Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL RAY CHAMBERLAIN PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO TWEAKED HOLDING THE BALL ADJUDICATION

“I think the adjustment will serve the game wonderfully well.”

Chamberlain confirmed that the Charlie Curnow-Mac Andrew tackle situation would now likely be holding the ball due to the adjustment of 'reasonable time'.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If you get caught with the ball and it is held to you then ball up. If you get caught with the ball and it spills out, dropping the ball (incorrect disposal) cavaet (you must have taken hold of the ball, if it is being juggled it is not controlled). Free kick tackler.
You flop on the ball or drag it back under whilst on the ground and you are tackled correctly, then free kick tackler. If another team mate comes in to nullify the ball getting out by flopping on top of the players, then free kick against that player.
 
It’s actually not that hard

Was the ball knocked out in the initial tackling action yes/no
Yes, play on
No, Did he have prior yes/no
If no, ball up if ball pinned
If yes, holding the ball

If no, and ball not pinned.
Did they attempt to dispose of the ball, yes/no
If no, holding the ball

If yes, did they dispose of the ball correctly yes/no
If yes, play on
If no, free kick

It’s really that simple


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
skadoosh said:
I don't get the media's uproar about Charlie spinning round and round.

My view is that Andrew's tackle on Charlie isn't a proper tackle. Don't know what the rule book specifies about tackles but I don't think it's a tackle unless the ball is pinned to the player and the ball has nowhere to go.

In Charlie's scenario it should be play on until he either disposes properly (play on), ball gets pinned against him (has prior, so free kick against) or he tries to dispose but unsuccessfully (also free against).

The ball is free in the player's hand and he has the ability to dispose and the ball isn't pinned or dead. So let the game play on.

By the way, pinned/dead ball doesn't require the tackler to drag the player to ground, it requires the ball to be pinned to the possessing player's body such that it isn't going anywhere.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
Should have been push in the back 2 seconds earlier.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Stamos said:
www.theage.com.au

‘Ball. Yes!’: Why AFL umpires need to revive this great footy catchcry

The holding-the-ball rule hasn’t changed, but the way the AFL’s umpires are officiating it has. It’s no wonder players, coaches, past greats and fans are confused and frustrated.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

4 Points, Point 2 is Cripps

Click to expand...
Hahaha... Crippa against single young guns... dominates them. As you would expect... there is only one of them. But against mature bodies, he gets beaten. And the examples he uses are a couple of players against Cripps. Is he intimating that Crippa is a flat track bully who can't deal with a more matured player?
 
BluStreak said:
If you get caught with the ball and it is held to you then ball up. If you get caught with the ball and it spills out, dropping the ball (incorrect disposal) cavaet (you must have taken hold of the ball, if it is being juggled it is not controlled). Free kick tackler.
You flop on the ball or drag it back under whilst on the ground and you are tackled correctly, then free kick tackler. If another team mate comes in to nullify the ball getting out by flopping on top of the players, then free kick against that player.
Click to expand...

This would be a pretty big change to the way the game is played, and heavily favours the tackler over the player making the play on the ball. This is why we have the "prior opportunity" part of the rule. Sure, if you've had a chance to get rid of it, and don't, you're done. But if you get grabbed immediately, it's a very harsh interpretation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dramoth said:
Hahaha... Crippa against single young guns... dominates them. As you would expect... there is only one of them. But against mature bodies, he gets beaten. And the examples he uses are a couple of players against Cripps. Is he intimating that Crippa is a flat track bully who can't deal with a more matured player?
Click to expand...
Think it's just that Cripps struggles when there's 2 matures on him... Not just one.
 
Bletch said:
This would be a pretty big change to the way the game is played, and heavily favours the tackler over the player making the play on the ball. This is why we have the "prior opportunity" part of the rule. Sure, if you've had a chance to get rid of it, and don't, you're done. But if you get grabbed immediately, it's a very harsh interpretation.
Click to expand...

I think if the ball is spilled in one play (say from a kick) and the tackler waits for the opponent to take possession and then immediately tackles them- that is fair interpretation of no prior opportunity - because one player is just waiting for the other player and making no attempt to win possession...

Where I do have a problem with 'prior opportunity' is in situations where the ball is being hnd balled from one player to another ie a team mate to team mate- I think in those situations- there should be no such thing as 'no prior opportunity' - because it was a bd decision for one team mate to place the other in a a non disposal situation....

The other thing that really bugs me is ball being dropped purposefully by players in. tackle situation and making no real attempt to kick it or handball it away and umpire letting that go as a "ball dislodged in tackle"

Pretty sure that the AFL prefer less frees to keep play gfoingh for TV purposes - Ive watched old games from back in teh day when skills were far better and frees were paid much faster and more often...much better game back then as far as being true to what AFl is about= these days they are confusing the game too much with touch rugby on the one hand and the kicking game on the other hand.
 
The biggest problem with changing the rules is listening to coaches. They will push whatever suits their agenda or playing group at the time.

The AFL management truly have no idea and hence people like McBurney involve the world. Nathan Buckley made the most insightful comments on SEN this morning. He quit his role on the rules committee because no one was consultant on a rule change or even previously discussed before implemented. Says it all!!!
 
Really frustrated at the AFL after todays announcement regarding holding the ball, initially i and many thought this was a crackdown on the massive amounts of holding the ball calls missed every game, where a player has had prior and doesnt dispose of the ball correctly.

But after hearing Mcburney talk on 360 tonight, its not that at all, there’s been no change in how they interpret prior or how they interpret a genuine attempt to dispose or the ball knocked out in the tackle.

Mcburney said earlier in the week that the umps have had no issue interpreting holding the ball this year, he’s on another planet to the fans.
 
Again, no issue if they are tighter in their interpretation of HTB but not sure I agree with what happened last night.
With my Carlton hat somewhat on, the one against Weiters, no prior and for mine, lost the ball in the tackle, rather than threw it away. Should have been play on.
One against Walsh in the last. You can clearly see the Port player with his arm over Walshy's shoulder in the tackle. That is too high and a free to Walsh no matter what the interpretation of HTB is. Always has been too high. Everything else is irrelevant in that incident.
Also we had what 77 tackles? for 1 HTB free. ONE!!! How many did they get? Be nice if this new interpretation was applied equally to both sides.
 
Weitering one was text book how I want the rule to be adjudicated, yes no prior and if he’d held it in would have been a ball up however it wasn’t knocked out in the initial tackle and didn’t dispose of it properly.
I was more than comfortable with the decision, let’s just say I was more than miffed by a few of the same things happening not being paid our way especially in the third quarter 🤬


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
teagueyubeauty said:
Weitering one was text book how I want the rule to be adjudicated, yes no prior and if he’d held it in would have been a ball up however it wasn’t knocked out in the initial tackle and didn’t dispose of it properly.
I was more than comfortable with the decision, let’s just say I was more than miffed by a few of the same things happening not being paid our way especially in the third quarter 🤬


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

I take your point and yes there were a few in the 3rd quarter I was referring to. If they were paid, I may be more comfortable with the Weiters one.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top