Review Port V Melb: Review

[I Dont Care]

Basically in determining the holding the ball rule, all that matters is prior opportunity. If the umpire determines you've had prior and you get tackled, you have to immediately dispose of it. If the umpire determines you haven't had prior and you get tackled, you have to make a genuine attempt to dispose of it.

If the ball comes loose or is dropped in the tackle, it doesn't matter, unless the ump determines that when it came loose you had an opportunity to handball or kick.

It's not always adjudicated properly but that's how they mean to do it. You get tons of people whinging every tackle that "he dropped it!" But that doesn't matter. All that matters is prior opportunity and making a genuine attempt.

Well, you see...for a hundred years, once you got tackled and the ball came loose...it was deemed incorrect or a throw. Nowadays it is judged either by how many seconds it took for you to have gotten tackled, or the side you are playing against has the favour of the media that current week, or if one arm is pinned. Once the tackler has pinned one of your arms the 'prior' become inadmissible

 

[I Dont Care]

If one wanted to have the ability to control the outcomes of games without it being overt or obvious, would you create a set of rules that were:

A) Easy to interpret and administer, or
B) Complex and open to interpretation.

Just sayin'

Totally agree with this as well

 

[El_Scorcho]

Well, you see...for a hundred years, once you got tackled and the ball came loose...it was deemed incorrect or a throw. Nowadays it is judged either by how many seconds it took for you to have gotten tackled, or the side you are playing against has the favour of the media that current week, or if one arm is pinned. Once the tackler has pinned one of your arms the 'prior' become inadmissible

The problem was in the middle of last decade when the Swans were parking 15 men around the ball making it very difficult to get a clearance. There are also a heap more tackles these days. The ball being allowed to spill loose stops the game from being a stoppagefest rugby scrum.,

 

[I Dont Care]

The problem was in the middle of last decade when the Swans were parking 15 men around the ball making it very difficult to get a clearance. There are also a heap more tackles these days. The ball being allowed to spill loose stops the game from being a stoppagefest rugby scrum.,

No, the problem is that 15 years ago the AFL tried to speed up the game, by changing rules and interpretations, then when the game was in danger of becoming a competition of midfields with countless rotations, it changed again to slow the game down. Now it is a game of rolling floods, the AFL is attempting to free it up and the hybrid it has created is a rolling maul. Roos style did affect interpretations no doubt, but the story is bigger than that. Hinkley tried to get ahead of the change this time with the slingshot style, well that is my view anyhow

 

[Peck]

Not sure if the game would be better or worse if dropping the ball would always be a free kick. I doubt we will ever know...

 

[Powerstufff]

Incorrect disposal = throw, nowadays it = no prior? Which = complete loss of definition of rules

Yeah it's a whole strata of our game gone and it is troubling. Re-watch even a quarter and you see unpaid frees for both sides. Once if you lost a game by 2 points, or won one by three you could watch the replay and identify a couple of places where a contentious free could/should have gone the other way. Now it's a waste of time. I re-watched 20 minutes of the 1st quarter of the Melbourne game and there were 2 rolled gold frees to us and 2 to Melbourne that were just ignored by the umpires. I just lost interest in the process from there on.

 

[Steve Dore]

If one wanted to have the ability to control the outcomes of games without it being overt or obvious, would you create a set of rules that were:

A) Easy to interpret and administer, or
B) Complex and open to interpretation.

Just sayin'

What's option C?

 

[El_Scorcho]

Not sure if the game would be better or worse if dropping the ball would always be a free kick. I doubt we will ever know...

It would be better if you'd like to see double the number of free kicks. I know I wouldn't.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

There was nothing wrong with the old interpretation. If you're tackled and can legally get rid of the ball but drop it you're gone. One occasion on Sunday - Wingard tackled a Melbourne player by the wrist and hung on like a pit bull on a grandma. The Melbourne player looked around and around, could have rolled the ball onto his boot. Eventually he dropped it. Play on. Bullshit.

If the ball is genuinely dispossessed in a tackle applied immediately upon receiving, play on.

But get caught after reasonable prior opportunity, you're gone.

It's not that hard to umpire the rule.

Dropping the ball wasn't a rule anyway, it was always paid holding the ball, it was just the interpretation of the umpire of the disposal that contributed to the HTB decision.

