me that the old fashion HTB is so rarely paid these days. You get tackled, you've got to try to get rid of it, not just hold it in and fall to the ground.

Pope.......you obviuosly play/have played football and know the rules.If so you shouldn't post here as this site is for one eyed clowns who DO NOT KNOW THE RULES OF THE GAME.....and have probably NEVER played a game in their life...

what you say is %100 corect....
You must attempt to dispose of the ball

 

[WILKO_6]

Originally posted by NorthBhoy
Get a look at the decision paid against Mat Ball in todays game.

Disgraceful. Petrie was actually laughing.

Yep saw that one, couldnt believe it was paid holding the ball, looked a genuine ball up to me.

Did anyone see the one against Petrie, i think Bateman was the tackler. No opportunity to get rid of the ball with his arms pinned, what's he supposed to do? Not go for the ball at all?

 

[dogsbody]

There is a difference between a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and a prior opportunity to dispose of it effectively or to the team advantage. Burns could have pushed the ball on, or handballed it clear but chose to hold it in the tackle because he could not be sure that he could get it to a team mate. Last night, the umpires seemed to be applying the former prior opportunity rule rather than, as they usually do, the latter. Both teams were treated the same. I hope that interpretation becomes the norm. Most players just hold on and go to ground when tackled.