The curls gets the girlsā¦Man I love Charlies curls
Analysis Umpires
- Thread starter thylacine60
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Holding the ball!
Curious to hear people's thoughts on whether the new 'faster ballups' helps or deters us?
When it first came in, my initial thoughts were that it'd really hurt teams like us who can break tackles. Guys like Cripps can have a dude hang off for ages without being brought to ground whilst he scopes out a good handball target.
It seems like we're still getting burnt by this rule change (Cripps and Kennedy in particular), but have also had great team wins since it's been brought in...so what do I know?
Thoughts?
Curious to hear people's thoughts on whether the new 'faster ballups' helps or deters us?
When it first came in, my initial thoughts were that it'd really hurt teams like us who can break tackles. Guys like Cripps can have a dude hang off for ages without being brought to ground whilst he scopes out a good handball target.
It seems like we're still getting burnt by this rule change (Cripps and Kennedy in particular), but have also had great team wins since it's been brought in...so what do I know?
Thoughts?
very helpful, but also very unhelpful50:50
Half a dozen of one, 6 of the other
Ying and yang
Bit of a seesaw
some of my best work
Swings and roundabouts, if you will
I think it helps us because I'd rather Cripps etc give the first option than take on the tackle.
He got caught too often imo.
However as for recent wins there's a few other factors such as better injuries situation, some positive role changes etc.
I agree with Cripps' take.
The balance isn't right in protecting the ball player (one arm free with no prior opportunity getting pinned), while allowing incorrect disposal to go unpunished.
My thoughts, itās gone back to what it was in 4 weeks so nothing to see here
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Once again ol' mate Laura is totally ****ing things up as she's trying to put her stamp of authority on the game.Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Don't forget that earlier this year, she threw the goal umpires under the bus by instructing them to review every 50/50 decision - yet neglected to announce it publicly - which led fans to revolt against them. It was only after the backlash from the Umpires Association that the AFL had to come out and report it was their directive, not the fault of the goal umpires.
But even then, the media were still all over it because it still didn't address the root of the problem which was time wasting. So the AFL decided then to review every decision while the ball is being brought back to the centre.....which is what they should have done in the first place!!! Obvious to every football analyst in the country, but not to Laura and her learned colleagues.
So then halfway through the season they decide to alter the adjudication of the 'holding the ball' rule - which is not just a minor adjustment, but a fundamental shift to the way the game is adjudicated. AND, they then decide introduce the changes mid week AFTER our final training session before the Port game - giving us zero time to prepare.
Anyway, as a result of all this, she's now thrown the field umpires under the bus who are left to adjudicate these changes....and because we have 4 of them on the field, it leads to all sorts of inconsistencies. Even Slobbo tonight said there needs to be a 'think tank' at the end of the year with coaches, umpires, AFL etc to sort this mess out. Which is exactly what should have happened in the first place without the knee jerk reactions of the AFL!!!
We've said it before, but she's clearly out of her depth with football operations. In her defence, it's never been that great, but it seems that in her attempts to put her stamp on the game, it's just getting worse. As you said, more and more grey areas that's even causing confusion in the umpiring ranks when you listen to Razor Ray on his regular SEN segment. The rushed behind and standing the mark interpretations are now a dog's breakfast!!
On a side note, I shuddered when I heard that other flog Dillon come out and say that if the AFL introduce rule changes to the academy and F/S in August this year, that'll give clubs plenty of time to prepare. This is coming from the head of the AFL, who has communicated to the world that he has zero idea on how clubs manage lists.
And these are people who are on multi million dollar salaries in charge of our game.
End of editorial.
Last edited:
It was from Laura, just watching FC apparently there will be no more Monday reports/explainations from Laura about the umpiring decisions anymore reported by Caroline Wilsonā¦Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Theyāve packed up shop apparently itās a time management issueā¦
Gethelred
Moderator
- May 1, 2016
- 31,318
- 60,412
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #2,738
Starting?Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
The entire AFL media landscape is designed to ensure that there's something to talk about from Monday-Thursday, and that includes the rules or contentious free kicks. It's a media strategy, to get clicks and people to tune into radio shows; it's why we get shows like Footy Classified on Monday night rather than on Thursday; by Wednesday, they slowly pivot to the next weekend, leaving last week's circus behind.
There are grey areas in the rules for multiple reasons, but the AFL don't want the rules too transparent or easy to adjudicate. It's a lever by which they can control the game and control fan sentiment, and keep eyes on them instead of at something else.
