Incorrect disposal/holding the ball interpretation

[scottywiper]

Several times yesterday...I saw players penalised for holding the ball when they were tackled as they kicked...presumably penalised for incorrect disposal.
I have no problem with that at all per se.
Several other times I saw blokes tackled and just drop the ball. The umpires ruled each time that it was knocked out in the tackle.
This I do have a problem with.
Surely, applying common sense logic, the guy making an attempt to legally dispose of it deserves more latitude than the one who just drops it.
Players are now dropping the ball because they know they can.
Why should a player making no attempt to legally dispose get the benefit of the doubt when the player actually trying to do so doesn't. It's arse about.
That is clearly against the spirit of the game.
Hopefully the rules committee can get together and bring in at least three new rules to combat this.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Hopefully the rules committee can get together and bring in at least three new rules to combat this.

Only three? I would be upset if they didn't bring in at least five.

Currently there are so many different interpretations for the same rule.

Player is tackled, had prior opportunity, drops the ball, play on as the ball was 'knocked out in the tackle'

Player is tackled, had prior opportunity, makes an attempt to dispose of the ball, doesnt do it correctly, is penalised for incorrrect disposal

However my favourite interpretation is this:

Player is tackled, had prior opportunity, makes an attempt to dispose of the ball, doesnt do it correctly, however its play on as 'he tried'

I couldnt give a **** if 'he tried'. If he has had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, and doesnt kick or handball the ball, its a ****ing free kick.

How ****ing hard is this??

 

[Mav]

The holding the ball interpretation is terrible. The amount of times the guy who wins the ball and then gets penalized is ridiculous. If you beat your opponent to the ball and he tackles you he shouldn't get a free kick for the tackle. The tackle in itself is the reward as they have stopped the opponent from going forward.

 

[Underdog]

Yep, I made mention of this last week on the umpiring forum. It's absolutely ludicrous.

The amount of players this year you see simply drop or throw the ball and not be penalised is infuriating. Why has this interpretation been brought in?

 

[Mr Reliable]

The better teams actually drop the ball in the direction of or to the advantage of a teammate. The better teams practise this and have been doing so for a couple of seasons or more.

When a player has had prior opp (as the umpires like to say) he must dispose of the ball legitimately when tackled. Not attempt to but actually dispose. This is why AFL umpires pets like Chris Judd and Gazza and Jimmy B and Goodes can spin 360 degrees plus waiting for a better option while lesser lights (including most of our blokes) get hardly any time at all.

When there has been no prior opportunity before the tackle the player must make a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball as soon as he's tackled. This is where all the accidental dropping and throwing to advantage comes in. This is also where the umpires are at their most upredictable.

I have complained about this in the past on here and it still applies. Three or 4 times a game an umpire will award a free kick against the player who is tackled without prior opp - often by 2 or 3 opponents - with arms pinned. The umpire will say "no realistic attempt to dispose of the ball."

You can bet your life that none of the umpires pets will ever cop one of these frees against. But the likes of Swallow, Cunnington, Greenwood will cop it plenty.

These guys should be practising spilling the ball - if they're not already.

As for the rules committee, if they can't rectify this problem by making 5 new rules for the umpires to misinterpret, they should hand in their rule books and AFL gold passes.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Yep, I made mention of this last week on the umpiring forum. It's absolutely ludicrous.

The amount of players this year you see simply drop or throw the ball and not be penalised is infuriating. Why has this interpretation been brought in?

How'd you go on the umpires forum?

In my experience they don't like the umpires even being questioned over there.

 

[Underdog]

How'd you go on the umpires forum?

In my experience they don't like the umpires even being questioned over there.

On second thoughts, it might have been in a post game thread on the Eagles forum following our Sydney game...

 

[groo]

More often than not the rewarded tackles are either to high or a blatant pushes in the back.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Saw the Swans vs Cats game and Goodes dropped the ball, no attempt at a handball or kick, wasn't knocked out in the tackle, just dropped it then receives a free for holding the man.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Saw the Swans vs Cats game and Goodes dropped the ball, no attempt at a handball or kick, wasn't knocked out in the tackle, just dropped it then receives a free for holding the man.

Classic Goodes.

Harking back to the old days when Kevin Bartlett would do the same thing.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Another one thats pissing me off is the interpretation of in the back, its a bloody chook lotto.

 

[Too_many_talls]

Slightly OT but I really wish one of the coaches would tell Scott Thompson and Lindsay Thomas that the umpires are 'onto them' for dragging the ball in and that it does not matter if you can't get it out once you have dragged it in. It seems they each get caught twice a week doing this! (I don't care if the rule is crap, the fact is it is the rule but they keep making the same error...drives me nuts!)

