How freaking hard is it to pay the holding the ball rule?
The number of times a player drops the ball or throws it away when tackled and play is allowed to go on is now an epidemic. It has nothing to do with umpiring positioning. Often, they’re right there, right in front of the action, but nothing happens.
On top of that, the commentators seem now to have a different interpretation of the holding the ball rule. How often do they defend the ball-carrier by saying that they haven’t had ‘prior opportunity’?
Does ‘prior opportunity’ count as a qualification when the ball is dropped? When it’s thrown? When it’s not legally disposed of?
Watch the game and pay specific attention to it. This is a challenge to you. Be objective. Watch the game and count the amount of the times the holding the ball rule is blatantly disregarded.
It won’t be some dismissible number. It’ll be pervasive. Any why? How did the implementation of this rule devolve so that it became this oddity?
Football is a simple game. Get ball. Pass ball to teammate. Kick goal. And while this is going on, the opposition’s duty is to get the ball back. One of the ways they are meant to be able to do so is through tackling – a fundamental of the game for as long as I remember. But tacklers are being undermined by an interpretation that has become so loose that awarding the free is becoming the exception.
It seems such a black and white rule: when tackled, the ball-carrier needs to dispose of the ball legally by hand (read: a handball, not a throw) or by foot. That’s it. If they drop the ball and it hits the ground, if they try to kick it and they miss the ball so it hits the ground, it should even be if the player falls in the tackle and plants the ball on the ground, it’s dropping the ball.
It shouldn’t matter whether they’ve had a prior opportunity or not. Prior opportunity was brought in to penalise players who’d had a chance to dispose of it, hadn’t, and then were tackled. Then they could be penalised even if the ball was pinned to them.
Good: get rid of the ball legally. Bad: get rid of the ball illegally.
We often hear the complaint of large packs around the ball, that the game’s become like rugby with scrums and hideous congestion. This is one of the reasons: imprecise disposals.
The ball pops out from a tackle that should’ve been rewarded. Then everybody converges on the loose ball. One of the AFL’s attempts to address this has been penalising when somebody dives on top of the ball and drags it in – it doesn’t matter if that player is trapped under four opponents and it’s physically impossible for him to move, let alone get the ball out. Ping him. But reward an actual legitimate tackle?
It feels like somebody has wanted to dilute this rule because once a free is awarded (as an aside, a free which would actually clear congestion immediately) play stops, and we can’t have play stopping, can we?
We don’t want the ball going out of bounds (thus pay deliberate as much as possible, so players try to keep the ball in), players can kick in immediately following a behind (whereas previously they had to wait for the goal umpire to finish waving their flags), and any time players have a pause (like after a mark) they’re hurried on.
So keep the ball in motion.
This disregard for holding the ball has been going on for a while and it’s not questioned the way it should be. It’s just another ambiguity in the rules, like not questioning when ‘hands in the back’ is applied, or the lotto behind a ruck infringement.
We are programmed, as fans, not to question, to accept the quirkiness behind these rules, to grow conditioned to accepting the way the game unfolds.
You have to wonder if, at some point, some mandate has come down from the AFL. After all, every change they’ve ever implemented has been designed to keep the game moving at all costs.
And perhaps ‘holding the ball’ is just another casualty.
Liam
Guest
Wouldn't this policing result in infinitely more HTB/illegal disposal free kicks? It could absolutely clean up the current issues with throwing/dropping the ball, but it could also exchange the current status quo for a series of other issues.
Liam
Guest
Could you please quote the point in the article where he dismisses prior opportunity, because I can't see it. And the issue with your rather reductive response to this article is that you're somewhat deliberately ignoring what the article is arguing; that players are throwing, dropping or otherwise illegally disposing of the ball, in a way that is not within the rules, and getting away with it. I'm not arguing for a scrapping of the current determination of prior opportunity - even though it can be, at times, an absolute travesty - and I don't think the author of this is, either. The issue here is incorrect disposals that are not paid as frees against, when they are violations of the laws of the game.
c
Guest
what about throwing the ball
Maggie
Guest
Similarly the 'over-the-head behind the hand-balling player' handballs which Port seemed to specialise in a few years ago but now every club does. I think technically most of these are throws as the momentum comes from the moving arm with little punching involved. But personally I find these quite exciting to watch and am not advocating the umpires crack down on them.
mick
Guest
I agree on the throwing thing, it seems half of the rushed handballs are really throws. If the majority of the balls momentum comes from non-punching hand then I say its a throw. Throws are a blight on the game and need to be cracked down on.
