I like that umpires are trying to pay more holding the ball decisions. Well, kinda.
Unfortunately, often what they’re penalising is some monstrous misinterpretation of the “holding the ball” rule that has no context, no logic and no verisimilitude.
Here’s an example from the Collingwood-Fremantle clash:
1. The ball is kicked out from the centre.
2. Collingwood’s Brayden Sier attacks it. Fremantle’s Tobe Watson holds onto him and drags him by one arm during the whole contest.
3. Sier gathers the ball with his free hand
4. Immediately, David Mundy and a Fremantle teammate close on Sier and tackle him front on.
5. Watson tackles Sier from behind.
6. The three Fremantle players are locked around Sier and tumble to the ground.
7. Sier is penalised for holding the ball.
What the hell?
AFL umpire Shane McInerney (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Surely “holding the ball” is only applicable in the following circumstances:
• If a player physically can dispose of the ball, but chooses not to;
• Or disposes of the ball illegally, e.g. by dropping it or throwing it;
• Or holds onto the ball a long time without attempting to dispose of it.
Not one of these criteria apply to Sier. Even if Watson wasn’t already holding him, the two Fremantle players close on him from front-on, making any disposal, or attempt at a disposal, impossible.
Sadly, we’re now seeing a lot of decisions like this now being paid. However well-intentioned, the rule is being bastardised into an absolute that is patently unfair, and definitely not in the spirit of the game.
This has already happened before with another rule – penalising players for diving on the ball, dragging it in, and not making a genuine attempt to get it out.
Okay. That’s fair enough.
But there are occasions a player will have opposition piled on him. Physically, it’s impossible for him to:
a. clear the ball;
b. make a physical attempt to try to clear it, and;
c. move.
What’s expected of the player then? To defy physics, lift three hundred kilograms of weight piled on top of him, and palm the ball clear?
In attempting to go harder on rules, we simplify them until they’re lobotomised.
Look at ‘deliberate’ as another example.
From Sunday’s game Jamie Elliott tried to soccer the ball clear while slipping backward. The ball went about 20 metres forward and rolled out.
Was Elliott’s intention to find the boundary line? Doubtful.
Was Elliott’s intention to clear the ball from congestion and drive the contest further afield? Likely.
It was paid ‘deliberate’.
And we see this with so many deliberates.
The umpires will not take into account any other circumstances.
Was the player just trying to clear it from a dangerous situation with no mindfulness of the boundary line? Were they just trying to gain meterage? Did the ball unexpectedly bounce and spin out?
And here’s the answer: who cares?
Anything that is kicked and ends up going over the boundary line when teammates aren’t present will be deemed deliberate.
That’s the attitude nowadays.
It’s frustrating watching games.
We’ll excuse the umpires and lament their job is hard and thankless, while the bigger problem is ignored: interpretation.
Does it even matter anymore?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
That's why l say there should be no 'no-prior' interpretations. Make it cut n dried. You must know that if you take possession you are fair game to be tackled. It's not like you 'didn't know' you were playing football. You know, you've got the strip n sprigs on. How hard is it? ------ I'll say it again, Australian Football is a Territory game. Leave the Possession style game for Football, League and Union.
Ball Burster
Roar Rookie
The umps will only be truly accountable once there's a weekly analysis of all potential and actual free kicks in every game. For potential free kicks: why wasn't a free kick paid and was the decision correct, wrong or borderline. Similar for free kicks paid. The players are closely scrutinised (clangers, 1 percenters, etc). Why not the umps too? Perhaps theres's a highly paid job in this for me!
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
I've seen several holding the ball decisions recently where the player has actually gotten a hand ball off. They need to actually define what a tackle is. In my opinion the Andy McGrath decision was wrong because the other player wasn't even tackling him; they both had the ball and no-one was actually being tackled. I've seen them paid when players are holding an arm and nothing else. It's incorrect disposal but not holding the ball. I watched a replay of a game from last year last night and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the "interpretation" then. The AFL has created its own problem here.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
I think the one call last week that enraged me to no end was the shiel tackle in the first quarter. He was pretty much slammed down onto his neck without the ball. My opinion is that the AFL should do as follows: 1. Safety free kicks like high contact and tunneling and what not have to be called regardless otherwise the umpire themselves may face sanction. 2. The technical free kicks like holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds must be simplified to the point where there’s no debate. 3. Fire razor ray.
ScottyJ
Roar Rookie
Agree with this. Its a bad look. Also if a player is on the ground scrapping with another player for the ball and a third player of either team flops on top of them trying to hold it in etc should be penalised. Ok if they try to bring the ball out whilst remaining on their feet. But aa soon as they flop on top blow the whistle.
Stirling Coates
Editor
I thought the umpires got both decisions just plain wrong, unfortunately. I'd like to see the 'deliberate out of bounds' law changed to 'unnecessary out of bounds' or something similar and it would be awarded for three reasons only; 1) Attempting to gain territory or avoid a tackle by kicking or handballing the ball out of bounds with no teammates in the vicinity. 2) Attempting to avoid a tackle by clearly and obviously stepping out of bounds, or attempting to move out of bounds while being tackled to force a stoppage/avoid a free kick. 3) Knocking the ball out of bounds to deprive an opponent of possession where the player could have reasonably taken possession themselves. For the avoidance of doubt, a player who knocks the ball into space and makes a reasonable effort to possess the ball before it travels out of bounds will not be penalised - nor will a player who spoils the ball over the line in a marking contest.
Tassie.
Roar Rookie
Good article Les, what rattles my cage is when a player not contesting the ball & drags it under the player going for the ball & the player on the ground gets pinged for holding the ball. I fail to see why the player that dragged the ball under another player doesn`t cop it! :angry:
DTM
Guest
I share your frustration Les. Didn't see the Sier one but there are plenty of other similar cases. I get frustrated when you have a player with the ball under him (often dragged in by another player), two or three players on top and the bloke at the bottom gets pinged. Lying on top of another player is not a tackle - never has been. It used to be that the player being tackled needed to be retarded in his movement - ie you could have hold of their jumper if he was standing still but when he tried to move, if he was restrained in anyway, it's a free kick - either for holding the man (if he didn't have the ball) or holding the ball (if he had the ball and didn't dispose of it correctly).
WCE
Roar Rookie
its not just the non interpretations, it paying free kicks to one team in the attacking 50 and not to the other team for the same discretion. you get games where the umpires knee jerk reaction to blowing the whistle results in a win by 2 or 3 goals to a team that normally would have lost if the whistle wasnt blown. People say umpires don't influence the final decision of a win/ loss well i disagree. you pay dubious free kicks to one team in the attacking zone they will have more of a chance to win - its not rocket science