Late non holding the ball call North v Dogs

[The Passenger]

Now i haven't watched a whole lot of AFL football since 2006 having been overseas but i caught the highlights of the Dogs/North game last night and am just curious about the commentators reaction late in the game to a non holding the ball call.

With about 3 minutes to go North had the ball on the outer and one of their fellas kicked it short to a guy who dropped a sitter of a mark on his own. The ball hit the deck and he collected it on the first bounce but as soon as he got control of the ball a bulldogs player tackled him and bought the player and ball to ground. I can't remember the name of any 3 players involved unfortunately.

Now to me that is a ball up. the north player did drop the mark but upon getting control of the ball he was tackled and definetaly had no prior opportunity. Admittedly the North fella didn't make much of an effort to get rid of the ball but it was pinned fairly tight to his chest.

But after the event the commentators seems suprised that a free kick wasn't given which i would've thought was a very harsh free kick.

The way they reacted made me think perhaps the ruling is now a dropped mark is considered to be prior opportunity. Surely that is NOT the case...

He didn't make the best attempt to get rid of the ball and it was a good tackle, but he would've barely had 3 tenths of a second from the time he got his hands on the ball properly to when he was tackled.

What do the neutral fans reckon of this one??

It's hard for me because i don't know how the AFL are policing things at the moment, but in 2006 that was not a free kick, and IMO would be damaging for the game if it were as players aren't going to go for the ball if the holding the ball calls become that hot.

 

[Ricketts]

Don't be suprised to see umps start paying HTB for that. They reckon the more free kicks paid the better!!

 

[boydsno1]

well when he dropped the mark and picked it up he still had chance to get rid of it. i think the rule states that if your over the ball then your considered to be in possition. i could be wrong though.

 

[PasionateRoo]

Mmmm the nature to this question is it all depends which umpire it is, and the theme that round. They go tight on this rule on week, the next week you can have 10 minutes with the ball and not be pinned.

I cant recall the exact incident, but the commentators seemed pretty fair and unbiased on Sunday. So what ever they thought id be happy with....

 

[Pigdog]

What about the one 1 minute later when a North player handed the ball to another North player inside the centre square. Isn't that a throw??

FWIW Lower dropped the mark and was tackled by Eagleton.

 

[boydsno1]

lol i was on the 3rd level and could tell it was a throw from there. ahwells in the past now. that 1 action didnt cost us the game.

 

[The Passenger]

What about the one 1 minute later when a North player handed the ball to another North player inside the centre square. Isn't that a throw??

FWIW Lower dropped the mark and was tackled by Eagleton.

that was a massive throw. I was eating dinner at the time and nearly choked. couldn't believe the umps missed that one.

 

[wells is god]

I might be biased but FWIW i think it would have been an incredibly harsh free kick had Lower been pinned. He dropped a mark he should have taken and as soon as he grabbed the ball was completely wrapped up and thrown to the ground. Good tackle by Eagleton but not holding the ball. That bloody bald umpire was in a world of his own Sunday night, some of his decisions were horrible for both sides, glad he didn't add that particular occurrence to his sizeable list of mistakes for the night.

 

[Losing the passion]

I might be biased but FWIW i think it would have been an incredibly harsh free kick had Lower been pinned. He dropped a mark he should have taken and as soon as he grabbed the ball was completely wrapped up and thrown to the ground. Good tackle by Eagleton but not holding the ball. That bloody bald umpire was in a world of his own Sunday night, some of his decisions were horrible for both sides, glad he didn't add that particular occurrence to his sizeable list of mistakes for the night.

There shouldn't be a free kick paid for that, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was. The umpires seem to be gradually paying more and more kicks when players make a skill error (this includes paying deliberate out of bounds for missing a target).

It also frustrates me when a team is under pressure and is getting successive handballs away whilst under tackles, then a player is tackled as soon as he receives the ball and is pinged. It's like they're paying team prior opportunity or something.

 

[Catstar]

Two comments from someone else who was at the game.

1) Ball up was the correct and fair decision given that the Nth player was tackled almost as he took possession of the ball.

2) The alleged "handing the ball" may not have been seen by the umpire as he was moving around the group of players..... too often we lose sight of the fact that in our opinion some frees are missed when the umpire has been unsighted and is not supposed to "guess"

The umpire had just had a ball up (which was have been facing the TV cameras) moved back and was going around the group of players. I'd rather something be let go or missed rather than guessed.

 

[The Passenger]

It also frustrates me when a team is under pressure and is getting successive handballs away whilst under tackles, then a player is tackled as soon as he receives the ball and is pinged. It's like they're paying team prior opportunity or something.

thats another one too.

it was getting paid more and more, but in just about every game i watched last year (which was only about 6 or 7) you could've pulled out one or two times that occured.

prior opportunity should only be for the last player who has control of the ball.

 

[MF]

Definately not a free. The fact that he dropped the mark and THEN picked up the ball would mean that under the rules it is treated exactly the same way as if the player swooped on a loose ball and was immediately tackled.