It's also why any new rules or rule interpretations are presented as loudly and as publicly as possible; or at least, they were before Laura Kane got involved.
I think at least part of the problem she's having is that she thinks this is a sporting enterprise when what it actually is is entertainment. In showbiz, if you reveal the strings to the puppets or how a magician hid their rabbit, you've spoilt their tricks; under Gill, if you had something being announced - whether on 360 as an agenda item for the upcoming week or the umpire's boss says something about a new interpretation of the rules - it's because that's where he wanted you to look. With Kane, I get the impression she wants to make the sport more fair and equitable, which is - frankly - impossible to do without some serious pain for the landscape around it. Too many pieces expecting it to zig when it's zagging.
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,993
- 12,692
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Your frustration is shared by many. But that frustration often stems from a common misconception about incorrect disposal.Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Here's the rule:
---
18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Playerās possession.
18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
---
This isn't a new rule, it's been around forever (well at least since I played, which is close enough to forever ago). But it has consistently been misunderstood by the GP. So the statement you quoted above is a correct interpretation of the rules - if a player hasn't had prior opportunity, and they genuinely attempt to dispose of the ball (e.g. throw a foot at it), it is play on.
What has changed in recent weeks is the amount of time a player is given to correctly dispose of the ball. And this has been incredibly confusing and inconsistent. Also, as a result of this change in interpretation, we are seeing a lot more of this particular situation, where a player is asked to immediately attempt to dispose of the ball, rather than try to break through the tackle. So we get a lot more of these situations where it looks like incorrect disposal, but hits that 18.6.3a clause above.
- Moderator
- #2,740
WTF Andrew
Navy Blues 73
Team Captain
- Moderator
- #2,742
for real!
Well, I guess I didnāt know thatā¦.but neither did Brad Scott or anyone else in the industry let alone the general public. Otherwise, Brad wouldnāt have asked the question considering he was leading that department for the last couple of years.
Seriously though, incorrect disposal is incorrect disposal, and without a shadow of a doubt is the most frustrating part of footy for the General public sitting in the stands.
Itās a deliberate grey area that is easily black n white.
I get the ball being knocked out in the initial part of the tackle is play on, any other time and it should be a free kick.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,993
- 12,692
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I get that. For me though, this bit is key:
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
i.e. the rules favour the player making the play on the ball, over the tackler.
What really frustrates me is when this isn't applied. A player grabs the ball, and is tackled immediately, with no opportunity to get rid of the ball. It should be a ball-up, but we see way to often the "perfect tackle" rewarded with a free. If ball-ups were called earlier and more frequently, we wouldn't have this issue. Then we could look at getting rid of that genuine attempt clause.
- Nov 27, 2016
- 18,640
- 36,310
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Much of that comes from the fundamental incompetence of AFL media. Most people watch AFL on TV.
If this is the main point of contact most people have with the game, it behoves the AFL to ensure that the public are armed with the correct information.
When you have buffoons like BT and Darcy telling us a decision is wrong, when in fact it is correct according to the rules, then the general have every right to be frustrated with the quality of the officiating.
Knowing the rules should be a basic prerequisite of having a career in AFL media.
On SM-F946B using BigFooty.com mobile app
The issue with Ridley is that the ball wasn't pinned to him so he had the opportunity to try to get rid of the ball as hard as it might be and he didn't. Walsh and Kennedy (as well as many others) have both been pinged multiple times in the last month for this. Pretty straight forward free against.Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Ultimately Scott is giving his players an out and changing the discussion away from their poor 2nd half performance to a few decisions robbed them of momentum.
Yep you get as much grey as possible and get the masses to accept it, means you can control the narrative of how effective the umpiring is.Brad Scott got clarity from someone at the AFL about the holding the ball decisions from the bombers game.
The Ridley decision: āAFL said he had no prior but he could have attempted to dispose of the ball, as long as you throw a foot at it and miss it would be play onā
FMD, No, that is incorrect disposal.
Iām starting to be convinced the AFL wants as much grey as possible
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Nov 27, 2016
- 18,640
- 36,310
- AFL Club
- Carlton
We don't accept it. Now what? It's not like there's a choice. Broken football is better than no football.
On SM-F946B using BigFooty.com mobile app
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,993
- 12,692
- AFL Club
- Carlton
One thing that is an absolute certainty. You'll know who the AFL Umpiring panel rates as the top-4 umps when we see which group is doing the Coll v Ess match this week.
