The rolling rugby maul, which has become a feature of the modern game and been branded as an ‘ugly football’ tactic, can be put down to the tackle.
The knee-jerk reaction is to call for changes to the rules, but the rules are not at fault. The problem is in the way the rules are applied by the umpires.
Let’s simplify the rule, remove the need for interpretation, make a few minor tweaks and voila, no more rolling mauls, less congestion, more reward for skill, and a more open and attractive game for everyone suddenly appears.
To begin, the rule itself.
“A tackle shall be rewarded with a free kick when a player who has taken possession of the football and has had prior opportunity to dispose of the football is restrained by another player and, within five seconds, fails to legally dispose of the football by a kick or handball.”
It then follows, assuming there is no other infraction such as a high tackle or push in the back, a player tackled without possession of the ball is awarded a free kick. A player tackled immediately on taking possession of the ball but before having any opportunity to dispose of the ball shall not be penalised.
If the ball is knocked loose, it shall be play on. If the ball is pinned to the player it shall be a ball up.
A player tackled, having had prior opportunity to make a legal disposal, and has the ball knocked free or otherwise gives up possession, except through a legal kick or handball which shall be deemed to have dropped the ball and a free kick awarded.
A player tackled having had prior opportunity to make a legal disposal and has the ball pinned to him shall be deemed to be holding the ball and a free kick awarded.
The only new part of the rule I would suggest, to eliminate the maul forever is a player tackled, whether or not that tackle remains standing or takes players to ground, shall only be tackled by one player. If a teammate of the tackled player joins the tackle, this shall be deemed to constitute holding the ball and a free kick awarded. If a teammate of the tackling player joins the tackle, this shall be considered an illegal tackle and a free kick awarded to the tackled player.
The tackle of a player who is deemed to have had prior opportunity for disposal shall be deemed complete after five seconds of restraint in which no legal disposal is effected.
There you have it. Simple, clear, only one minor rule change needed. What do you think Roarers?
vocans
Guest
Olivia we'll get a rush of players zooming in to take the ball off of their teammate and so stymie an good tackle being rewarded. Not good for skill, not a fair disposal, and so needs to be ruled out of the game.
vocans
Guest
I note on the AFL site the umps are told not to call prior opportunity unless the player in possession has taken 3-4 steps with the ball! How often is that not adhered to, and sometimes for good reason - you can have sometimes prior opportunity for a number of seconds when you're standing still! These interpretation guides are far more complex and difficult than they admit. I never heard the 3-4 step line before - how can the fans know any of this, let alone the players? Keep the rules simple, and trust gut feel for the game when it trumps the guidelines. It is hard to be an ump! Add in '5seconds' for holding the ball: an eternity and several rotations through 360 later you might get a holding the ball call, no matter how brilliant the tackle. Once again gut feel and game sense rather than the technicalities of interpretation are often better.
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
Stephen, whilst I have sympathy for your point of view I see it this way. A player tackled must legally dispose of the ball. Handing it to a teammate has been illegal for a century so that's out. If you have had prior opportunity and an opponent tries to get the ball from you, you have three choices - legally dispose of it, illegally dispose of it and be penalised, or let the opponent succeed in grabbing the ball which at least results in play on and a chance to tackle him in turn if you can. None of that would need a rule chance and surely a play on call in congested space is preferable to handing your opponent a free disposal; it would only require decent umpiring applied consistently.
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
My point exactly Gene. Any prior opportunity, no matter how small, is prior opportunity. Enforce that and a more free flowing game should follow.
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
Thanks everyone for the comments which, mostly, get to the crux of my article - the reles are there, dear umpires. How about enforcing them? There will always be a need for some level of interpretation because every situation is fluid, but how hard is it to go 'no legitimate disposal when there was a chance to do so = pay a free kick?' I made some suggestions about rule tweaks but the biggest tweak would be the simplest - enforce the rules we already have.
Cat
Roar Guru
If a player has prior opportunity, they must dispose of it legally (handball or kick, no other way), whether players are hanging onto them or trying to rip the ball free is irrelevant if they had prior.
vocans
Guest
Interesting grey area there - needs clarifying, and even, dare I say it, an amendment to the fair disposal rule.