 

[IN & UNDER]

Chris Judd has his own agreement written up on this one

 

[Mr Reliable]

Saw the Swans vs Cats game and Goodes dropped the ball, no attempt at a handball or kick, wasn't knocked out in the tackle, just dropped it then receives a free for holding the man.

I saw that. It couldn't have been more blatant. He had his arms in the air Kevin Bartlett style, as astutely noted by TPAndy.

I rest my case about umpires pets and clueless umpires.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Slightly OT but I really wish one of the coaches would tell Scott Thompson and Lindsay Thomas that the umpires are 'onto them' for dragging the ball in and that it does not matter if you can't get it out once you have dragged it in. It seems they each get caught twice a week doing this! (I don't care if the rule is crap, the fact is it is the rule but they keep making the same error...drives me nuts!)

Do you think our players get coached on the rules and their interpretation? Hopefully yes it's drilled into them.

Maybe they just can't help themselves?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Classic Goodes.

Harking back to the old days when Kevin Bartlett would do the same thing.

Both Goodes and KB play/ed this one pretty cannily. They control the ball without ever actually holding it. Now on the one hand if you don't actually pick up the ball but just paddle it ahead of you until you're in space you can't be pinged for dropping it. On the other hand if you are controlling the ball than under the rules you can in fact be legitimately tackled. But of course as soon as either of them feels/felt the tug on the jumper out go the arms in the Jesus Christ pose and sure enough "peep" goes the whistle.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Back in the day when players like KB were dropping the ball before they were tackled I wrote to the umpires adviser Alan Nash and said it could and should be stamped out by interpreting it as incorrect disposal (throwing the ball).

He wrote back citing some rule that made it illegal to throw the ball to a teammate. He said they weren't doing that and the rules is the rules and they have to be enforced as written.

I said he was ignoring the spirit of the game. On his interpretation a player could throw the ball gridiron style into open space as long as he was not throwing it direct to a teammate. I don't think he bothered to respond. He probably thought I was an idiot (or worse).

At the time, the free kick count was well over 50 per game and Ron Barassi hated players playing for frees in the Bartlett style. We were regularly on the wrong side of the free kick ledger despite being one of the best teams in the comp.

Umpiring the game is a tough job but there are some things, like illegal disposal, that should never be rewarded. Same with the short handball to nobody. Imagine if Carlton's Garlett had been GIVEN a free for holding the man in that late play on Saturday arvo. If you watch closely he handballs the ball into the air as he is tackled and Fletcher's tackle continues on and takes him to ground.

 

[Only Forwards]

By far the ruling that I hate the second most is when a player legitimately tackles another and the balls is not disposed of correctly. its dropping the ball, its worse than holding the ball.

The ruling I hate the most is when the ball is on the deck and there is a player on the ground more than 2 opposition pile in on top of them and the player on the bottom is done for holding.

In the Freo game this happend to us we got done and Roberton got up holding the ball??? how is it the roos players fault if its being held in by the opposition?

 

[Horace]

By far the ruling that I hate the second most is when a player legitimately tackles another and the balls is not disposed of correctly. its dropping the ball, its worse than holding the ball.

The ruling I hate the most is when the ball is on the deck and there is a player on the ground more than 2 opposition pile in on top of them and the player on the bottom is done for holding.
In the Freo game this happend to us we got done and Roberton got up holding the ball??? how is it the roos players fault if its being held in by the opposition?

I am expecting that one day some poor unfortunate soul will actually be pinged for this and when the player receiving the free retrieves the ball, the pinged player will actually be dead from suffocation.

Of course the umpire will still be right.

The player pinged will not have made a legtimate attempt to get rid of the pill because the posse of people falling on him, killed him through that action. Never mind the fact that the pinged/killed player was the one actually trying to make the play.

 

[Horace]

I have long advocated getting rid of the umpires and handing control of the game and free kicks to the Captains. Cannot possibly do a worse job than the current crop of umpires.

 

[Mr Reliable]

I am expecting that one day some poor unfortunate soul will actually be pinged for this and when the player receiving the free retrieves the ball, the pinged player will actually be dead from suffocation. Of course the umpire will still be right.

The player pinged will not have made a legtimate attempt to get rid of the pill because the posse of people falling on him, killed him through that action. Never mind the fact that the pinged/killed player was the one actually trying to make the play.

That won't cause the AFL and the Geese to take any action to protect the player playing the ball.

However, if the player's body is embedded into the ground and cannot be readily removed they will say: 'We can't have this. Play must be continuous.'