Free kicks would help disperse congestion. It’s that simple.
Instead of scoffing, think this through to its logical conclusion: a player picks up the ball and is tackled but is not pinged for illegal disposal or dropping the ball, therefore the ball lands imprecisely. Players then congregate to try to win it. Over and over this happens, the rolling scrum following the ball as players try to win it and break free.
Pay a free kick. The scrum disperses.
Too many fans panic at the suggestion, as if the umpires will either have to pay soft free kicks or invent free kicks. Firstly, let’s remember the game’s often being stopped anyway because an umpire’s coming in to ball it up.
Secondly, the throws are there. The dropping the balls are there. The holding the ball rule I grew up with through the 1980s has become a tattered, pathetic flag that’s too often – and too merrily – ignored. The rule should be simple: if a player is tackled and the ball is not disposed of legally by hand or foot, then it’s a free kick.
Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley also suggested this week that ‘prior opportunity’ should be eliminated. Geelong coach Chris Scott disagreed, saying it would result in “500 free kicks a game”. Again, that’s the panic. Buckley’s right: why should a lack of prior opportunity indemnify a player from disposing of it legally? The drop again creates imprecise disposal, inviting packs to try to win the ball. Pay the free and clear the space.
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
It’s unfortunate that the player making the play could be penalised, but let’s look at the way the game has schismed due to other rule changes. The head was deemed sacrosanct. How often did players then start ducking or dropping knees? Now there’s a rule to address the schism: players ducking will not be paid frees.
What about allowing players to kick out immediately from a behind rather than, as they used to, having to wait for the goal umpire to finish waving their flags? The result is that Hawthorn purposely rushed behinds in the 2008 grand final as a way of resetting play then kicking out and beating their opponents on the counter. The AFL later introduced a penalty for the deliberate rush.
Start pinging players for illegal disposal whether they’ve had prior opportunity or not, and they’re going to focus on disposing correctly. There’s no imperative to do so now because they so often get away with this. Watch teams who’ve become masters of the flick throw – and why? Because they know can get away with it. Why wouldn’t they keep doing it?
Paying frees will also arguably encourage positional play. We have a game of two sides of 18 onballers following the ball back and forth because we have this imprecise disposal inviting them in. Pay these frees and the first thing they’ll learn is to spread hard to present options. This will evolve to them realising it’s better for some of them to hang back to present an option.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Consistency should be the mandate in umpiring. I’m sick of watching countless good tackles during games go unrewarded. You can claim the umpires haven’t sighted the incident only so many times. Watch their positioning – often they can see exactly what’s happening, but that AFL imperative is in their heads: keep the game moving.
These clichés that go around about umpiring baffle me – things like, ‘It would take a brave umpire to pay that’ or, ‘They’re letting the game go’. So an umpire might pay a free on the wing but not the same free in front of the goal? Geography or repercussion – rewarding a player with a scoring shot – should have no bearing on when or where free kicks are paid. Nor should umpires decide that free kicks they might have paid earlier are no longer there later in the game.
There’s also the famous, ‘You have to pay (or not pay) that for the theatre’. So a free will or won’t be paid because the play is dramatic and you don’t want to spoil the moment?
These points delve into imbecilic. A free should be a free at all times, whether it’s in the first second of the game or the last second of the game, whether it’s on the wing or at full forward, but instead we allow these qualifiers and accept them as part of the game – we allow rules to morph depending on some fluid context that can change from game to game, from moment to moment.
Rules are and should be absolute, yet we treat them as suggestions.
christy olsen
Roar Rookie
I think it's funny that the entire concept behind a penalty for "holding the ball" is to keep the game moving. Theoretically, to avoid giving away a free kick, players will dispose of the ball before getting tackled. The other thing that must be considered is the excitement of a player getting out of a tackle. I love watching certain players who are very difficult to tackle. Every week they find a way to break free from what appeared certain doom. It's beautiful to watch. The umpires need to wait a moment to see whether the tackle is successful before blowing the whistle. If they don't, no one will get a chance to break a tackle. Furthermore, what constitutes a complete tackle? Grabbing the guy around the waist? Pinning one arm down? Stopping the guy from moving? Bringing him fully to the ground? Unless there is some standard for when the tackle is complete, there's going to be a lot of inconsistency.
Confused
Guest
It's very frustrating that the umpires don't adjudicate according to the rules. They ignore incorrect disposals ie dropping the ball or throwing it to let the game flow but then occasionally ping a player for doing what has been done a hundred times already in that game. Umpires should not pick and choose when to apply the rule. If they see a rule infringed then call it. It's up to the AFL to ensure the rules are appropriate not the umpires. It's a blight upon the game that the rules state one thing and the umpires apply their own interpretation.
