Holding the ball

[greentree]

This one annoys the crap out of me.
A player thats in getting the ball has the ball either held to him or held under him and gives away a free kick for holding the ball.
You will see 30 of these every weekend in the AFL, its becoming a skill to hold the ball to the player on the bottom of the pack.
The umpire must be just guessing in 90% of the decissions they make.

 

[Strawbs]

Couldn't agree more greentree. I know what the rule states but it is becoming more obvious by the week that you're better off hanging back rather than making the play. Wait until your opponent tries to be proactive then get rewarded by making sure the ball doesn't come out. Terrific message to send kids taking up the game. Same goes near the boundary - better off being second to the ball - can't get pinged for deliberate then! And now the same applies near the goal line. Disappointing developments.

 

[Bob_vic]

A lot of players "allow" the ball to be trapped on purpose to them and make no attempt to move the ball on, which is probably why it seems like the AFL umps are being too harsh. They probably are, but that's the rationale.

 

[Sandy Grouper]

Wait until your opponent tries to be proactive then get rewarded by making sure the ball doesn't come out.

i agree.
imo this rule is the major one that the "powers to be" have no idea how to handle.
It's not the umps fault as they are doing what they're told, that being, penalising the player who jumps on the ball and doesn't get it out. Fair enough too. But when the play maker jumps on the ball and the second to the contest holds it in, the second player should be penalised.
The stacks on the mill is dead set imbarressing to our game.
The bounce downs are what the league seems to want to get rid of (ie keep the game flowing) yet they can't come up with any rules that are solving the most crap part of AFL.
Get strict on the player holding the ball in and that isn't always the first in.
Taking a leaf out of rugby unions book could be part of the answer. Without knowing the whole knitty gritty of union,
*you can't lie on the ball
*you can't hold the ball in and..
*you can't play the ball unless you are on your feet
More often than not it is the second to the contest that is penalised in union, not the play maker.
I acknowlege that the two games are very different, primarily because our game has no offside, but i think the intentions are the same in this area.

In AFL, when a player jumps on the ball, the opposition should stay on their feet, hold the oppositions jumper and appeal to the ump for holding the ball/be ready to get the pill when it comes out...basic stuff.

 

[bobbafett007]

holding the ball is extinct! ruckmen have even worked this out and are now grabbing the ball from the throw ins and just doing as the please. pull your heads in umpires last week alone i reckon 100 holding the balls weren't paid

 

[Strawbs]

Interesting one paid last weekend (forget which game) where a player dived on the ball, got to his feet but didn't get it out. I've always wondered why this one was let go in the past. To me it's no different to diving on the ball, remaining on the ground and not getting it out. But I'm sure last week's call was the first time I've seen it paid when the bloke has got to his feet. Wonder why that one was paid and none of the previous one have been (and it has happened a lot).

 

[Bob_vic]

Interesting one paid last weekend (forget which game) where a player dived on the ball, got to his feet but didn't get it out. I've always wondered why this one was let go in the past. To me it's no different to diving on the ball, remaining on the ground and not getting it out. But I'm sure last week's call was the first time I've seen it paid when the bloke has got to his feet. Wonder why that one was paid and none of the previous one have been (and it has happened a lot).

Personally (subjectively), if the player had no prior opp and made an attempt to dispose, I would call "play on". The player hasn't dived on it or dragged it in to lock up the football, which is what the rule is intended for. I've rarely seen this happen though.

The spirit of the law is to "keep the ball moving", which is what the player has actually done by diving on it then deciding to keep the ball moving by deciding to stand up again and not keep the ball locked up underneath him.

If the player had plenty of time (reasonable time) to dispose while he was on the ground and wasn't tackled, then got to his feet, then it would be a "prior opp" situation and the player must make a correct disposal. This is the situation that usually happens.

If the player dived on the ball, was tackled, then decided to stand up rather than dispose (which is difficult, but is possible), then it would be a free kick for not immediately disposing of the ball.

Now the technical explanation by the rules.

15.2.6 Diving on Top of the Football
Where a Player is in possession of the football by reason of diving on top of or dragging the football underneath his or her body...

The way I read it, if the reason for being in possession is no longer by diving on it or dragging in underneath his body; e.g. standing up; then, the rule no longer applies, and we go back to the normal prior opp/no prior opp rule.

In 95% of situations where a player does get to his feet, he probably did have a reasonable time to dispose/knock the ball out while he was on the ground, therefore, the prior opp rule would apply in these instances. It's rare that a player dives on the ball then decides to stand up again straight away. It's a bit more likely that the player was already on the ground, dragged the ball in, then stood up. In those cases, the player isn't really holding the ball underneath his body (even if he has dived on it) and the application of 15.2.6 would be a bit harsh.

