Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Sam The Doc said:
Burgoyne in front of our goal - surely a free.
Marshall in the middle of the ground.

There were stacks of 50/50s against us also...
Click to expand...
Burgoyne panic threw the ball away when getting tackled twice and dropped it other times. Actually threw it twice. As did other port players. Not called. Apparently illegal disposal is simply not a rule...? If you tighten HTB you HAVE to enforce illegal disposal. Last night was farcical with all the throwing and intentional drops to avoid getting pinged htb
 
We absolutely got reamed last night - again.
I can’t understand how you cannot pay holding the ball, when a player takes on the opposition, has time to dispose, gets legally tackled and drops the ball.

What concerns me though, now that they have decided to ‘only’ pay holding ball for tacklers that hold one arm. Players will adjust to that or worse coached to execute this and someone is going to seriously get injured!!!

The coaching management team should be sacked immediately. If no other reason, proving that listening to one coach brings on a ridiculous change over night.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is becoming farcical.

The definition of a tackle needs to include wording relating to the ball being pinned or trapped. Just because a player's free hand and hips are held, while the ball holding hand is free should not constitute a tackle. It should be play on.

It's on the tackler to either pin the ball from there, or the ball carrier to dispose of it legally. The ball carrier should be allowed to use his own strength to stand up in this situation to try to dispose legally.
 
I was really concerned from the press release the only thing they talked about as being tweaked was the length of time and a free arm…absolutely nothing about incorrect disposal

Supporters get the most riled up about a great tackle and the ball not being disposed of correctly, hands down the most frustrating part of the sport.

It’s actually the easiest part of the rule to adjudicate, as black and white as you can get in relation to any of the rules


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
The change to the interpretation has move the line of where decisions are called. We are still going to have just as many arguments on whether something crossed the line.

Generally the change has been positive. If the ball isn't held in players need to try to dispose of the ball. Looked bad at first viewing but is the correct decision (as long as your not in a headlock at the same time)
 
SkyhorseTamer said:
Burgoyne panic threw the ball away when getting tackled twice and dropped it other times. Actually threw it twice. As did other port players. Not called. Apparently illegal disposal is simply not a rule...? If you tighten HTB you HAVE to enforce illegal disposal. Last night was farcical with all the throwing and intentional drops to avoid getting pinged htb
Click to expand...
Legitimately... the rule is now "attempted to correctly dispose of the ball" so a throw while being tackled if you're trying to handball, or dropping the ball while trying to kick are apparently all completely fine. It's only when it's ones like Weiters where you have one hand pinned and the ball goes slightly up rather than down to the ground is it called incorrect disposal.
 
SkyhorseTamer said:
Burgoyne panic threw the ball away when getting tackled twice and dropped it other times. Actually threw it twice. As did other port players. Not called. Apparently illegal disposal is simply not a rule...? If you tighten HTB you HAVE to enforce illegal disposal. Last night was farcical with all the throwing and intentional drops to avoid getting pinged htb
Click to expand...

I dont see what’s so hard, i understand that sometimes its bad optics when a player makes a genuine attempt to kick or mark and it doesnt work, but its easy to see, so many players just drop the ball, it drives me mental, its a clear difference.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AndyLucimitis said:
Agree. Try even just umpiring a scratch match at training. Bloody hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I've done it. It is hard. But not that hard.

Holding McGovern out of that marking contest was as obvious as it gets yet 3 umpires couldn't see it? N Daicos caught cold in an obvious HTB against the dogs. Not paid.

Those decisions where all 3 umpires have a clear view of something obvious yet none of them blow the whistle is an indicator that we're still miles off in terms of umpiring.

Rule changes mean nothing if you don't have umpires who can apply them consistently.
 
The new HTB adjudication is just awful. A player takes the ball and is instantly tackled by two opposition players. One takes the waist and holds the upper arm, ensuring the ball is trapped in one arm whilst putting their weight on the player with the ball, trapping their legs under them; the second player takes the rear arm, holding it behind them.

The player with the ball cannot lift their feet to kick, nor can they tear their arm free to handpass. The ball might be clear to drop, but there is no legal way to dispose of the ball.

This is not the original intent of the rule, whether we're talking the incorrect disposal interpretation or the prior opportunity interpretation. This is not a rule that protects the ballcarrier or their place in the game; this rewards the team second to the ball.

This is easily the worst rule change they've made in the last 10 years.
 
Gethelred said:
The new HTB adjudication is just awful. A player takes the ball and is instantly tackled by two opposition players. One takes the waist and holds the upper arm, ensuring the ball is trapped in one arm whilst putting their weight on the player with the ball, trapping their legs under them; the second player takes the rear arm, holding it behind them.

The player with the ball cannot lift their feet to kick, nor can they tear their arm free to handpass. The ball might be clear to drop, but there is no legal way to dispose of the ball.

This is not the original intent of the rule, whether we're talking the incorrect disposal interpretation or the prior opportunity interpretation. This is not a rule that protects the ballcarrier or their place in the game; this rewards the team second to the ball.