Cat
Roar Guru
Those runners don't have to kick a ball on those tired legs, if they did you'd see the skills drop a lot ... just like we've seen all season long this year. Tired players equal skills dropping off.
Clem
Guest
Agree. They haven't increased the runners in the 4 x 100 metre Olympics because the athletes got tired. The haven't shortened the marathon!.
Clem
Guest
Agree with you. No rule changes needed. And a second point on that.... contact above the shoulder applies equally in the horizontal as the vertical. It is not limited to overhead marking. Time after time most scrums on the cround involve head high contact....not seen a free paid for that for years. Pay a couple of those in the first five minutes and we would cut that scrum rubbish out. As for the comment about umpiring be in position to see throws flicks etc. Sorry! Give me a break! There are three of them...all at different angles.
Lroy
Guest
Everyone knows what prior is. If you get tackled at the exact instant you take possession you didn't have prior so its a ball up. Anything else you did..so its holding the ball. And that's been the interpretation in every league in the land (except the AFL) since JC was playing Fullback for the Israelite's. But because today's players cant execute a blind turn, throw a dummy or kick on their wrong foot the AFL decided to give them a bit more leeway.
DB
Guest
Disagree. How is it fair that first to the ball can be punished when trying to dispose of the ball aftrr having no oppurtunity. You will have people trying to punch the ball out of a players hand when they take possession.
Vocans
Guest
I’ve been saying this on this site for years. Free kicks in the hands of modern players and teams mean heaps. They are often turnovers, and turnovers are currently the name of the game. The ball is moved on quickly more often than not, or should be. Frees should always be awarded, regardless of ‘philosophies’, like the misguided idea frees badly hold up play.
Cat
Roar Guru
Too many grey areas in the rules. AFL is a 360° game so umpires can and do get 'blindsided'. Countless TV reviews shown over and over are always going to show mistakes made by umpires who have one view and one chance to make a call (or not make a call). Hind sight is 20/20 and all that.
Angela
Guest
Yes, the match the Crows beat us Swans at the SCG was weird. The whole match the umpires kept blowing whistles like maniacs yelling play on, play on for every mark. I haven't seen this happening since (not suggesting that's why the Crows won, they were better all round). For a rules amateur like me it seems the umpiring is random. Some things get picked up, others don't. The inconsistency must drive the players nuts. The level of randomness and inconsistency in AFL doesn't seem to be nearly as big an issue for other codes. Is it because AFL is so fast? Or because the ground is so big. Or because there's no offside? Would appreciate any comments from people who know more about the rules than I do.
Birdman
Guest
agree - binning 'prior opportunity' will change the nature of the game until it resembles an uber form of touch footy.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Or don't pay them when they aren't there. The chop of arms they go for when a defender spoils a forward is very often incidental, after the fact or non existent.
Aligee
Guest
Reduce interchange to 30 a game, teams will have to pace themselves instead of charging up and down the ground like chooks with their heads cut off all day. Teams will have no choice but to revert to a more positional type game, , therefore easing the ridiculous amount of tackling, pressure and numbers around the ball.
Cat
Roar Guru
Pay the frees that are there but no need to get rid of 'prior' completely. Come out with strict guidelines of what constitutes prior though. If you ask 10 punters whether a particular play is 'prior' or not you'll get varied answers because there is no clear definition of what it is.
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
Biggest problem is positioning, if the umpire isn't in great position then he'd likely be guessing if the disposal is legal or not. If he pays illegal disposal when it turns out the disposal is a legitimate handball then the outrage will be opposite to what it apparently is now. I've been in that position myself umpiring and I know the last thing everyone (players, umpires,coaches, spectators) wants is for the umpires to constantly assume or guess that a player hasn't disposed of the ball correctly. That said there are times when they allow play to continue when players take on the tackler and have the ball forced out which we were told a couple of years ago would be paid holding the ball that isn't paid. Same with taking on a tackler being considered prior opportunity, although I hope there are still protections for the player going for the ball to have a chance to dispose unlike what Buckley is suggesting.
I ate pies
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly. The incorrect disposal rule seems to be forgotten. This would immediately change the way the game is played, with players choosing to kick or knock the ball forward rather than picking it up and forcing a ball up. Speaking of rules, the umpires seem to have gone back only calling play on after a mark when it's actually play on, unlike earlier in the year. Of course, there's no explanation for this rule change and change back, and the AFL is yet again unaccountable for manipulating the game.