Most who love Aussie rules do not like the level of congestion in the current game.
Some years back the AFL started tweaking interpretations of the rules in an effort to speed up the game.
Some new rules (like the interchange) helped, but the tweaking inspired new counterproductive plays, some dangerous and some leading to increased congestion.
» Women’s AFL league on The Roar
» All the teams and squad lists for the women’s AFL
» Complete 2017 women’s AFL fixtures
The irony is that increased professionalism in all areas of the AFL meant that a faster game had always been inevitable. Those who thought they had tweaked their way to this faster game were wrong. The benefits of professionalism masked their error.
The tweaking was focused on what I call the ‘golden rules’ of the game, which had evolved through decades of experience. Holding the ball, holding the man, in the back, incorrect disposal.
The golden rules are designed to privilege higher over lower skill. Giving someone a push in the back, for example, is a very low skill, if indeed it is one, and it cuts down the player who had the skill to get in front with first go at the ball.
That’s why I applauded when hands in the back came in, but, let’s face it, it was merely a return to the golden rule, no great new tweak.
Many were, and are, confused by the incessant tweaking of interpretations that have gone on for years.
For example, holding the ball used to be the result when a player was impeded in the tackle and did not immediately attempt to dispose of the ball. Impeding does not mean stopped in his tracks – it means held in such a way that he simply cannot do what he likes.
2016 saw many examples of players storming on for metres, or swung 360 degrees plus without penalty. Both are examples of significant impediment. Both tend to lead to further congestion.
Coaching and culture changes a lot of the time because of the need to adopt what works. If congestion works that’s what you do. If the tweaked interpretations of the rules create an environment in which congestion is your best option, then erasing the tweaks is needed in order to eradicate as much of it as you can.
I think we should be far more precise, less tweaked, with the interpretation of the golden rules that apply around congested play.
For example, very often players, who on other occasions have a vice-like grip on the ball, suddenly go all weak and seem to spill it when tackled.
Funny how often this occurs only when there’s nobody to give it to, and the alternative would be to lose possession to the opposite team! At this point, players all swoop on the ball and we have the beginnings or continuation of congested play.
Ping this as the incorrect disposal that it is and the resulting free will clear the congestion. These days players are far more skilled at moving the ball on from free kick situations, so giving the free will very seldom slow the game down, as was once thought and feared.
In fact, it will open it up. Just look at the Bulldogs’ movement of the ball. Coaches and culture will adapt very quickly.
Similar scenarios could be drawn for the other golden rules of contested ball play: in the back, holding the man, holding the ball. The one rule they do umpire pretty well precisely is handball/throw.
There is also the tendency to let play go on when it is deemed both sides are committing the same infringement, which clearly fosters congestion. However, the concept of mutual infringement is most often a fallacy as almost always one player starts it and others follow. Penalise the first one and the coaches will stamp out the practice.
For example, mutual holding is a common part of congested play. It seems condoned in ruck contests and many situations around the contest. To me, mutual holding is low skill play and not very satisfying to watch or do.
It takes the place of the higher skill of using your body to shield the fall of the ball (or time your leap) in ruck contests, or the ball or fellow team member in the ground contest.
Current umpiring practice has helped create actual instances of mutual holding. The players and coaches don’t expect to be penalised, so they set up for it. If that guy holds me to his advantage and goes unpenalised, then I better do the same to counter him.
Congestion favours the less skilled over the more skilled play and player. The delight of the game, its excitement, resides in great players doing what they do so well, and great teams likewise. Unnecessary congestion significantly impairs the game.
Rules and their interpretation should do two things: one, protect the players, and two, foster higher rather than lower skills. The golden rules precisely interpreted evolved to do just that. Time to go back to the future.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Yes, isn't a good clean handball a delight to see, like the spinning ball in a rugby pass? Too many disposals which amount to two handed throws.
Batman
Guest
Great article. It's about time the AFL read the rules again and applied them as written. Too much leniency is given in the current interpretation which has eroded the main game principles. This has caused the need to constantly tweak the rules/interpretation. Put a stop to throwing and dropping the ball. Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of the football by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand. HITTING doesn't mean lightly touching as the hand holding throws the ball. The problem is the umpires do not apply the rules as written.
