I'm referring to your comment where you think it's better than 20 non calls. Tbh I'd rather 100 non calls over just 10 calls that shouldn't have been a call
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Rules Holding the ball
- Thread starter gungho
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,581
- 4,498
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
my comment wasn't based on theorycrafting. yes, i chose a random number to make my point (which could be accurate or not), but the comment overall was based on watching today's (HAW v ADE) game and whether the HTB change had a positive or negative impact on gameplay compared to recent years. in my view, it was a positive (despite a few decisions which were questionable). the questionable decisions overall were reduced in number, ergo an improvement.
Absolutely trash. Almost making the game unwatchable.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,788
- 42,609
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The quick whistle is needed and refreshing. Its how football was until the 1990s and the Execs meddled.
Getting the prior opportunity right over the next few weeks is vital.
The umps can't get the obvious htb correct, what makes you think they're going to get the already difficult no prior ones correct by tightening it? Not going to happen, and it will always look stupid until they revert it. There was nothing wrong with the game last week except for the umps making howlers on the obvious htb scenarios. As poster above said all they have to do is blow he whistle for the obvious ones - that's the only thing people were complaining about, not the no prior ones.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,788
- 42,609
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
If unsure ball it up.
Easily done. We dont have to have free kicks. Pay the ones you are 100% sure on.
And maybe stop calling 8m kicks marks.
Yes I know you were hence why I chose my own random numbers. Questionable decisions might be reduced, but the incorrect ones under the new interpretations penalise the team completely undeservedly. Previously the errors were mostly missed decisions which would just result in the play continuing - that is better than penalizing and resetting the play unjustifiably.
Yep I'm genuinely gobsmacked that people would prefer undeserved freekicks compared to maybe missing a few touchy ones that at least allow the play to continue without artificial interference.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,788
- 42,609
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The new interpretation has shown something. The teams who got away with a lot are suddenly a bit squirmy, while the rest are suddenly looking a lot better
Like we expected these peanuts to get it right, they have struggled for decades to be consistent with HTB. now after the hoo hah of last week they have completely stuffed it up. I can no longer watch a game and have any idea what HTB they are gonna call , despite similar incidents being paid, and then in the next play being not paid. It's a complete shit show right at this moment.
- Mar 25, 2019
- 11,079
- 21,944
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Probably sounded like Carlton sooking on Thursday night but I've gone from knowing almost nothing bar the extreme is getting paid HTB and being fine with that to now just guessing at whether or not the ump is gonna make up some random **** and pay HTB because they felt like it.
Some of the ones from the Blues v Port, Crows vs Hawks and Geel vs Rich just made absolutely no sense whatsoever. 0 prior, no chance of disposing during the tackle and legitimate attempts at getting free to dispose of it paid HTB, then others where they were spun and clearly dropped the ball or held onto it not paid.
It's just added another element to the perennial chook lotto **** show the AFL has the umps having to follow.
Rules are a complete mess, they almost need to be entirely rewritten from scratch they're that convoluted.
Some of the ones from the Blues v Port, Crows vs Hawks and Geel vs Rich just made absolutely no sense whatsoever. 0 prior, no chance of disposing during the tackle and legitimate attempts at getting free to dispose of it paid HTB, then others where they were spun and clearly dropped the ball or held onto it not paid.
It's just added another element to the perennial chook lotto **** show the AFL has the umps having to follow.
Rules are a complete mess, they almost need to be entirely rewritten from scratch they're that convoluted.
HTB adjudication has always been contentious for as long as I've been following the game but right now it's utterly broken. The AFL so desperately wants to mould itself after US pro sport but ultimately it's still a backwater basketcase of a league.
The AFL has decided to increasingly penalise the ball winner to “force” attacking play.
Basketball had to introduce shot clocks to force teams to attack.
Soccer has teams set up behind the ball as it is, and doesn’t have a shot clock, but you can’t hold onto the ball. The offside rule continues to be adjusted (eg passive offside) to promote attacking play.
Rugby League has the 6 play rule to turn over possession to force attacking play.
Netball has no contact on possession, but holds zones to maintain field position and open play.
The harder you make it to hold onto the ball when you get it, the more risk-averse teams will be in playing the ball.
