While watching the St Kilda versus Port game on Saturday, I wondered what exactly has happened to footy.
There was no flow, no rhythm and no structure. The play looked hectic, hurried and rushed. It was chaos. No one seemed able to get a clean hold on the ball – what you might expect in heavy rain or maybe from players at a much lower level.
At first I credited the intense pressure both sides were applying. Good for them, I thought. They were really going after it. It wasn’t pretty, but it showed heart and determination.
As the match slogged on, I realised I was misinterpreting what I was seeing. The real explanation was much less admirable.
In reality, no one was taking meaningful possession of the ball because no one wanted to take possession of it. They were all afraid of getting pinged for holding the ball.
Over the last month or so, we’ve all seen and talked a lot about the AFL’s effort to keep play moving by asking umpires to adjudicate the holding the ball rule a bit differently.
Umps have been instructed to pay a free kick for holding the ball whenever a player does not make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball, even without a prior opportunity to dispose of it.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Pundits, coaches and fans shouted immediately that this would lead to possession aversion. It punishes aggressive play, they said. It will ruin the game, they said. And now, it seems, we’ve reached that point.
I initially supported the change in interpretation. The expectation of a genuine attempt at disposal had long been a joke. Players would jump on the ball, grip it with every ounce of strength they have, and proceed to lamely tap the ball with the other fist while waiting for the ump to whistle for a ball-up. It was pathetic.
A couple times a game, someone would get called for dragging it in, but it was never enough to keep players from simply trapping the ball. So when the push came to force players to get real about keeping the ball in motion, I thought it seemed apt.
In the first few weeks, we saw some pretty stiff free kicks paid. It was inconsistent, and didn’t quite fit the intent of the new interpretation. The groaning from all quarters got louder. After his side’s win over Adelaide, Brett Ratten commented publicly that players would become hesitant to take first possession.
I kept thinking, “Give it time; they just need to work out the kinks.” However, after four rounds or so, we do not have improved movement, we have hot potato. No one wants to grab the ball. Something has to change.
When someone uses the tired adage about the early bird getting the worm, I always consider the rebuttal: “Yes, but the second mouse gets the cheese.” While a little macabre, I’ve always sort of like that line, because I like to think prudence is as important as speed (my tendency to procrastinate is unrelated, so quiet).
That doesn’t mean always rewarding hesitancy. The goal is to figure out a way to outsmart the trap. Find a way to get there first, be wise about it, and get that cheese. On the footy field right now, though, the message is clear: pick up the ball first, and you’re dead.
So what to do? Should we return to the traditional application? I’d rather not, for the aforementioned reasons. Yet, what we see currently cannot continue.
How do we do all of the following at the same time:
1) Keep the play moving (this is, after all, the whole purpose of the holding the ball rule);
2) Hold players accountable for genuinely attempting to dispose of the ball;
3) Ensure prior opportunity is well understood and consistently afforded;
4) Maintain the incentive for players to take first possession in most cases.
Can we even attain all those things? It’s a tall order, and I’m sure the answer is not simple. I desperately hope the AFL can find a way to bring back some coherency to this aspect of the game.
Lukey miller
Guest
Umpiring used to be simple. The one umpire seemed to always protect the player first in for the ball and players soon adapted to the umpire's interpretation - now we have 3 umps and they are often quite different to each other with their decisions and interpretations. It is complicated now with manic over crowding (36 players often within a 50 metre area) and that usually means a player wanting to take possession will have multiple opponents close and ready to tackle. Chronic over crowding is really the root of most problems in the game, including the problems the writer has identified. The AFL needs to show some resolve and properly fix over crowding.
RT
Roar Rookie
The intention is right, they just have to umpire it a bit better. One thing many of is here have been advocating is no prior but also pay all the other frees that are there, which is often too high or in the back from a poor tackle. Plus stop the third player piling on to a player on the ground. And don't pay the ones that aren't thetmre! We are seeing a number of players pinged when the ball is clearly held to them. It happened to Soldo against GWS on the weekend which started their run if goals. It was so blatent I don't know how it could happen.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Not really. 2 seconds is 2 seconds. That's black and white. Determining whether the player made a genuine attempt to get rid of the footy is a judgement call. The rules can be designed to have no room for judgement calls.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
If you reckon. You've said "2 seconds until he gets tackled, then". "Then" speaks to time, before and after. There is no "immediately". The act of disposal also takes time, as does the application of the tackle itself. "After" the tackle, is it 0.1 of a second, half a second, a whole second? These are, obviously, ridiculous questions: you need to use common sense when making the call .... which is to say, interpretation. Same goes for Paul D's purportedly easy solution to the example I gave. That was, precisely, an example. I can imagine heaps of others. Is it possible to make a rule for every variation? How would that make umpiring any easier, more straightforward, hence less controversial? The point is that interpretation is, and always will be, central to judgement. This is true not just for football, but pretty much everywhere else too. Rules might make it look like things can be clear cut, but the only thing black and white on the football field is Collingwood's jumper.
