Rules Holding the ball

[Lavender Bushranger]

So I'm trying to win the hard pill.. trying to make the play.. I'm flying in there.. brass balling it right.. surrounded by players.. immediately tackled.. buckley's chance of disposing of it.. free kick?

C'mon man.

Now I know I'm Liking and Responding to posts that are a few years old, but humour me...

What's with thing about the guy 'trying to make the play'? I hear that quite a lot.

Aren't all players trying to make the play? All the time?

A defender punching the ball away from a forward is their 'play'. The forward doesn't get anything special because their version of 'making a play' is more exciting to the fans.

The whole challenge of 'making a play', and what made Aussie rules such a hard and great game to play - was that the rules were NOT in your favour. If you got the pill, dudes were coming for you and if they didn't have bash you (within the rules) you'd get pinged for HTB.

Same with being a forward. It was fu**ng hard.

I don't know why there's this sense of protecting the guy trying to make the play. I mean, you can make any play you want, but I don't understand why the rules should make it easy for you.


If you think you will get tackled if you take possession - then knock it on. Kick it off the ground.

Or, take possession and be a hero and break clear.

If you do take possession and get caught, then just get rid of it legally. No biggie.

If you take possession and get caught, and can't get rid of it legally - you're gone. No biggie. Take it on the chin and offer kudos to the guy that caught you legally. Good job.

Then move on the next contest and try again.


The only protection you should get is from head high contact, from tripping, and from being pushed in the back. Other than that, stiff shit.

 

[Lockyer24]

Like the change with the reduced time

My next annoyance is players dropping the ball, then getting holding the man free kicks

You should have to handball or kick it to gain this type of free kick

 

[Demon in Hell]

A well umpired first quarter.

It's amazing what happens when you let common sense prevail.

 

[zyzzbruh]

A well umpired first quarter.

It's amazing what happens when you let common sense prevail.

Not sure if serious. The weitering htb was no different to JHF tackle later on. Both players had no prior and weren't in a position to be able to attempt to dispose of it, yet weitering was penalised.

Then there was that absurd htb on the port player which led to the 50m and goal. He had no prior yet still managed to get boot to ball, yet got pinged htb.

Absolutely ridiculous calls. The speed of the whistle was never the issue. The issue has always been players WITH prior not disposing correctly and not being penalised. Now here we are penalizing players with no prior.

 

[HairyO]

Not sure if serious. The weitering htb was no different to JHF tackle later on. Both players had no prior and weren't in a position to be able to attempt to dispose of it, yet weitering was penalised.

Then there was that absurd htb on the port player which led to the 50m and goal. He had no prior yet still managed to get boot to ball, yet got pinged htb.

Absolutely ridiculous calls. The speed of the whistle was never the issue. The issue has always been players WITH prior not disposing correctly and not being penalised. Now here we are penalizing players with no prior.

The AFL once again ****ing up and proving they have no idea what they were doing.

It got to the point where a few times players were going to go for the ball then paused, presumably because they were worried about getting instantly pinged.

If no prior ball it up. That is the most anyone called for. Noone said just pay more free kicks, surely ?

 

[Gaspard]

The AFL have nowhere near even touched the surface of the problem here. In every match, players from every club get the ball, see there is no way that they can get it clear, and fold up to ensure it doesn't get out. This is holding the ball. If they were required to dispose of the ball legally or be free kicked, then the game would suddenly be opened up. Something the coaches do not want.
The rule already exists. It only needs to be enforced.

"Pile on" tackles need to be banned. Again, players from all clubs routinely effectively tackle their own team mates to ensure that the ball does not escape when a player is tackled to the ground. If a player is tackled to the ground, then a second player from either club should not be allowed to wrap the contest up. The only object here is to keep the ball in, something the AFL pretends it doesn't want. It would be very easy to stop, which would protect players and open the game up.

 

[ossie_21]

Didn’t get to see much of last nights game, not even halfway through the 2nd quarter but it’s exactly as I expected - the umpires have over corrected and are now calling HTB too much without prior.

They are now a central part of the game over the players if this continues, it’s not the ump show that people want to watch.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Didn’t get to see much of last nights game, not even halfway through the 2nd quarter but it’s exactly as I expected - the umpires have over corrected and are now calling HTB too much without prior.

They are now a central part of the game over the players if this continues, it’s not the ump show that people want to watch.

I suppose tonight has confirmed that for you even more so. The game has been ruined

 

[Testekill]

Who would have guessed that changing a rule midseason would result in a shit show?