Given you need the ball to score, you don’t want to give it up, but the AFL is forcing a game that unless you have clear room when you get the ball (uncontested), the ball is essentially in dispute. Ball winners will either give up a free kick, or dump a kick forward. Teams will set up behind the ball even more to win the rushed kick.
AFL have a circuit breaker somewhat unique to it, the mark. Can’t be touched if you have a mark. If teams want to be more risk-averse, you will just chip it around mark by mark.
I’m expecting continuing a longer term trend of Lyon St Kilda / Longmuir Fremantle football to come about. Tackling pressure, set up behind the ball without it, and keepings off with the ball.
Basketball had to introduce shot clocks to force teams to attack.
Soccer has teams set up behind the ball as it is, and doesn’t have a shot clock, but you can’t hold onto the ball. The offside rule continues to be adjusted (eg passive offside) to promote attacking play.
Rugby League has the 6 play rule to turn over possession to force attacking play.
Netball has no contact on possession, but holds zones to maintain field position and open play.
The harder you make it to hold onto the ball when you get it, the more risk-averse teams will be in playing the ball.
Given you need the ball to score, you don’t want to give it up, but the AFL is forcing a game that unless you have clear room when you get the ball (uncontested), the ball is essentially in dispute. Ball winners will either give up a free kick, or dump a kick forward. Teams will set up behind the ball even more to win the rushed kick.
AFL have a circuit breaker somewhat unique to it, the mark. Can’t be touched if you have a mark. If teams want to be more risk-averse, you will just chip it around mark by mark.
I’m expecting continuing a longer term trend of Lyon St Kilda / Longmuir Fremantle football to come about. Tackling pressure, set up behind the ball without it, and keepings off with the ball.
Gaspard
Team Captain
- Apr 27, 2021
- 410
- 1,331
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
On Friday night, I thought the interpretation change was not strong enough. On Saturday afternoon (Hawthorn game), I thought they had it right. Later (St Kilda game) the message seemed to have failed to go West. I wonder where it will be today>
Blue and Silver
Brownlow Medallist
I don't understand how a player gets penalized with no prior and no way to legitimately dispose of the ball.
I understand the Walsh one from Thursday night. He has an arm free.
But I just saw one in the u/18 where two opposition players had gang tackled and had both arms pinned paid with no prior.
If a player cannot reasonably dispose of the ball with no prior, then it's ball up surely
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
I understand the Walsh one from Thursday night. He has an arm free.
But I just saw one in the u/18 where two opposition players had gang tackled and had both arms pinned paid with no prior.
If a player cannot reasonably dispose of the ball with no prior, then it's ball up surely
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
Define prior
I see plenty of players at all levels pick up the ball and try to charge through the pack. That's ball as far as I'm concerned
- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,788
- 42,609
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I dont remember it being a focus until the 1990s. I started watching in the 1970s.
I do like the direction we are going but they need to look after the player who gets the ball and get the prior opportunity right. Thurs and Fri plenty of mistakes, by yesterday there were fewer.
Luckily we benefited more than the Crows.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,638
- 22,966
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
I managed to watch most games over the weekend, hoping to get a feel for the new interpretation.
I used to have a pretty good grasp on what was HTB and what wasn't. What was considered prior and what wasn't.
Now I have absolutely no idea.
They're always a bit more red hot on these new rules in the first game or two, but Carlton had 75 tackles for one HTB! Now I'm not saying that a tackle automatically means a free, but a lot of the Blues tackles that were deemed play on or a ball up, weren't any different from ones that Port got and that I saw paid in other games this weekend.
The rule is now murkier than ever. I like the faster whistle, especially when it's obvious that there's no chance of the ball coming out, but faster whistle doesn't mean right call.
I've also noticed around various social media platforms that a lot of neutrals were happy with the new interpretation after Thursday night's game, but that opinion has swung wildly since their own team has had to cop the strange and inconsistent calls.
I used to have a pretty good grasp on what was HTB and what wasn't. What was considered prior and what wasn't.
Now I have absolutely no idea.