 

[Strawbs]

Ah, the grey areas of our game. Too many of them I reckon.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

i agree.
imo this rule is the major one that the "powers to be" have no idea how to handle.
It's not the umps fault as they are doing what they're told, that being, penalising the player who jumps on the ball and doesn't get it out. Fair enough too. But when the play maker jumps on the ball and the second to the contest holds it in, the second player should be penalised.
The stacks on the mill is dead set imbarressing to our game.
The bounce downs are what the league seems to want to get rid of (ie keep the game flowing) yet they can't come up with any rules that are solving the most crap part of AFL.
Get strict on the player holding the ball in and that isn't always the first in.
Taking a leaf out of rugby unions book could be part of the answer. Without knowing the whole knitty gritty of union,
*you can't lie on the ball
*you can't hold the ball in and..
*you can't play the ball unless you are on your feet
More often than not it is the second to the contest that is penalised in union, not the play maker.
I acknowlege that the two games are very different, primarily because our game has no offside, but i think the intentions are the same in this area.

In AFL, when a player jumps on the ball, the opposition should stay on their feet, hold the oppositions jumper and appeal to the ump for holding the ball/be ready to get the pill when it comes out...basic stuff.

I see where you are coming from, but keep in mind that technically a player (in a game of Rules) cannot lie on the ball (at least not passively), and cannot hold the ball in either. As for the third point (you can't play the ball unless you are on your feet), this wouldn't work in a game like Rules where the ball is so often "in dispute" (not in a players hands), and being contested at ground level. This situation is a big part of what makes Rules unique, but is not a big part of Union. In fact Union is geared more toward creating the possibility of clean passages of play where the ball moves from hand to hand as much a possible (though it doesn't always work that way, especially in recent Tests against the French).

 

[Bob_vic]

Ah, the grey areas of our game. Too many of them I reckon.

The AFL umpires are interpreting the same way I explained it, (but I do respect the point you're making). The law doesn't need to be any more precise that what it already is. Once the laws and their interpretations are learnt, there aren't really that many grey areas at all. Everything seems fuzzy until knowledge fills in all the gaps. I think commentators should have a better knowledge of the rules that they do. It still astounds me the obvious correct decisions (that have been paid for decades) that the commentators believe are wrong. (Not to say the the umps sometimes do get it wrong too, but nowhere near as much as it's made out.)

People seem to forget that the laws governing our everyday lives are, more often than not, a lot more grey and open to interpretation than the laws of football. Just have a look at taxation law! If football was invented by humans, I'm not sure how it's meant to be any more "clear cut" than anything else on the planet.

It's always a tussle between the yin and the yang (or whatever you want to call it), which is what's great about our game. Too much "black and white" over "grey" is also a bad thing. Too much B&W - not enough flexibility/too unfair. Too much grey - too inconsistant. It's not conceivable, at this point in time, of yin/yang ever being totally "mastered". There will always be times when the balance goes too much one way. Even from the same game, some people will claim too much B&W, while others will claim too much grey, which makes it seem like the umpires always do a bad job. The day this is all mastered is the day we cease to be humans, perhaps...

This is also the reason (yin/yang) I think the bounce should stay and we should get rid of the "recall" rule. The art of ruckmen and the surrounding players improvising according to the bounce of the ball is gradually starting to fade, ie. intuition. Football needs improvisation and intuition. If it becomes too predictable, it will become boring, and people will eventually turn their backs on the back for good. Some set plays are good, but too many of them is bad for the game. We've all gotten too used of just the two ruckmen in the middle contesting the bounce. For the majority of the last 150 years, it wasn't like that at all.

Anyway, enough of the philosophy.

Any doubt whatsoever goes to the player "keeping the ball in motion", as instructed to all umpires at all levels, by the AFL. Keeping that phrase in mind, it shouldn't be too hard to arrive at a decision. That's the reason for the "spirit of the laws" that are meant to be read in conjunction with the laws of football.

 

[Sandy Grouper]

QUOTE]I see where you are coming from, but keep in mind that technically a player (in a game of Rules) cannot lie on the ball (at least not passively), and cannot hold the ball in either.[/quote]

thats my point, Nankervis brothers, you can't do it Union either. Both Union and Footy have the same intentions in their play...keep the ball in motion., so if Union have this sorted and Footy doesn't we could have a look at what they do.
So often the ball is held in by the player second to the ball (they hold it under the player who jumped on it first. The umpires will more often than not call for a ball up (sometimes they will pay holding the ball). There should be no ball up in this situation ever - someone is not allowing the ball to come out, THAT person must be penalised.
If it is the pack that holds it in, then the first player to form the pack on top of the "play maker" should be penalised.
In the rare occasion that 2 players are in dispute, that is both with hands on the ball, and neither can gain clear possession, OK..ball up. But 90% of the time someone is not allowing the ball to come out and it's not always the one on the bottom of the pack.
It always comes out in Union!?