 

[Steve Dore]

.... It's not that hard to umpire the rule. ...

That is how I umpired it.

.... Dropping the ball wasn't a rule anyway, it was always paid holding the ball, it was just the interpretation of the umpire of the disposal that contributed to the HTB decision.

Exactly. As I have posted previously the umpire will say to the player "incorrect disposal" as an explanation of why the HTB was paid against him.

 

[mic59]

I had a smug Swans campaigner on the main board patronise me on my knowledge of the rules when I pointed out what a bullshit call that non-HTB decision in our goalsquare was at the start of Q4.

You remember the one, where the Swans player took on an opponent, accelerated away and then was caught cold, flailing an attempted handball as the Sherrin jarred loose.

"The ball was knocked loose, it's play on, you don't know the rules".

Yeah, **** off. If you decide to step an opponent, accelerate 5 metres and get destroyed - in front of your own freaking goal with a minor premiership on the line - it shouldn't just be HTB, but a delisting and a scheduled HIV infection.

Some umpires seem to be stuck with the mistaken interpretation that lasted about 1 game. That was the one where they didn't give HTB if you were caught in the process of disposing of it but the tackle caused you to do that incorrectly. The first one like that was where Nathan Fyfe was tackled while kicking against Collingwood and missed the ball but was deemed to have disposed of the ball because he was in a legal attempt before the tackle was made. That is now HTB but some umpires still don't pay it and say the attempt is enough. Although it is difficult to blame the umpires. When a cricket umpire has an LBW shout he has time to consider whether all the criteria were met but a footy umpire has to thing which of 3 options is correct in a second.

There was nothing wrong with the old interpretation. If you're tackled and can legally get rid of the ball but drop it you're gone. One occasion on Sunday - Wingard tackled a Melbourne player by the wrist and hung on like a pit bull on a grandma. The Melbourne player looked around and around, could have rolled the ball onto his boot. Eventually he dropped it. Play on. Bullshit.

With the number of non-decisions like that I was starting to think have they brought in a new interpretation and decided that if a players' arm is grabbed preventing a handball then prior opportunity hasn't happened. Umpires have never been any good at judging prior opportunity. I still remember one occasion in our early years when Josh Francou took the ball in a pack and skated from one opposition player to the other and was finally caught by the third. The umpire balled it up saying he had no prior opportunity although he had probably run about 5 metres in total.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

With the number of non-decisions like that I was starting to think have they brought in a new interpretation and decided that if a players' arm is grabbed preventing a handball then prior opportunity hasn't happened.

I'm for this if there was no prior opportunity before the arm was grabbed, they don't let go of the ball (incorrect disposal from one hand is different to dropping the ball as soon as you are tackled), and they don't have the opportunity to kick.

I think last year there was one against Ollie who was pinned on the ground with one arm brought back, he had no prior and absolutely no way to get rid of the ball - and he got pinged. It was horse s**t.

I'm also sick of hearing "reward the tackler" - why? What? I don't give a s**t if all the legends of the game are sprouting this bullshit.

Holding the ball is a PENALTY against a player, not a REWARD for a different player. It may seem like a reward for a spectacular tackle, but it's still a penalty against the other team.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I'm also sick of hearing "reward the tackler" - why? What? I don't give a s**t if all the legends of the game are sprouting this bullshit.

In the next breath those same legends will then tell you to reward the bloke who goes and gets the ball. Cake, have it, eat it.

 

[mic59]

I am seriously starting to think there are umpires who measure the time for prior opportunity from when a player is tackled rather than from when he takes control of the ball. And the way the player illegally disposes of the ball seems to have a good deal to do with the final decision. In the Melbourne game we saw a good number of players run with the ball, get tackled, drop it and get penalised. But we also saw a similar number get swung around 360 degrees and make a half-arsed attempt to dispose of it and suffer no worse than a stoppage.

The person who should be blamed for all this is Kevin Bartlett, he started this culture of rule changes with his shameless manipulation of the HTB rule.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm also sick of hearing "reward the tackler" - why? What? I don't give a s**t if all the legends of the game are sprouting this bullshit.

Holding the ball is a PENALTY against a player, not a REWARD for a different player. It may seem like a reward for a spectacular tackle, but it's still a penalty against the other team.

