Opinion Time to remove 'genuine attempt' to dispose the ball from the AFL holding the ball rule

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Very hard to tell the difference between being dispossessed (ball knocked out by the tackler) and the tackled player deliberately dropping the ball or allowing it to fall clear in the tackle

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

"Prior" is also subjective

Is it time to do a hot potato handball as soon as you gain possession? How much time?

To sum up options?

To take a few steps? How many?

Very difficult for umpires to have the exact same interpretation

 

[Apsaalooke]

Is there a book of "interpretations".

Rule 119.1.1
"If in doubt, award the free to the Victorian team, with the exception of a Showdown where Port Adelaide should be given preferential treatment"

 

[crows dude]

The rule should be you have either disposed of the ball legally, or you haven't and will be penalized.

No "genuine attempt". No dropping the ball. No "it spilled in a tackle". You either handball or kick the ball, or it's a free against

Exactly it’s not hard. You get tackled get rid of the ball by kic or hb and If you dont It’s holding the ball. I hate the holding the ball paid when a players on top of another player. That’s not a tackle

 

[SaltPeter]

Below the knees us the worst rule in the game

Agree, its a shame they cannot penalise players who just slide into contests feet first. And leave the players instinct to dive in trying to actually win possession

 

[1970crow]

Take possession and fail to correctly dispose should be holding the ball. Every other part of the current dogs breakfast needs to be binned. Any argument against is bullshit. “Players won’t take possession of the ball in a contest”. Firstly, bullshit. Secondly, even if true, it means they’ll hack it away from the competition which will reduce ball ups. Which is what they want.

 

[Cap]

I think the rule is fine, but the interpretation could do with a lot of improvement.


By the way, Cap, congratulations on starting a football thread. Well done!

I think removing the need for interpretations and subjective calls makes the game better.

Thanks, but why do I get the feeling you are mocking me

 

[Cap]

Very hard to tell the difference between being dispossessed (ball knocked out by the tackler) and the tackled player deliberately dropping the ball or allowing it to fall clear in the tackle

Agreed, that's why you get rid of it. If it didn't get disposed correctly it's a free kick.

The only subjective call is then, was there prior.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Agreed, that's with you get rid of it. If it didn't get disposed correctly it's a free kick.

The only subjective call is then, was there prior.

Sorry I didn't understand your first sentence?

 

[Cap]

Sorry I didn't understand your first sentence?

Either do I

 

[knobby]

Very hard to tell the difference between being dispossessed (ball knocked out by the tackler) and the tackled player deliberately dropping the ball or allowing it to fall clear in the tackle

That's where a lot of defensively minded teams take advantage. Rather than trying to dispose of the ball thus opening up play, they take the tackle take their chance they wont be penalised.

Umpires pay one or two in the first few minutes of the match players will be more inclined to try to dispose.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Take possession and fail to correctly dispose should be holding the ball. Every other part of the current dogs breakfast needs to be binned. Any argument against is bullshit. “Players won’t take possession of the ball in a contest”. Firstly, bullshit. Secondly, even if true, it means they’ll hack it away from the competition which will reduce ball ups. Which is what they want.

Any decent coach will instruct them not to take possession in a pack, especially in a dangerous area. Natural instincts will be curbed.
I agree about the hack, maybe that's a good thing compared to a ballup or a fabricated free though.

 

[Orange]

I think the rule is fine, but the interpretation could do with a lot of improvement.
I basically agree with you. The one that gets me is the cynical use of the interpretation by those who when tackled, look around and then drop the ball right in front of their teammate, who runs off with it. Sometimes, they even hand it to them and get away with it. I think it's pretty clear when the ball is "knocked out", and don't have a problem with letting that go. Basically, the umpires are the problem at present.

By the way, Cap, congratulations on starting a football thread. Well done!

You realise the umpires don't determine the way the rules are interpreted? They're doing what the AFL is asking them to do.

 

[Thetrader15]

Take possession and fail to correctly dispose should be holding the ball. Every other part of the current dogs breakfast needs to be binned. Any argument against is bullshit. “Players won’t take possession of the ball in a contest”. Firstly, bullshit. Secondly, even if true, it means they’ll hack it away from the competition which will reduce ball ups. Which is what they want.