The law doesn't need to be any more precise that what it already is. Once the laws and their interpretations are learnt,

the problem as i see it Bob, is that the rule doesn't say you can't jump on the ball etc, it says that you can't hold it in. So if it is the second or third or 4th player holding it in then they MUST be the ones who are penalised - not always the guy on the bottom. I can't recall ever seeing the bloke lying on the pack pushing the ball back under the playmakerers body (while he's desperately trying to get it out) being penalised for not keeping the ball in motion..NOT EVER.

Most of our rules protect the player with the ball and reward the best competitor ie first to the ball, i thinks the rules/interpretation of them in the diving on the ball/stacks on the mill scenarios don't fully do this.

I go back to my original post in this thread..

when a player jumps on the ball, the opposition should... stay on their feet, hold the oppositions jumper and appeal to the ump for holding the ball/be ready to get the pill when it comes out...basic stuff.

if this technique was employed by the tackling players (or eforced) there would be no "grey" area left. Player dives on ball - opposition tackles correctly - ball comes out or player #1 is penalised for HOLDING THE BALL.

 

[Bob_vic]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. (Maybe it's this..) I think the main problem is when a player holds the ball to himself, (is a situation when he hasn't dived on it or dragged it in), then the tackler also wraps his arms around the ball, pinning it to the player in possession. The umpire has no choice but to call for a ball up. If both teams seem want a ball up, it's not up to the umpire to stop that. I can't understand why the tackler doesn't just grab the player by the jumper or by one arm - then the ball cannot be adjudicated as "pinned".

When the player has dived/dragged, then wrapping the player up it the best option, because it means that the player in possession can't get it out and will be penalised with a free kick.

If one player "pushes" the ball underneath his opponent, who didn't elect to take possession, then it's the player who pushed the ball who's in control of it, therefore, in possession of the ball. If that player is tackled, he should be penalised for holding the ball, not the player who the bal was pushed underneath.

I agree, it doesn't always get paid, but should. The laws are clear.

15.2.5 Diving on Top of the Football
Where a Player is in possession of the football by reason of
diving on top of or dragging the football underneath his or her
body, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that
Player if he or she does not immediately knock the football clear
or Correctly Dispose of the football when Correctly Tackled.

15.2.1 In Possession of the Football
A Player is in possession of the football if, in the opinion of the
field Umpire:
(a) the Player is holding or otherwise has control of
the football;
(b) the Player is in the act of bouncing the football; or
(c) the Player dives or lies on top of or drags the football
underneath his or her body.

 

[Sandy Grouper]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I can't understand why the tackler doesn't just grab the player by the jumper or by one arm - then the ball cannot be adjudicated as "pinned".

When the player has dived/dragged, then wrapping the player up it the best option, because it means that the player in possession can't get it out and will be penalised with a free kick.

That's precisely what i'm getting at Bob
although so often there is no free kick paid and it ends with a ball up. The idea would be to ensure either the ball comes out or a free kick is paid agaist who ever doesn't let it out - and that is very often not the play maker on the bottom of the pack.


If one player "pushes" the ball underneath his opponent, who didn't elect to take possession, then it's the player who pushed the ball who's in control of it, therefore, in possession of the ball. If that player is tackled, he should be penalised for holding the ball, not the player who the bal was pushed underneath.

I am sure i have NEVER seen this paid to the player pushing (holding)it in. Never. Not once.

It doesn't seem like a huge amount of change is needed to sort this out. Tackling a player who dives on the ball in the way you suggest will see either the ball come out or a free kick paid and the ball up will only come into play on a small % instead od the 50/50 stacks on the mill we see too often.

 

[Bob_vic]

I've beaten my head up against a brick wall many-a-time with umpiring. As I've just shown, there's nothing wrong with the law, the way it's written. I guess it's just a matter of picking away and change will happen eventually.

With the player who pushes the ball under, often that player isn't tackled, which gives the umpire the "easy" option of a bounce. Once the ball is "trapped to the ground", it's difficult for the umpire to pay a free kick without somebody cracking the sh*ts about it, especially an observer that may be watching.

In a pack situation, it looks like the umpire has just plucked a free kick. There can be a big difference between perception and reality a lot of the time.

 

[reidy75]

If you watch enough footy (at any level), you'll see pretty quickly why its not an option for the tackler to grab hold of the jumper of the player on the ground, while sticking his other hand in the air and appealing to the umpire.

With no pressure/restriction on his body/arms/the ball, he can very easily assess the situation and get the ball out to a teammate and the ball is gone from the area before the runner can drag the tackler for a poor effort.

The one I would like to see addresses is the second man in from the tackled player's side. i.e. say Enright is tackled, he should automatically be penalised if the third man in is from Geelong. A Geelong player being third man in in that instance is a deliberate attempt to prevent the ball coming out, and could also be penalised for "holding the man" as the original tackler isn't in possession. Making that change would give a lot more opportunity for the ball to come out rather than it being stacks on the mill and a ball up.