R'n'R
Guest
The problem is the AFL has messed with what should have stayed a simple black-white decision making process. 1 is tackled payer in possession? 2 Was tackle legal? 3 was ball disposed of legally? By inserting and expanding concepts like "Genuine attempt" and "prior opportunity" and allowing payers to be "disposessed" instead of calling improper disposal the AFL has made the decision making process more evaluative, interpretative and above all slower. The solution is the same as Don Jolley's recommendation regarding mauls http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-follows-bouncing-ball-20121020-27yil.html
Giddy
Guest
Yep. Without a doubt the most pointless rule to ever be brought in. Has now decided a top of the table clash. I swear it was brought in purely because there are a dozen guys on the rule committee that feel they have to come up with new rules every year. Seriously how many times in the last 20 years does anyone remember the protection zone of just 5m ever being a problem, let alone deciding a game.
Mullo
Guest
This is really well said in terms of setting out the principles. The problem is with the adjudication of situation by the umpire at the time. The first two of your categories are adjudicated fairly well. The last four are all over the place because the concept of prior opportunity has been tightened, but inconsistently so. The third category is often HTB because the player supposedly "made no genuine attempt", often when he couldn't. The fifth category seems to have prior opportunity ignored and HTB is paid if the attempted disposal was unsuccessful. The sixth category is often not a free kick but for what reason it is a mystery. It's that sixth category that causes the biggest gripes for fans.
Giddy
Guest
Agreed
Giddy
Guest
Perfectly said. Couldn't agree more
Giddy
Guest
Wow. I don't think I've ever disagreed with an article more. Whilst you make your point well enough, I disagree completely about the umpires being stricter on it. I believe the umpires are already way to strict on this rule, as for every dropping the ball missed, there are much more when a player is pinned without having any prior opportunity. You need to give some sort of credit to the guy who actually wants to win the ball. It's what our sport and almost any sport is all about. I'd much prefer an extra ball up rather then the current system, where one team receives an unfair advantage. The less the umpires effect the game the better
Pope Paul VII
Guest
tops agreed
JamesH
Roar Guru
I don't quite agree. Here's how it should be: Prior opportunity -> tacked -> kicks or handpasses ball = play on Prior opportunity -> tacked -> fails to kick or handpass ball = free kick No prior opportunity -> tacked -> ball pinned to player = ball up No prior opportunity -> tacked -> ball jars loose = play on No prior opportunity -> tacked -> failed genuine attempt to kick or handpass = play on No prior opportunity -> tacked -> intentionally drops or throws ball = free kick I think my second last line is where we disagree. If a player attempts to properly dispose of the ball when tacked (without prior opportunity) but fails to do so, the player should not be penalised. In that situation they haven't dropped or thrown the ball. To be honest, my biggest grip right now is with players being penalised for holding the ball when they haven't had prior opportunity (excluding where they deliberately drag the ball in to force a stoppage). This is happening far too often.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Yeh, I hate seeing players pinged for going over the mark when the one with the ball has clearly moved off the mark.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Yes, that's right.
gameofmarks
Roar Guru
And how many free kicks have we seen given for exactly those, ie missed handballs and kicks. Plenty I reckon.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I think they are doing their best with this rule. The one that needs looking at is the 50m penalty. Even without the totally superfluous zone coming in this year, this rule has moved totally away from it's original purpose ie penalizing time wasting and gratuitous clouts to the back of the noggin. Nowadays if the bloke on the mark so much as exhales it's an infringement. Going over the mark is fair enough when the ball holder hasn't moved off the mark is fair enough. However, when the ball holder has played on by moving sideways off the mark, clearly playing on, the bloke on the mark moves with him has been pinged for being alert because the ump hasn't called play on. It's a fast moving game, the rule committee should let the ump decide which of the players has taken liberties. Having to wait for the nearest ump to call play on is silly
I hate pies
Guest
Personally, I'd like to see more of a focus on pinging players for throwing, and doing away with the stupid 50 metre penalty for entering the 10m zone around a free-kicker. I think they get holding the ball right most of the time; other than that stupid dived on the ball rule. You know, the one that penalises players for having a crack. If the AFL weren't hell bent on manipulating the game through the umpires most of the umpiring issues would disappear.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
In your first para MF, you mean in close only? Not the rundown when the tackler dislodges the ball in the tackle ( provided the tackle is legal) where the carrier has had prior?
Mister Football
Roar Guru
The ump should legitimately call play on if the ball is knocked free in the process of being tackled (not holding the ball, not incorrect disposal, not holding the man). The ump's decision making is made very, very easy when one arm is pinned - legitimate disposal almost impossible, unless the player gets a boot to it. Similarly, the ump's decision making is made very, very easy where an attempt to either handball or kick misses entirely the necessary limb, which will often happen as a result of the tackle. These aren't inconsistencies in interpretation, they are different scenarios which sit comfortably within the existing rules.