This is easily the worst rule change they've made in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Agree, last nights Cats game and the WC game the ball player was given no prior so many times it was a joke.
The umpiring leaders are deadset idiots, they tweaked the wrong part of the rule.
Every football supporter to a man/woman would have been happy with the previous interpretation and just penalising incorrect disposal


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Gethelred said:
The new HTB adjudication is just awful. A player takes the ball and is instantly tackled by two opposition players. One takes the waist and holds the upper arm, ensuring the ball is trapped in one arm whilst putting their weight on the player with the ball, trapping their legs under them; the second player takes the rear arm, holding it behind them.

The player with the ball cannot lift their feet to kick, nor can they tear their arm free to handpass. The ball might be clear to drop, but there is no legal way to dispose of the ball.

This is not the original intent of the rule, whether we're talking the incorrect disposal interpretation or the prior opportunity interpretation. This is not a rule that protects the ballcarrier or their place in the game; this rewards the team second to the ball.

This is easily the worst rule change they've made in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Should be an immediate ball-up in that circumstance. But it won't be, will it.

Edit:
For a while, after the Judd-Adams incident, "chicken-wing" tackles were banned. Think that ruling lasted less than a season. We now see these sort of tackles regularly, as described by Geth above. Holding the arm without the ball to prevent a legal disposal by hand. imo, should never be Holding the Ball in this circumstance.
 
Last edited:
teagueyubeauty said:
Agree, last nights Cats game and the WC game the ball player was given no prior so many times it was a joke.
The umpiring leaders are deadset idiots, they tweaked the wrong part of the rule.
Every football supporter to a man/woman would have been happy with the previous interpretation and just penalising incorrect disposal


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
This, this and ****ing this!
 
teagueyubeauty said:
Agree, last nights Cats game and the WC game the ball player was given no prior so many times it was a joke.
The umpiring leaders are deadset idiots, they tweaked the wrong part of the rule.
Every football supporter to a man/woman would have been happy with the previous interpretation and just penalising incorrect disposal


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

If there's been prior opportunity, sure. Think that's pretty clear-cut, and generally gets paid.

The issue is with a player tackled with no prior opportunity. The player then must make a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball. i.e. immediately attempt to dispose by either hand or foot. If that attempt doesn't quite come off, e.g. misses the boot, or ball spills, or misses the fist for a handball, and the umpire adjudicates it was a genuine attempt to dispose correctly, it's play on. The fans see this as incorrect disposal and are up in arms. Understandable.

But, the issue is with the type of tackle that Geth described, where it is impossible to dispose of correctly. e.g. The Curnow-Andrew one from last week. Charlie's arm is held. He's off balance, swung around, and despite having the ball held in a free arm, for a few seconds he has no opportunity to throw it onto his boot. As soon as he gets that opportunity, he kicks it. With the new ruling, the AFL seems to be saying that Charlie can't hold on to it that long - so do what? The only real thing he can do is drop the ball somewhere in the region of his feet. The result of this, we're now seeing a bunch of "incorrect disposals" that aren't paid. And we don't like that either.

But it would be unfair to penalise the player with the ball if he hasn't had fair opportunity to get rid of it. So it's either wait till he does (which has been happening up until this week), or call for a ball-up earlier, which is what I think should happen pretty much every time there's an "arm tackle" like the one on Charlie.

Now the issue with that is that (1) we get a lot more ball-ups; and (2) players deliberately holding the ball in when tackled (ala Swans of mid-2000s).

In any case, I don't think it's as clear-cut as penalising any incorrect disposal. It's coming up with the right balance between giving players opportunity to dispose; making a genuine attempt to dispose; and judicious use of the ball-up.
 
The issue for myself is that Walsh was pinged for holding the ball having no prior opportunity to dispose of it and was tackled by two players.
One had his right arm pulled back behind him and his leg trapped while the other had is other leg and arm trapped (not the ball). The only movement Walsh could have done is drop the ball.

Then on top of that we did the same type of tackle and the ump balled it up. Watching the subsequent games this weekend and there have been similar occurances and no free paid.
 
BluStreak said:
The issue for myself is that Walsh was pinged for holding the ball having no prior opportunity to dispose of it and was tackled by two players.
One had his right arm pulled back behind him and his leg trapped while the other had is other leg and arm trapped (not the ball). The only movement Walsh could have done is drop the ball.

Then on top of that we did the same type of tackle and the ump balled it up. Watching the subsequent games this weekend and there have been similar occurances and no free paid.
Click to expand...
That's the sort of thing that frustrates me too. Gotta favour the guy making the play on the footy.

Think we were always going to see some inconsistencies with rule changes mid-year. Will need a week or two to settle down. Really think this should have waited till end of season.
 
Where has the old fashioned in the back - in which a player tackling another player needs to roll them or come from the side to prevent landing on their back - gone? Did they take out the rule without me noticing? Because it's just not getting paid.

Also, why is it that Essendon were frequently allowed to get away with going the bump when second to the ball, regardless of situation? Chopping arms, in the back, high contact; there were an awful lot of those in this game, but both Harry's and Ollie Hollands come to mind.

Harry was injured in part by Kennedy taking his feet from under him, but his brother slammed his forearms into the back of his head when it happened. Ollie could've been awarded a free for chopping arms and high contact.

And the stoppage after stoppage after stoppage game. You remove prior opportunity and narrow the definition of HTB to a ridiculous pantomime, only payable when certain conditions are met.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Umpires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top