AFL’s holding the ball interpretation is all wrong
Columnist By Ben Somerford, 1 Jun 2010 Ben Somerford is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL umpires, Claremont, holding the ball, Peel Thunder, WAFL, West Coast Eagles
Related coverage
West Coast Eagle's player Andrew Embley is tackled by Carlton's Jeffery Garlett during the AFL Round 10 match between the Carlton Blues and the West Coast Eagles at Etihad Stadium, Melbourne.
I popped down to the WAFL on Saturday and witnessed Claremont demolish Peel Thunder by a staggering 195 points. Yet on the drive home my thoughts were not mesmerized by the margin of the victory but rather the performance of the umpires.
Saturday’s incredibly lopsided encounter was admittedly the first WAFL match I’ve got down to watch first-hand this season.
My Aussie Rules diet this season has consisted only of AFL and it hasn’t been in moderation.
So the short journey down to Claremont Oval was a refreshing change and one which got me thinking about the differences between the national and state-level competitions.
Beyond the obvious discrepancies in quality, the thought which resonated with me throughout the afternoon was the performance of the umpires who were barely noticed all game and did a good job.
Having watched AFL all year, I’ve been continually frustrated by the umpires’ willingness to constantly blow the whistle, particularly for holding the ball decisions. You can tell when they’re going to do it, they seem to let the play go on a little bit longer than usual.
It has appeared at times they don’t ever want to have to bounce the ball for fear of a stoppage.
On Saturday at the WAFL, though, there was no such trigger-happy whistle-blowing from the umpires and it made for better, more pure viewing.
And there’s a reason for these discrepancies. Way back in December last year, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson announced in 2010 league umpires would crack down on players who try to bend the laws on holding the ball.
Anderson said: “What became clear in our consultation with clubs was that on a number of occasions, players are soaking up or absorbing the tackle, forcing a stoppage. Players must make an attempt (to dispose of the ball).”
Aussie Rules is a game where given the number of grey areas in the laws, players will always try to bend the rules to the limits, so that’s the rationale behind Anderson and co trying to find a solution, although I wonder if the problem merits it.
Nevertheless, the interpretation they’ve come up with as a result seems completely out of whack.
On Sunday, West Coast’s Matthew Rosa was pinged for holding the ball when he actually didn’t possess the footy, with the tackler, Carlton’s Heath Scotland, holding the ball around his chest.
In the Round 9 Geelong-Collingwood blockbuster we saw Cameron Ling done in a similar incident and there’s been countless others this season.
Indeed, what seems to have happened is rather than the player with the footy pushing the limits of the laws, the tackler is now the one bending the rules. Once a player dives on a footy, we see several opposition players pounce on that, force the ball under them, tackle them, hold the ball under and win a free-kick.
I’ve overheard umpires say “you’ve got to make an attempt”, but how can you do that when you don’t actually possess the footy anymore?
The point has already been made by numerous AFL commentators that they don’t like the idea of punishing a player for trying to win the ball. Jumping on the ball is what we’re all taught as young footballers, so this interpretation goes against the basic instincts of most Aussie Rules players.
In a video released at the start of the year following their revision of the ‘holding the ball’ interpretation, the AFL stated: “The purpose of the holding the ball law is to keep the ball in play”. Heaven forbid a stoppage!
Indeed, in this circumstance, it seems the AFL’s endless quest to speed up the game has created more problems than it has solved. The new ‘holding the ball’ interpretation appears to have come at expense of the fair and even contest and footy purists will be hating that.
It makes you think, perhaps soon the only place to find a fair dinkum contest will be down at your local suburban footy club.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL umpires, Claremont, holding the ball, Peel Thunder, WAFL, West Coast Eagles
July 13th 2010 @ 2:28am
Alissa said | July 13th 2010 @ 2:28am | Report comment
I don’t care how they want to interpret it, all I want to see is some consistancy. Too often are the umps influenced by the roar of the crowd. Or I will often notice that if an ump has been booed very loudly, the next few decisions they will often give one back.
I know the administrators in all their interviews gloat about more time in play – but isn’t it beneficial to get it over and done with – if you are going to have to bounce it what impact does buying 3 seconds have on it except SLOWING the game down? The stats may look pretty, but it isn’t making the game faster.
I hope they introduce something to address flooding OTHER than limiting interchange swaps. That’s just a knee jerk reaction to injury concerns. Hypocritical for them to listen to those complaints and not that of the Ethiad surface.
July 17th 2011 @ 3:53pm
Simon said | July 17th 2011 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Redb – with you mate!
Many AFL rules are vague. The one that really annoys me is the holding the ball rule/incorrect disposal. It seems that if a player is tackled he has three options: kick, handball and drop. It seems ridiculous that if a player is caught in a tackle, he can legitimately drop it to advantage which is sometimes faster, easier and more effective than kicking or hand-balling. Meanwhile, the tackler has been drawn away from the ball and gets no reward for forcing the incorrect disposal. In my opinion, the prior opportunity rule should be scrapped and the incorrect disposal rule should be made far stricter. This will make players think before taking possession and only do so when they are confident they can dispose of the ball legally. It also means that tackles only need to prevent proper disposal and therefore will often not require huge force. The game would remain free flowing. Another major benefit would be that it would be much easier to umpire: the rules are clear cut i.e. did he handball or kick it yes or no? Prior opportunity rule sucks because it is so subjective.
July 17th 2011 @ 4:03pm
Simon said | July 17th 2011 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Also, I can’t stand when commentators suggest that the umpires should ‘let it go’ because of the close/exciting context of the game, and are happy when blatant free kicks go un-penalized. The false assumption is that the ‘ignored blatant free kick’ count will eventually even out. This seems to apply especially to holding the ball decisions. This does not seem professional to me. I can’t imagine this ever happening in any other mass recognized sport. A rule is a rule! It seems that the AFL rule-making committee is made up of ex-football player boof heads who are incapable of rational thought.