Stephen
Guest
I am seeing a lot of players being tackled fairly but simultaneously other players are trying to wrench the ball from his grip. 1. He is prohibited from handing the ball to a team mate, but is the team mate allowed to wrench the ball from his grip? 2. He would be pretty silly to allow an opposition player to wrestle the ball off him. I can't see any clarity in the rules when this is happening. It also makes it nigh on impossible for him to dispose of the ball legally. What do others think?
AdamG
Guest
And your comment Gene isn't even changing a rule. its just calling it as it should be. 100% agree, the rules are fine, its the understanding / interpretation.
Cat
Roar Guru
problem is with the umpires understanding/interpretation of 'prior opportunity'. Too often do I see a player receive the ball, take 2 or 3 steps, get tackled than the umpire signals no prior opportunity. Sorry but if a player with the ball has time to take steps, thats opportunity, they should be gone, similarly if a player has the ball and has time to swivel their head back and forth looking for a target they too have had plenty of opportunity. Same applies for players 'dropping the ball' in a tackle, if they have taken 2 steps or more, they should be gone. Start enforcing opportunity and the rest falls into place, tackles will be rewarded, mauls go away etc.
vocans
Guest
I agree about the arm wrestle, and locking the body or a part of the body in arms is or should be holding the man. There's usually one who does it first, so ping him. If you can't tell - rebounce, or throw the ball in again, until they're not doing it any more. They'll soon stop. Holding this way diminishes the skill level of the contest, which is far higher when they need to use the body and/or the run at the ball. Rules should always foster skills and not encourage a lack of skill.
oldergent371
Guest
Jack Gibson used to opine that defence wins matches, especially big matches. It should surprise no one that the maul has gained a tactical toehold in AFL. I'm a relative newcomer to Victoria & AFL. I confess to being constantly mystified by umpiring decisions & interpretations. 'Is it me?' I ask myself as I detect yet another refereeing inconsistency eg pushes in the back. I'm too inexperienced to have a view about 1-on-1 tackling in the game. I was coached that way during my time in rugby league & rugby & it worked. What pisses me off, however, is the established practice of arm wrestling when the ball is thrown in. My modest contribution to the rules debate would be to eliminate the arm wrestle. There will always be body contact but the contest should not be tainted by this juvenile practice.
vocans
Guest
Thoughtful as always, Olivia. Most of the 'maul' issues arise from umpires not giving frees where they should. However, there might be some merit to your suggestion about other players manipulating the tackle situation, by holding other players into the contest (holding the man really or holding the ball in by doing so); or by piling on the back of a player with the ball, thus preventing him from disposing of the ball (probably often this is in the back or holding the ball in anyway, but not given as such). It's not only the player with the ball, or his teammates on top of him who holds it in, but also the tackler. Let the tackles be more skilful in this regard, and let the ball player dispose of it properly if he can. A good tackle such as holding one arm makes correct disposal almost impossible if you're lying on the ground - the only alternative is a kick. Another rule missed is holding the man which I think should result when a player uses a crooked wrist and hand to impede another, especially around the clearances. It is not a hand-held hold, but it still disadvantages a more skilled player from getting at and clearing the ball, thus working against the kind of game most of us want to see. There is a skill in using the extended arm in protecting space as in shepherding but the crooked wrist is a hold, ask any primate. Reward the skills and penalise the unskilled is my rule of thumb for making and adjudicating the rules. This went too far out the window when the AFL decided it would manipulate interpretations to create a game to image rather than skill. Let the skills have their free rein and the game will evolve nicely.
Joel Clarke
Roar Pro
I would say no. What needs to happen is umpires need to start applying the rules correctly. The number of times a player is tackled and has had prior opportunity but is not penalised is far too many. The number of times a player simply throws the ball or does not dispose of it correctly is pathetic. Also umpires need to start rewarding blatant free kicks. Last night Travis Cloke clearly pushed Jamison in the back and there was no free kick awarded and then Collingwood kick a goal. What a load of rubbish. Penalises teams far too much. Umpiring standards need to lift and then there way be less congestion. In addition, throw it up quicker.