Rules Holding the ball

[eddiesmith]

So I see they’ve returned to previous let it go interpretation for HTB today…

Except for the one where he couldn’t see the player get rid of it after having no prior and still paid HTB 30m out from goal…

 

[HairyO]

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, 100 per cent 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 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 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.

The change was needed because the umpires were taking too long and were risking player health - plus suspensions for tackles.

However, they went way too far and pay HTB way too often now. If there is no prior just ball it up. Waiting 10 seconds for the ruck to run over caused congestion, not the ball up. Fix that issue.

And dont punish the guy getting the ball first. That will encourage players to wait off the ball and pounce on anyone silly enough to get it.

Typical AFL style they finally saw a problem and created a new problem instead of a fix.

 

[Gaspard]

I think that they are running scared and have reverted to the old (3 weeks ago) version.
Holding the man when he doesn't have the ball seems OK now.
With the AFL judgement that the call on Yeo was correct, I can only say that the rule needs to be changed. Here was a player who took the ball under immense pressure and tried to get up and get it out. If this is a free kick against him, then the rule makers have lost the plot. I recall years ago Steele Sidebottom

22

Steele Sidebottom

Age

33

Ht

184cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.4

5star

K

14.1

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

5.5

5star

T

3.7

5star

CL

3.2

5star

D

24.0

5star

K

12.0

5star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

4.3

5star

CL

2.3

4star

D

31.6

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

17.2

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

6.0

5star

was similarly penalized when he actually got to his feet and was pinged. Not much was made of it then because it wasn't in the goal square with the game in the balance, but it was the same nonsensical ruling.
I will repeat what I have previously said. The whole rule structure needs revision, not to make the game faster or anything else new, but to regain its simplicity.

 

[nut]

The rule should be simple.

If you are caught with the ball.

Did you have prior? Yes…., did you dispose of the ball correctly? No…= Holding/dropping the ball.

Did you have prior? No…. Did you attempt to dispose of the ball? No …. =Holding/dropping the ball.

Did you have prior? No… Did you attempt to dispose of the ball? Yes …. = Ball up.

Did you have prior? No… Did you attempt to dispose of the ball? Yes …. Did you dispose of the ball correctly? No… play on.

In every case a player should be trying to dispose the ball. The only thing the umpires should be concerned about is if the player has had an opportunity to dispose the ball.

 

[scottyt2]

The umpires have too many things to think about when it comes to holding the ball..now they're being told to blow the whistle early because of a potential sling tackle making it more confusing for them. Let the tribunal deal with dangerous tackles.