Cat
Roar Guru
If there is no prior opportunity then fine, play on. However, if the player with possession has the time to do any of the following happen it is incorrect disposal. Look left, right or behind them for someone to kick/handball to Take a single step Fake/dummy a handball Attempts a kick and player gets tackled and can't complete it It should NEVER be play on if prior opportunity has been deemed to occur. If a player receives a handball and runs 2 steps then losses it in the tackle that should be incorrect disposal every single time they clearly had a chance to get rid of it and chose not to.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Yes. If I understand the history, players used to have to drop the ball when tackled much as they have to release in rugby. This led to a great slowing of the game, and no doubt congestion. Players would wait for someone else to pick up the ball and fail to drop it and so gain a free. Not a good way to encourage skill and move the game on. You can see how simply dropping it immediately when tackled would have looked ridiculous, especially now compared to the modern game. The incorrect disposal and holding the ball rules were established in the 1930s to counter this. No doubt people started calling out "dropping the ball" then, as players had to get used to the change. Maybe, the call has stuck for 80+ years!!
Craig Delaney
Guest
Cat, my beef is with prior opprtunity when it prevents taking the game on. The umpires should be hyper aware of their responsibility to know when players are infinging by dropping it or are playing for a free. If push in the back is there, so be it. The tackler must execute a legal tackle. So often, the push is just as lazy. I can't see any reason why umpires can't get this one right 99% of the time.
hooked13
Roar Rookie
It does, that means umpires have never, and never will call "dropping the ball" Craig. If I drop the ball without being tackled, and it doesn't reach my foot, it is not incorrect disposal then either. I think unfortunately the fans are the ones having trouble interpreting the rules, not the AFL or umpiring department. The call is either holding the ball, to which there has to be a prior opportunity, or incorrect disposal. Which if the umpire deems it to be not either one of those, if the ball spills out, it must and should be play on. I think people have ingrained poor habits/beliefs of what calls should be made. Just in my opinion. Thank you for taking the time to reply Craig.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Cat, what about this scenario? A player takes possession in two hands but an opposing player immediately knocks it out of his hands. Should that be incorrect disposal? Similarly, if he is immediately bumped so that the force of the bump knocks the ball free? Both would be play on under the current rules. The tackler has not made the tackle stick so no successful skill. I give that a tick. However, the rules say it is play on or ball up if a player has both arms pinned, but I think that should change because the tackle is skilled, and the ball carrier still has the option to kick as a correct disposal. Similarly if he is held by one arm and swung. We do see players get ball to boot quite often in that situation, which is a skill, but when they don't it should be incorrect disposal, not play on as the rules currently stipulate. The tackler has demonstrated greater skill. I think privileging skill over lesser play would clear up some of these contradictions in the rules.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think a lot of people enjoy seeing an individual player taking it on to get through congestion and would opt for the odd player getting away with it every now and then.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Knocking the ball out doesn't require an effective tackle though.
Cat
Roar Guru
And its wrong. A player should either handball it or kick it. If a tackler can 'knock it out', then the tackler should be rewarded because the player did not dispose of it properly.
Cat
Roar Guru
Player's won't stop trying because they get pinged, they'll learn to make better decisions instead of taking the lazy way out of dropping the ball in the tackle and hoping for an in the back free.
Craig Delaney
Guest
I reckon barging through is a legitimate play, but you can't keep doing it when tackled. You must then dispose of the ball legally. Not drop it or hand it to a team mate or collude in him taking it. That needs tightening up.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Yes, there are a number of instances in the Laws where the force or effect of the tackle, and not the tackled player, is deemed to be moving the ball on. Play on is then the call.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Yes, immediate disposal when necessary and doing a bit more with it when not. But too often the playmaker is infringed in the contest - in the back, jumper or body pulled, over the shoulder, etc - so they're not afforded the protection their skills and the rules warrant.
