The current holding the ball rule has shown that the AFL needs to stop changing the interpretation of rules.
Umpires, players, commentators and fans alike are currently confused as to what the rule is regarding holding the ball.
After Alastair Clarkson complained in Round 4 that there weren’t enough free kicks from tackles, holding the ball decisions increased by 51.7 per cent in Round 5, according to Fox Footy.
“We had 69 tackles; I don’t think we had a free-kick from a tackle,” he said. “Sixty-nine tackles and not one of them could be adjudicated holding the ball.
Hawks coach Alastair Clarkson. (Dylan Burns/AFL Photos)
“It’s like what’s happened to our game? You can’t have that many tackles and not one of them be incorrect disposal.”
After Clarkson’s comments, the AFL then advised clubs that a stricter interpretation of the rule was going to be used going forward.
The confusion in the new interpretation allows holding the ball to be paid even if a player has no prior opportunity, a real issue with the new interpretation of the rule. It has been the subject to criticism from past players and fans watching from home who are frustrated with how the rule is being paid.
Consistency is the key with any rule change, something the AFL sometimes has difficulty with and umpires have had an even harder time with. There have been several tackles laid where holding the ball should’ve been paid and several where it shouldn’t have been paid and hasn’t, which shows the rule isn’t consistent and is proving hard for umpires to control.
The new interpretation of holding the ball is punishing ball winners, with some players just getting the ball before being pinged for holding the ball, which goes against the flow of the game, which is aimed at rewarding ball winners.
St Kilda coach Brett Ratten said something similar when he spoke after the Saints’ 23-point win over the Crows in Round 7, saying that while his team would adjust to the holding the ball rule quickly if the rule gets tougher and the umpires are on the lookout for it.
“That’s not how we want to play the game. It’s a fine line and you have to be given some chance to get rid of it,” he said.
“We have to be careful that we haven’t got players just sitting there waiting to tackle players. That’s not how we want to play the game.”
As Ratten pointed out, the interpretation is hard to understand right now for all involved. It needs to be improved.
The new interpretation needs to be consistent and not paid as harshly as it is now to allow ball winners to win the ball and move it forward.
The Dom is good
Roar Rookie
get rid of the dumb stupid 50 m penalty. Its by far the worst penalty of any sport, its embarrassing and time wasting
Nick
Roar Guru
As Rowdy says...paddle or knock the ball on. You don't have to pick it up. That's part of the issue. This mindset that when 15 players have surrounded you should still pick the ball up is wrong. They think they are supermen that can evade that type of smothering!? Bash it forward, grubber it, punch it...whatever. But don't pick it up.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
That's where you paddle the ball forward. Or hip n shoulder your opponent for your supporting teamate coming thru onto clean ball.
GGG
Roar Rookie
I agree with you in a pack situation, but what about when it's 2 players 1-1 going for the loose ball? All too easy for one to just wait for the other to pick it up then tackle
Nick
Roar Guru
It's not a disincentive, it's just getting the player to make the right choice...if you have space to hold the ball and run with it, or handball/kick it, then fair play to you. But if you have picked up the ball in a pile on of players instead of bashing it away from the congestion, then yeah - you should be pinged for holding the ball. But I will admit my offering would do away with the bounce in its entirety, which is probably a bad thing.
GGG
Roar Rookie
Not sure i can agree with something that dis-incentivises the player from going for/picking up the ball, but i do believe that a stricter interpretation for holding the ball needs to be applied. I see the rule ok as is, it just needs to be applied consistently (read too many are not paid), with perhaps a slightly shorter time frame given for prior opportunity.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
The problem there is that Porter was a debutant. Umpires are always tougher on the no-names...unless it's Toby.
Nick
Roar Guru
Full agreement. By taking possession, you forfeited your prior opportunity to dispose/promote the ball. You roll the dice if you get caught. Completely agree.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
1 If you take possession you must know you can be tackled. Elsewise why are you on the field in a footy player's kit? ----- 2 You can always paddle the ball to advantage. Let's make full use of knock-on. It's not League....thankfully. ----- 3 If you are tackled in possession, turnover, no matter how long you had it. ----- 4 If the ball spills free, turnover, you lost it under pressure of being tackled. ---- We should reward the tackler as a point of difference. League rewards the tacklee. Let's reward endeavour. ----- My contention is Aussie is a game of territory in the main
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Any rule where the umpire has to guess the intention of the player is wrong, and it only happens in Aussie Rules. The rule should be that prior opportunity is 2 seconds, no matter if they're running or standing still. If you get tackled after 2 seconds you've had prior opportunity, gone. Simple. This allows players to take the game on but they get punished for not moving the ball. No ambiguity, no guessing intention, no problem with the ball being held in.
Chris_S
Roar Rookie
The good thing to come out of this new interpretation is the players must now really try to get rid of the ball. How many times do you see a player furiously punching the ball with one hand but when the umpire blows his whistle and the camera gets a better view you see the player is securely holding the ball to his chest with the other hand. As far as prior opportunity it is interesting to see how many players choose the punch or kick the ball forward now instead of taking possession. How quickly they adjust!
Wayne
Roar Guru
Holding the Ball can be fixed within the existing rule: 1/ Did you attempt to evade tackle instead of disposing the ball 2/ Did you throw the ball to dispose of it 3/ Did you bounce the ball previously 4/ Did you have reasonable chance to dispose of it legally, and chose not too Simple.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
The holding the ball rule is now that you get pinged if you don't get rid of it, regardless of prior opportunity. It's ridiculous - players now just drop the ball when they get tackled and it's play on, but the players who play the ball and try to dispose of it correctly get penalised. The rule is umpired completely incorrectly at the moment. Although, last night Callum Porter picked the ball up and handballed as he fell forward (all in one motion) whilst being tackled, and the umpire who was standing 30m behind them pinged him for holding the ball. It was the worst decision I've seen in a long time, a complete guess. He couldn't possibly have seen if he threw the ball from that angle, he got rid of the ball as soon as get got it, even if he did throw it the penalty should have been for a throw, yet it was called holding the ball. The umpires this year are the worst I've seen.
Irie
Roar Rookie
I'm not sure why a study can't be raised to see what the average reaction time of an AFL footballer is. If it determines that from time of taking possession to that of making an effective disposal is one second then that is the standard rule of prior opportunity. The umpire sees Player X take possession, counts "one thousand and one" and if tackled before then, there is no prior opportunity and then its either ball up (if ball held to player) or play on if the ball is knocked free. However, if tackled after that time then the player either has to get rid of it immediately and correctly (the "knocked out in the tackle" option is now moot and it becomes incorrect disposal) or the player is pinged for holding the ball. It may not fix every problem but it should allow players, coaches and fans to see some consistency in the application of that rule.