They're always a bit more red hot on these new rules in the first game or two, but Carlton had 75 tackles for one HTB! Now I'm not saying that a tackle automatically means a free, but a lot of the Blues tackles that were deemed play on or a ball up, weren't any different from ones that Port got and that I saw paid in other games this weekend.
The rule is now murkier than ever. I like the faster whistle, especially when it's obvious that there's no chance of the ball coming out, but faster whistle doesn't mean right call.
I've also noticed around various social media platforms that a lot of neutrals were happy with the new interpretation after Thursday night's game, but that opinion has swung wildly since their own team has had to cop the strange and inconsistent calls.
The whole point of peoples complaints went flying over the heads of those at the AFL. All people wanted was less umpire error (aka paying the obvious htb, as per the standard interpretation), not stricter adjudication or quicker whistles.
That Nick Daicos dropping the ball with prior opportunity is exactly what fans want to make sure is paid. It was htb even with previous interpretation. No one GIVES AF about the non prior ones! You compare that missed call to some of the ludicrous non prior htb calls and the game now looks an absolute shit show.
They should ask Travis Boak now what he thinks is htb now
if he didn't know before then fckd if he knew now - What the AFL don't get (and sometimes even the person stating it themselves) is that the statement 'i don't know what holding the ball is anymore' is more so a sarcastic crack at the umpire missing or not making calls in ERROR, not a confusion of the rules or interpretations.Being the geniuses the AFL are, literally everyone knew there would be an overcorrection, took it to the bank. You'd think they would be more than aware to try and finally avoid this cliche. Yet here we are again, overcorrection. The only consistency in the umpiring is the AFL's inconsistency in gauging whats required of the rules and implementing it seamlessly. So inconsistently consistent that it's starting to border on impressive.
I'm usually quite impartial to actually caring too much about rule changes, and tend to take it with a grain of salt. But this one has genuinely ruined the game. The fact that the play is constantly going to be reset and teams are going to score off the back of absolutely random and unjustified no prior htb calls - completely takes away the authenticity of the game for me. Before I was pretty confident the results we saw were based off the players creating the play with minimal interference or randomness. This now blows that out the window. It's actually depressing.
Last edited:
Does anyone know which team received the most free kicks for holding the ball?
Head Selector
Team Captain
- Apr 30, 2023
- 352
- 405
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
That would be a good start .
Make it 20 metres for a kick to mark .
If it is under and paid it will still be 16-17 metres minimum and stop this game turning into Netball on an oval .
The entire bastardization of prior opportunity (originally perfect tackle rule) miscalculation/introduction from short sighted "experts", including Gerard Healy, that espouse the idea, went on to completely alter the game and resultant stoppages/ballups. It has gone on to force a myriad of rule changes since in attempts by the league to try and address all the extra stoppages and consequent congestion and time to set up defenses due to players not being pinged for holding the ball (no prior) and forcing resultant stoppage ball ups.
What is missed, is the reason bastardization of the prior opportunity notion was deemed necessary was because the league stopped paying high contact and in the back free kicks to ball players, It's that simple.
The real talent that could get the ball first stopped being rewarded when players second to the contest got them high, in the back, late etc trying to tackle them. A bunch of ex players and "experts" with the analysis depth of children in reality, kept pushing the "let it go umpire" barrow and the result was the genuine ball players getting it first where getting pinged all the time for holding the ball. The frees the ball players used to get when lesser players made high contact and pushed them in the back etc whilst tackling them, dried up.
So now that the ball players had been screwed over by the short sighted, it was decided to bring back some more protection for them. Rather than just going back to paying the frees they were short shortsightedly no longer paying, they bastardised the whole prior opportunity idea to give the ball players an extra incentive to purportedly keep going the ball first and not get pinged.
It's been the worst single rule screw up in AFL history IMHO. It's generated numerous massive further changes in attempts to try and reduce all the "unforseen" negative results and left the holding the ball rule the single biggest joke of the entire game for any new "fans" to grasp.
Mathews is right; you pay the frees to the ball winner. I don't care if they duck, charge, bend, stop and have a cigarette or attempt to run through. You get the ball first, you get the reward. If we do that, the entire eternally grey, inconsistent and interpretive, prior opportunity nightmare, becomes completely unnecessary. All the idiots who think that will see too many free kicks and resultant play interruption are just that; short-sighted idiots. As if we don't have all the stoppages and ball ups now because of prior opportunity. As if we don't see continual kicking backward and switching back and forth accross the ground already. The game will revert to rewarding ball players who get to the contest first, make the ball the object and take it on.