 

[Sainter1873]

The overcorrection is as obvious as it is silly. Is the AFL the only league in the world to be this knee jerk? I can’t remember it happening in soccer where there’s a focus on a particular rule in the media for a week, followed by a significant interpretation change. Maybe I’m wrong but this league is governed in such an amateur way.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Now I know I'm Liking and Responding to posts that are a few years old, but humour me...

What's with thing about the guy 'trying to make the play'? I hear that quite a lot.

Aren't all players trying to make the play? All the time?

A defender punching the ball away from a forward is their 'play'. The forward doesn't get anything special because their version of 'making a play' is more exciting to the fans.

The whole challenge of 'making a play', and what made Aussie rules such a hard and great game to play - was that the rules were NOT in your favour. If you got the pill, dudes were coming for you and if they didn't have bash you (within the rules) you'd get pinged for HTB.

Same with being a forward. It was fu**ng hard.

I don't know why there's this sense of protecting the guy trying to make the play. I mean, you can make any play you want, but I don't understand why the rules should make it easy for you.


If you think you will get tackled if you take possession - then knock it on. Kick it off the ground.

Or, take possession and be a hero and break clear.

If you do take possession and get caught, then just get rid of it legally. No biggie.

If you take possession and get caught, and can't get rid of it legally - you're gone. No biggie. Take it on the chin and offer kudos to the guy that caught you legally. Good job.

Then move on the next contest and try again.


The only protection you should get is from head high contact, from tripping, and from being pushed in the back. Other than that, stiff shit.

Bingo.

Keep it ****ing simply ffs.

Take possession.

If you’re tackled, dispose of it immediately.

If you don’t, you’re gone.

HOLDING. THE. BALL.

Read the words, you geniuses at AFL House.

You’re not allowed to hold the ball.

If you get tackled, get rid of it. Gloriously simple.

Keep the game moving.

Also means far less stoppages.

More fatigue.

Suddenly all the interchanges aren’t so much of a problem. Players are fatigued because they don’t get a break with a bloody stoppage and a ball-up every 20 bloody seconds.

Negative zone defences are extremely difficult to run as you can’t reset with a bloody stoppage every 20 seconds.

The flow-on effects are endless.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Bingo.

Keep it ****ing simply ffs.

Take possession.

If you’re tackled, dispose of it immediately.

If you don’t, you’re gone.

HOLDING. THE. BALL.

Read the words, you geniuses at AFL House.

You’re not allowed to hold the ball.

If you get tackled, get rid of it. Gloriously simple.

Keep the game moving.

Also means far less stoppages.

More fatigue.

Suddenly all the interchanges aren’t so much of a problem. Players are fatigued because they don’t get a break with a bloody stoppage and a ball-up every 20 bloody seconds.

Negative zone defences are extremely difficult to run as you can’t reset with a bloody stoppage every 20 seconds.

The flow-on effects are endless.

The game has changed. It's not 1970 anymore. Players are much more athletically able to make tackles instantly today compared to back then. The amount of tackles per game has risen significantly. The player needs an opportunity to get rid of the ball. In the space of two games we've seen around 10 head scratching non prior tackles result in htb where the player literally had no chance in getting rid of it. Constant freekicks artificially contrive the outcome of a play. It's not footy when the play is constantly reset. The players need a bit of lee way to actually create the game. **** seeing constant kick to kick style set plays from htb after htb. This isn't the NFL.

 

[Maddo11]

I like the changes, I think most of the calls people have problems with from last night were just genuine mistakes as the umps adjust.

Hopefully after a couple of games they find the right balance

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The game has changed. It's not 1970 anymore. Players are much more athletically able to make tackles instantly today compared to back then. The amount of tackles per game has risen significantly. The player needs an opportunity to get rid of the ball. In the space of two games we've seen around 10 head scratching non prior tackles result in htb where the player literally had no chance in getting rid of it. Constant freekicks artificially contrive the outcome of a play. It's not footy when the play is constantly reset. The players need a bit of lee way to actually create the game. **** seeing constant kick to kick style set plays from htb after htb. This isn't the NFL.

Not sure I agree.

There are many more tackles these days because they allow so many illegal ones. I reckon in 90% of 'gang tackles' one of the tacklers is infringing.

That one last week when the two Port guys tackled Walsh and one of them literally had his arm wrapped around his neck, was a case in point.

I honestly think the AFL could tidy this mess up very easily. Simply ping guys for illegal tackles, and ping guys for not disposing of the ball legally when they get tackled.

I reckon you'd reduce injuries too FWIW.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Not sure I agree.

There are many more tackles these days because they allow so many illegal ones. I reckon in 90% of 'gang tackles' one of the tacklers is infringing.

That one last week when the two Port guys tackled Walsh and one of them literally had his arm wrapped around his neck, was a case in point.