 

[pharro]

lol i was on the 3rd level and could tell it was a throw from there. ahwells in the past now. that 1 action didnt cost us the game.

LOL - that reminds me of something that happened during the game at the far end... the second umpire ran from the middle to over rule and give a free kick and someone a couple of rows behind me yells out "How could you see that? You were 100 metres away." And I'm thinking, yeah but we're 180 metres away and we reckon we know best!

 

[Aker39]

I cant recall the exact incident,

So don't comment.

The incident on Sunday was definetly not a free kick.

Don't worry about what the commentators say, they wouldn't know.

Last week Gerard Healy said that it was a free kick if a player hit the ball out from a ruck contest, and it hasn't been touched by a player.

 

[Scroater]

Definately not a free. The fact that he dropped the mark and THEN picked up the ball would mean that under the rules it is treated exactly the same way as if the player swooped on a loose ball and was immediately tackled.

That is how it happened and when eagleton tackled the north player, he threw both arms out like Jesus on the cross. Umpire called for bounce when in whatever game Vozzo had, he definitely gave one for holding it because the player made no attempt to get rid of it and he told him so.

So does Geish teach one set of umpires to pay frees for certain offences and the other set of umpires get taught to bounce it?

Maybe the commentators called for the free because it probably should have been a free.

He gathered the ball, tackled correctly, didn't dispose of it correctly.

 

[pharro]

There shouldn't be a free kick paid for that, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was. The umpires seem to be gradually paying more and more kicks when players make a skill error (this includes paying deliberate out of bounds for missing a target).

It also frustrates me when a team is under pressure and is getting successive handballs away whilst under tackles, then a player is tackled as soon as he receives the ball and is pinged. It's like they're paying team prior opportunity or something.

They often pay that one when a team is chipping around and trying to run the clock down. You just know at that point that the umpire is actually more or less barracking for the other team.

 

[shintemaster]

LOL - that reminds me of something that happened during the game at the far end... the second umpire ran from the middle to over rule and give a free kick and someone a couple of rows behind me yells out "How could you see that? You were 100 metres away." And I'm thinking, yeah but we're 180 metres away and we reckon we know best!

Pretty sure that was the field umpire overruling a goal umpire on whether it was a point or a mark on the line. Seemed a strange thing to overrule from that far away.

 

[pharro]

So don't comment.

The incident on Sunday was definetly not a free kick.

Don't worry about what the commentators say, they wouldn't know.

Last week Gerard Healy said that it was a free kick if a player hit the ball out from a ruck contest, and it hasn't been touched by a player.

Has to be on the full from a ruck contest. That was a new rule introduced not so long back.

 

[pharro]

That is how it happened and when eagleton tackled the north player, he threw both arms out like Jesus on the cross. Umpire called for bounce when in whatever game Vozzo had, he definitely gave one for holding it because the player made no attempt to get rid of it and he told him so.

So does Geish teach one set of umpires to pay frees for certain offences and the other set of umpires get taught to bounce it?

Maybe the commentators called for the free because it probably should have been a free.

He gathered the ball, tackled correctly, didn't dispose of it correctly.

Depends entirely on whether the ball is pinned to him especially if he had no prior opportunity, he has not taken the ball to ground or has not dragged the ball under. Under the no prior opportunity rule, there is still an obligation to make an attempt to get the ball out but he will still receive benefit of the doubt if it is pinned.

Personally, I think players are given too much leeway to hold the ball in when tackled. They should demonstrably try to get rid of it.

 

[Scroater]

Depends entirely on whether the ball is pinned to him especially if he had no prior opportunity, he has not taken the ball to ground or has not dragged the ball under. Under the no prior opportunity rule, there is still an obligation to make an attempt to get the ball out but he will still receive benefit of the doubt if it is pinned.

Personally, I think players are given too much leeway to hold the ball in when tackled. They should demonstrably try to get rid of it.

I'm not complaining about the free/bounce. Done and dusted. It's just that at the time, I noticed he didn't make an attempt and remember Vozzo's instructions in his game. Anyhoo.

(Your bolded bit) Every now and then you get the farcical attempt, with player swinging arm and (a) hitting fresh air or (b) actually hitting the ball with the force of slapping someone with a wet tram ticket or (c) hitting the ball at themselves so that it wont go anywhere. Quite funny to watch.

 

[Aker39]

Has to be on the full from a ruck contest. That was a new rule introduced not so long back.

Yes, I know that. The point was the the commentator didn't.

 

[#1 Dogs Fan]

What about the one 1 minute later when a North player handed the ball to another North player inside the centre square. Isn't that a throw??

FWIW Lower dropped the mark and was tackled by Eagleton.

Good spot out pigdog. I watched the replay again and your right he actually handed him the ball !

 

[Z_K]

Give back the bullshit Minson goal, the free kick leading up to your first goal and the umpire sheparding Hamish from the ball leading to the Aker goal, and you can have your bloody throwing the ball.