Absolutely could not agree more and this is one of the biggest mistakes people make regarding this whole Holding the Ball storm in a teacup.

You should not get a free kick for good play. A free kick should always be for an infringement.

 

[Peck]

Absolutely could not agree more and this is one of the biggest mistakes people make regarding this whole Holding the Ball storm in a teacup.

You should not get a free kick for good play. A free kick should always be for an infringement.

They should probably just give incorrect disposal no matter what, unless the ball is knocked out by the tackler. And I'm not sure I agree with the ball being knocked out after prior opportunity as "holding the ball" either. The whole point of the holding the ball rule is so you don't have players literally holding the ball in and forcing 10000 ball ups in a row. Otherwise you should be rewarding the player taking the game on IMO.

I honestly think that players dropping the ball, or handing it to team mates shouldn't be allowed. I don't know if it would improve the game, and it may result in more free kicks but its like if soccer players started handballing all the time and they just allowed to happen because there would be too many free kicks otherwise. Its just far too inconsistent that trying to handball and accidentally throwing is a free kick, but dropping the ball or handing it to a team mate isn't. And then you see someone get tackled and have no chance of disposing it given a free kick against because they don't wriggle around? It simply makes no sense to me that you can have rules this inconsistent.

 

[Pappagallo]

Holding the ball became a farce as soon as 'making a genuine attempt' was brought into it. All it does is make the players flop about like beached dolphins. It looks ridiculous.

It should be prior opportunity = holding the ball

No prior opportunity = stoppage

The end.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Holding the ball became a farce as soon as 'making a genuine attempt' was brought into it. All it does is make the players flop about like beached dolphins. It looks ridiculous.

It should be prior opportunity = holding the ball

No prior opportunity = stoppage

The end.

The problem with that was the mid 2000s Sydney sides, who would get a couple of kicks in front then crowd 15 men around the ball at every stoppage. If they got first hands on the ball, they'd take a tackle and another stoppage. If their opponents got first hand on the ball, they'd swarm them. The ball would barely move for 15 minutes, and it was some of the ugliest football ever played.

The genuine attempt rule stops players from diving on the ball or taking a tackle purely to lock it in.

 

[Steve Dore]

I am seriously starting to think there are umpires who measure the time for prior opportunity from when a player is tackled rather than from when he takes control of the ball. ......

 

[Pappagallo]

The problem with that was the mid 2000s Sydney sides, who would get a couple of kicks in front then crowd 15 men around the ball at every stoppage. If they got first hands on the ball, they'd take a tackle and another stoppage. If their opponents got first hand on the ball, they'd swarm them. The ball would barely move for 15 minutes, and it was some of the ugliest football ever played.

The genuine attempt rule stops players from diving on the ball or taking a tackle purely to lock it in.

I'd argue that this still happens quite a bit anyway due to the full court press that everyone deploys these days. Except now the rolling maul comes with an extra side of staged disposal attempts.

I just prefer for defensive play to be countered by the clubs with new tactics rather than by the league with rule changes. People were talking about introducing zones earlier this season to reduce congestion until we started playing that great brand of smash and spread football (p.s. where art thou?!).

 

[mic59]

When Jay Schulz took a mark with 2 minutes to go Lynden Dunn jumped over the mark and tackled him and didn't let go when it was called a mark. Surely that should have been a 50 metre penalty? Didn't matter in the end but I have seen those given where the player with the ball initiates the contact.

 

[Steve Dore]

When Jay Schulz took a mark with 2 minutes to go Lynden Dunn jumped over the mark and tackled him and didn't let go when it was called a mark. Surely that should have been a 50 metre penalty? Didn't matter in the end but I have seen those given where the player with the ball initiates the contact.

That was unquestionably a 50m penalty. Given some of the soft 50m penalties paid it was unforgivable that that one wasn't.

 

[mic59]

I just prefer for defensive play to be countered by the clubs with new tactics rather than by the league with rule changes.

Sometimes rule changes are necessary and Port haven't always been squeaky clean in this either. Although I wish the league wouldn't go overboard with the rule changes they make. When Matthew Primus was taking the ball out of ruck and causing another stoppage they changed the rule which was fine, as it was an ugly thing. But they went overboard, instead of giving the ruckman the reasonable time another player has to dispose of the ball it was HTB as soon as he was touched.