Megeng
Roar Rookie
I was out at the Gabba on the weekend, thinking about this very problem (quite naturally). One possible simplification is that every time the ball goes to ground with a player it's is a simple turnover where the team getting the ball can only handball it way, not kick.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Sure was.
sven
Roar Rookie
yeah dunstan was ok, just a different cat
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Again Dunny Dustpan should not be mentioned in the same breath as Snowtown or Beaumonts. He instigated a model for state governments to be based on which all other states copied. His championing of the little guy against the big end of town was very commendable.
sven
Roar Rookie
ha ha didnt take u long to rise to the bait rowdy, yeah us viccos have always been wary of the weird goings on in crow eater land, snowtown, beaumont murders, don dunstan … the list goes on
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Yeah, great revisionism Sven. The so-called "Crow Throw" was actually a ball propelled by the fist pushing, rather than striking, the ball out of the open palm. Totally legit. But Victorians didn't like it because they didn't think of it. Rather the same for the "Checkside". When Mick Nunan kicked two for your mob they were scorecarded as "miskicks"
sven
Roar Rookie
the good ol' crow throw ..
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Yeah it was an “interpretation” at one stage. Under my rule their 2 seconds would be up so it’d be holding the ball.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Correct, there is no 360 rule, it's something that's somehow just happened. I like the 2 second idea, its simple which is what we need. There is one problem though, if the ball gets knocked out of the tacklers hands after prior it's not a free kick by the rule book, I think it should be.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
You make a good point there, perhaps some in players are just more aware of umpire position than others, makes total sense
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Yep, spot on. The problem is that the AFL is only concerned with aesthetics, not if the game is umpired fairly, so the intention now is purely to keep the ball moving. A player can drop the ball when they get tackled and get away with it but will give away a free if they actually try to dispose of the ball properly. The AFL has completely destroyed the holding-the-ball rule.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
2 seconds until he gets tackled, then he has to dispose of the ball correctly immediately - simple. The 360 rule is bollocks - it was never a rule.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
In that case I think it's easily solved - if a player is being swung by his jumper and can handball it free, even after a few seconds, it's play on because it's a correct disposal. Tackle round the arms to prevent a correct disposal. The issue, as far as I see it, is players who get caught a split second after getting the ball and drop it - they don't get pinged for incorrect disposal because they didn't have prior opportunity, and that is what is causing all the issues
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
"if he gets caught after 2 seconds and doesn’t dispose of the ball correctly it’s holding the ball." See it sounds like you've made it pretty black and white by removing the question of intention that muddies the waters, but the fact is you've just displaced interpretation on to other, less codified actions. How long after the two seconds us up does the player have to have disposed of the ball by? Alternatively, what constitutes a tackle? Say a player has had possession for two seconds and is tackled by an opponent, who gets enough of a chunk of jumper to swing the player around 360 degrees. Is the player in possession required to dispose of the ball as soon as the opponent grasps the jumper, or is some time allowed once the tackle has been applied? If the latter, how long? If 2 seconds is long enough to dispose, what's the justification for more time once the tackle's been applied? If it's HTB as soon as the tackle is applied (after the initial two seconds), how much contact/force does there need to be to qualify it as a tackle? Presumably a fingernail is not enough.... Don't get me wrong: your suggestion is no worse than any of the other proposed rule changes I've seen floated. But the idea that it's easy, problem solved, is dubious.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
Basically, yes. We need to give it more time. There are big issues with the state of the game at the moment and I think, personally, it's more important we take the time to get any changes right and allow time for them to develop, rather than more short term trimming around the edges of things. Agree the officiating etc is an issue this season but I think it requires a rework of the whole interpretation thing, much as WAAS has suggested above, rather than adjusting it on the fly
christy olsen
Roar Rookie
So you are saying we just haven't given it enough time? I accept that, but what do you think will change going forward? For example, maybe the players just have to figure how to take possession and dispose of the ball really quickly, since they haven't been forced to do that in a long while. I can see that. I also agree with you that the "look" of the game should not be our biggest driving factor in making decisions. I framed things from a viewing perspective b/c that's the only one I have. I guess the game I saw last week just seemed bizarre b/c the players were very clearly avoiding the ball, which gave the game a very unnatural feel. Right now, the players do not seem to know what to do, and the officiating is extremely inconsistent on this front. That's no fun for anybody.