I honestly think the AFL could tidy this mess up very easily. Simply ping guys for illegal tackles, and ping guys for not disposing of the ball legally when they get tackled.

I reckon you'd reduce injuries too FWIW.

This is where people are being misguided thinking this new interpretation was going to fix things. Those non disposals of the ball legally you speak of had nothing to do with the previous interpretation, they have always been htb, it's umpire error which is the issue.

Those ridiculous non prior htb calls last night were never the thing people had an issue over. They had an issue where there was a blatant prior opportunity dropping of the ball, as per Nick daicos, which are consistently missed and was missed by umpire error AGAIN despite the new interpretation! Proves the point that it has nothing to do with the interpretations.

Now you've got a situation where blatant htb are still being missed (because there's nothing in the new interpretation that fixes those umpire errors) whilst players are getting done because of an over correction and focus on non prior tackles.

 

[gillon]

Unless the arms of the tackler are already around the ball-getter, a professional player can basically always get rid of the ball if they really wanted to. It takes them a split second to handball or chuck it on the boot. They don’t do this because it’s not the always the best decision.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Unless the arms of the tackler are already around the ball-getter, a professional player can basically always get rid of the ball if they really wanted to. It takes them a split second to handball or chuck it on the boot. They don’t do this because it’s not the always the best decision.

Is umpiring that so imperative in a very contested situation? Or is the real issue the umpires making errors on blatant htb?

A player having no choice of getting rid of the ball is a disincentive to win the ball because chances are they're not going to get a clean disposal out of it. Again, I don't think that's what people had an issue over. It's way easier to only award those ones where it's blatant. The problem has and always will be umpire errors.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

New interpretation is a winner.
A couple of questionable calls, but that's going to happen anyway.
What it has already done has limited the congestion. Teams aren't committing numbers to the contest because they know if they do they risk being caught out

 

[HairyO]

New interpretation is a winner.
A couple of questionable calls, but that's going to happen anyway.
What it has already done has limited the congestion. Teams aren't committing numbers to the contest because they know if they do they risk being caught out

We had a couple of lucky ones, they had one lucky one. Also both teams got away with a couple.

The quick whistle is good, they just need to get better at judging prior.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

We had a couple of lucky ones, they had one lucky one. Also both teams got away with a couple.

The quick whistle is good, they just need to get better at judging prior.

Agreed, never said the calls were all one way...
But yes, definitely what was required

 

[spenze]

Watched the Crows game today and there were a couple that I thought exceeded the tolerance, one caused a goal against the Hawks but I am liking the new interpretation, should have been brought in at the beginning of the season.

Interested to see if this becomes a weaker interpretation as the weeks go on

 

[Long Live HFC]

Bingo.

Keep it ****ing simply ffs.

Take possession.

If you’re tackled, dispose of it immediately.

If you don’t, you’re gone.

HOLDING. THE. BALL.

Read the words, you geniuses at AFL House.

You’re not allowed to hold the ball.

If you get tackled, get rid of it. Gloriously simple.

Keep the game moving.

Also means far less stoppages.

More fatigue.

Suddenly all the interchanges aren’t so much of a problem. Players are fatigued because they don’t get a break with a bloody stoppage and a ball-up every 20 bloody seconds.

Negative zone defences are extremely difficult to run as you can’t reset with a bloody stoppage every 20 seconds.

The flow-on effects are endless.

while yeah, this would be easier to umpire there has to be some protection for the player who attempts to take possession and make the play - otherwise all we'd get in disputed congestion is players waiting for their opponent to grab the ball so they could effect an easy tackle for a better result than if they'd tried to take possession themselves. we'd also probably see an up-tick of random booting off the ground which while we might sometimes enjoy now, we wouldn't want it to be the norm (would we?).

 

[Long Live HFC]

Watched the Crows game today and there were a couple that I thought exceeded the tolerance, one caused a goal against the Hawks but I am liking the new interpretation, should have been brought in at the beginning of the season.

Interested to see if this becomes a weaker interpretation as the weeks go on

same. while it's the only game i've seen this round so maybe it's been awful in other matches, despite perhaps a couple questionable decisions it was much better than the 20 questionable non-calls we've become accustomed to. has absolutely improved congestion.

 

[zyzzbruh]

same. while it's the only game i've seen this round so maybe it's been awful in other matches, despite perhaps a couple questionable decisions it was much better than the 20 questionable non-calls we've become accustomed to. has absolutely improved congestion.

Rubbish. Would much rather a heap of missed calls than a heap of calls that shouldn't be a freekick.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Rubbish. Would much rather a heap of missed calls than a heap of calls that shouldn't be a freekick.

you obviously didn't watch the game to which i referred. DH.