So take possession and soneone thumps it from your hands. HTB?

Take pissession, immediately thrown to ground and ball spills. HTB?

I don't think either should be unless you have prior opportunity.

 

[Orange]

I agree to a point.



If you get it, are given reasonable time to dispose of it and are tackled, it's either disposed of (fine), not disposed of (holding the ball) or illegally disposed ( incorrect disposal/HTB).

Which is exactly what the rule is now.

If you're immediately tackled and keep possession it would be a ball up.

If you're tackled, have enough time to dispose of it properly, attempt to do so but stuff it up, the tackler deserves to be rewarded. Or if you're not strong enough to retain possession, the tackler should be rewarded.

The current rule as it stands rewards the team/player with worse skills

Which is exactly what the rule is now.

 

[Cap]

Any decent coach will instruct them not to take possession in a pack, especially in a dangerous area. Natural instincts will be curbed.
I agree about the hack, maybe that's a good thing compared to a ballup or a fabricated free though.

I would prefer a crude kick or tap forward (knowing the rules), than another maul that forces a stoppage

 

[Cap]

Which is exactly what the rule is now.


Which is exactly what the rule is now.

No it isn't. That's the point.

 

[1970crow]

Any decent coach will instruct them not to take possession in a pack, especially in a dangerous area. Natural instincts will be curbed.
I agree about the hack, maybe that's a good thing compared to a ballup or a fabricated free though.

They won’t be coached like that. Hacking is dangerous as it’s indiscriminate, take possession, take control and give to a player in a better position. It’s how footy has always been and it won’t change.

 

[1970crow]

So take possession and soneone thumps it from your hands. HTB?

Take pissession, immediately thrown to ground and ball spills. HTB?

I don't think either should be unless you have prior opportunity.

Both holding the ball.

 

[Bone71]

So take possession and soneone thumps it from your hands. HTB

If this occurs in a tackle as opposed to knocking to ball out without tackling i see know reason why it shouldnt be HTB. It ensures the player with the ball doesnt drop it or hold the ball in such a way that the ball will be come out because of the force of the tackle. As a result the umpire does not need to determine intent.

 

[Geoffa32]

Its currently adjudicated so that the player that is either first to/or wins the ball isn't unfairly penalised. The premise is that it would be worse for the game if players weren't encouraged to win the ball.

The fear is that players will stop trying to win the ball, and instead hold back to pounce and tackle the players that do in the belief that there is would be greater % in being rewarded with a free kick.

I'd prefer to see more incorrect disposal frees paid though.

If one player holds back and the other runs through the contest collecting the ball on his front feet at pace he will get away and not be tackled. Or at least be in a good position to move the ball on.

The player holding back will look stupid losing a contest like that.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[SaltPeter]

If one player holds back and the other runs through the contest collecting the ball on his front feet at pace he will get away and not be tackled. Or at least be in a good position to move the ball on.

The player holding back will look stupid losing a contest like that.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I don't agree with the way its adjudicated now. I just think if the free is there, pay it. It shits me when you see players deliberately drop the ball at their feet though and the umpires run with the knocked free in the tackle.

TBH I don't think they really know how to judge it. From memory tackling numbers have more than doubled since the 90's. The games committee tweaks the rules, the coaches work out how to exploit them.

 

[spenze]

Also pretty keen to have the kicking in danger rule struck off the list

I mean, if anyone deserves a good kicking it's that egotistical campaigner

 

[Apsaalooke]

They won’t be coached like that. Hacking is dangerous as it’s indiscriminate, take possession, take control and give to a player in a better position. It’s how footy has always been and it won’t change.

Every time the rules change, the game changes. Coaches have to adapt to survive. Sometimes the change is for the better, but penalising someone for taking possession in a tight situation by paying a free is just silly. Holding the ball was brought to stop people holding the ball too long, not to be crunched 1 second after receiving it and then get penalised.

 

[GreyCrow]

You would see more open play if incorrect disposals were penalized correctly.

Instead of having balls dropped, players picking it up, and tackled in close range over and over again, you'd have a single incorrect disposal paid leading to a free kick. This would open the game up, see the ball move further and open up marking opportunities, and see zones spread

And bring back fatigue as an issue - which I don't mind

Stoppages allow 2nd efforts