Edit: The other repercussion of this approach will see those second to the contest being pinged more often for screwing it up when they go high, late, in the back/land on the back etc. This will in time see less head injury occurrences in these situations, as the second to the contest player gets pinged more often for screwing it up. The risk/reward changes and behaviour will adapt away from being careless when second to the contest and that's when head injuries happen in these situations.
There is also a basic reality the league and it's fans have still not grasped. If you intend on maintaining the game as a contact sport, whilst reducing head injuries, you must pay more frees. I know it's a difficult reality for many but nonetheless it is the reality. You have to pay more frees and or reduce the "contact" frequency by changing the contact nature of the sport.. There is no way around that reality.
What is missed, is the reason bastardization of the prior opportunity notion was deemed necessary was because the league stopped paying high contact and in the back free kicks to ball players, It's that simple.
The real talent that could get the ball first stopped being rewarded when players second to the contest got them high, in the back, late etc trying to tackle them. A bunch of ex players and "experts" with the analysis depth of children in reality, kept pushing the "let it go umpire" barrow and the result was the genuine ball players getting it first where getting pinged all the time for holding the ball. The frees the ball players used to get when lesser players made high contact and pushed them in the back etc whilst tackling them, dried up.
So now that the ball players had been screwed over by the short sighted, it was decided to bring back some more protection for them. Rather than just going back to paying the frees they were short shortsightedly no longer paying, they bastardised the whole prior opportunity idea to give the ball players an extra incentive to purportedly keep going the ball first and not get pinged.
It's been the worst single rule screw up in AFL history IMHO. It's generated numerous massive further changes in attempts to try and reduce all the "unforseen" negative results and left the holding the ball rule the single biggest joke of the entire game for any new "fans" to grasp.
Mathews is right; you pay the frees to the ball winner. I don't care if they duck, charge, bend, stop and have a cigarette or attempt to run through. You get the ball first, you get the reward. If we do that, the entire eternally grey, inconsistent and interpretive, prior opportunity nightmare, becomes completely unnecessary. All the idiots who think that will see too many free kicks and resultant play interruption are just that; short-sighted idiots. As if we don't have all the stoppages and ball ups now because of prior opportunity. As if we don't see continual kicking backward and switching back and forth accross the ground already. The game will revert to rewarding ball players who get to the contest first, make the ball the object and take it on.
Edit: The other repercussion of this approach will see those second to the contest being pinged more often for screwing it up when they go high, late, in the back/land on the back etc. This will in time see less head injury occurrences in these situations, as the second to the contest player gets pinged more often for screwing it up. The risk/reward changes and behaviour will adapt away from being careless when second to the contest and that's when head injuries happen in these situations.
There is also a basic reality the league and it's fans have still not grasped. If you intend on maintaining the game as a contact sport, whilst reducing head injuries, you must pay more frees. I know it's a difficult reality for many but nonetheless it is the reality. You have to pay more frees and or reduce the "contact" frequency by changing the contact nature of the sport.. There is no way around that reality.
Last edited:
Gaspard
Team Captain
- Apr 27, 2021
- 410
- 1,331
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
There is a fair amount of substance here, but I'm not in favour of rewarding those who try to barge through and fail.
You are absolutely correct that the AFL has created the problem with its incessant rule tweaks to engineer changes to the flow of the game.
Some, like the kick in rule change, have produced the changes they want at teh cost of making the game look stupid. Others, like the dithering with ruckmen taking the ball from the bounce, have veered from the stupid call of holding the ball as soon as they grabbed it to the current view that ruckmen can't be holding the ball if they take it from the ruck.
There is a desperate need for the AFL to take a copy of the rules from the fifties, look at the ways in which things have changed since then, and craft a new set of rules to make the game work in the modern world with minimum change to the way it operates on the field. Coaches, all of whom have vested interests in maintaining control of games in their own hands, should emphatically not be involved in the process.
Last edited:
Similar threads