Craig Delaney
Guest
And then how many times do we see a player really trying to break the game apart with a low percentage high skill play, not quite pull it off, get held with the ball and all, or even dispose of it, and get pinged. Why would you want to take the game on in that way. That's how skills get lost to the game. Surely umpires can tell the difference between that and the scenario you're describing, if they're in good position? The interpretation seems far too blanketing far too often.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Thanks Maxirius. These have always been the most contentious rules and interpretations. Umpires and their coaches get a lot of leeway in deciding the interpretations, which is good just as it's good for judges in court to interpret penalties, and bad for the same reason it's bad in court. A well-positioned umpire will get it right most of the time, but not always. I think most fans know it will never be perfect, but we can minimise mistakes and certainly try to be sure we're not legislating them into existence. I reckon the umps get it wrong far too much with players trying to carry the ball through tackles and presses of bodies and just letting it drop. That's definite for me. I think a tackle which pins or takes hold of one arm is a skilful tackle which reduces the ball carrier's disposal options to a kick. If the kick does not eventuate, the call is holding the ball or incorrect disposal if the ball is not handballed legally. It was always regarded as a great tackle when I played and after. The swing in the tackle these days is going out due to injury concerns. That's OK with me, but getting an arm is great play. It is not rewarded often enough. I think tackles are going unrewarded, and conversely those first to the ball are not given enough time to do something with it. Prior opportunity cuts out a lot of potential plays as players want to get rid of the ball as soon as they get it, rather than retain it and do something skilful with it. If then they are caught, they're caught, and we reward the tackle skill. They'd have more time if push in the back and over the shoulder was penalised better. Then we might see the really skilled clever ball getters and carriers evade, and move the ball on by hand or foot. The place we need prior opportunity is when it is clear the player has not tried to do anything with the ball, but just waited to be stuck in a ball held in tackle. Not that hard for a good umpire to see. But too many plays that have obviously been trying to go somewhere but failed are deemed holding it. Why would you want to try high skill footy which is the riskiest but also the most entertaining, if you get pinged if you don't quite pull it off? Maybe I'll stop there.
Craig Delaney
Guest
Cat, you may know something I don't about this. I always thought the force of the tackle knocking the ball clear of the player in possession, which is actually a rare event, is regarded as the same as the tackler directly knocking the ball out of the hands or hold of the player. The player then has not disposed of the ball legally or illegally. The tackling player has effectively knocked the ball further in play. So, play on. I'll have to go back to the Rules for a look.
Cat
Roar Guru
I've got zero patience for blokes feeling wronged when they get pinged for holding the ball after they took 3 steps, looked left, looked right, spun 720 and faked 17 handballs. That's about what it takes for 'prior' to be called half the time.
Cat
Roar Guru
The laws of the game say a player must handball or kick it. Anything else is incorrect disposal. The 'interpretations' in the modern game aren't actual laws of the game. The AFL should ditch the entire 'in the tackle' non-sense. Either kick it, handball it or get pinged.
Maxirius
Guest
Great article Craig The Wiki page is pretty comprehensive on the holding the ball rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_the_ball Interestingly, "dropping the ball" like in a rugby ruck was originally required immediately on being tackled in the early days. I think the "incorrect disposal" interpretations have tightened up in recent years after becoming way to lenient These are apparently the exceptions to the holding the ball for "incorrect disposal": A player who loses possession of the ball when bumped rather than tackled (Law 15.2.4 (a)). A player who loses possession of the ball when his arm is knocked (Law 15.2.4 (b)). A player who drops the ball when his arms are pinned by his side, unless he has had prior opportunity (Law 15.2.4 (c)). A player who drops the ball while attempting to kick or handpass the ball while being swung in a tackle, unless he has had prior opportunity (Law 15.2.4 (d)). A player who drops the ball while being swung by one arm in a tackle, unless he has had prior opportunity (Law 15.2.4 (e)). I agree there still may be some excessive leniency where the ball is knocked out in the tackle with screamingly little resistance from the tackled player...however i think the biggest issue is in the interpretation of the "prior opportunity", where it is still way too leniently applied too often. How are 360 degree tackles not awarded when half that should be deemed prior opportunity? I like your "privileging high skill over lower skills" as a first principle....I think that mutual holding is very difficult to umpire. I almost think it it might be best dealt with post match