How do you want holding the ball incorrect disposal umpired?

[Eddie Dingle]

I think it should depend on how loudly the crowd yells BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL.

If the crowd aren't convincing the umpire should not pay the free.

This will work especially well at Adelade Oval, Subiaco and the SCG.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I think it should depend on how loudly the crowd yells BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL.

If the crowd aren't convincing the umpire should not pay the free.

This will work especially well at Adelade Oval, Subiaco and the SCG.

Booooooooooooo!

 

[hellboy1975]

Consistently.

Pretty much. I don't care so much for the technicalities of rule, but I'd like the see the same consistent application of the rule throughout the season.

 

[NakedDeadGuy]

Let the players throw it. There are 20 times a quarter when it's thrown, the maggots will pay 1 free. Allow them to throw, tackled players could still get it to advantage, keeping the game open. If it doesn't come out, reward the tackler. In effect, this would remove "dropping the ball" and any frees would be paid for holding the ball.

 

[Magnum27]

I've never got the prior opportunity crap. Isn't one of the skills of our great tackling. If player lays a perfect tackle regardless of priors, shouldn't he be rewarded, hell if a tackler tackles incorrectly he's penalised pretty quickly, however when a perfect tackle is played causing the opponent just throw or drop it, more often than not it's called play on. Should be rewarding for the tackler regardless of prior opputunity IMO.

It seems my club is ahead of time, that's obviously the reason we've stopped laying tackles

 

[hcd199]

With at least some regard for the rule as written. If a player is tackled and hasn't had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, then they must attempt to dispose of the ball correctly - should they do so, then it is play on; should they not make the attempt, they should be penalised for holding the ball; should they attempt to correctly dispose and in so doing incorrectly dispose of the ball, they should be penalised for incorrect disposal. If a player has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, they must, to avoid being penalised for holding the ball, correctly dispose of the ball. The "reasonable opportunity" to make an attempt if there is no prior needs to be reduced in time-frame a little, as at present umpires are leaving play far too long: either penalise them for not making an attempt or call a ball-up if they are making an attempt.

In terms of whether the rule should be changed, the core of the rule (Laws 15.2.3(a) and 15.2.3(b)) looks to me to be fine, including the genuine attempt provision (which exists to prevent the exploitation of the rule by players looking to create a stoppage by getting themselves tackled: a tactic that undermines the worth of the tackling rule, and thus requires a rule adjustment). Perhaps some of the situations in which play should continue, in Law 15.2.4, need removing, as too often they provide for players a loophole to be exploited by dropping the ball whilst being tackled and in possession. At the very least, umpires need to distinguish (where possible) between incidental loss of the ball (spilling free in a tackle, or dropped because an arm was grabbed) and deliberate dropping of the ball, which either does or should constitute incorrect disposal.

This is not a problem requiring a drastic changing of the rules: most of the problems arise due to questionable interpretations of the rule or the blanket ignoring of it by those who coach the umpires/the umpires themselves. At most, some tweaking to the rule as written is required.

 

[bkozican]

The way it was 20 years ago.

 

[jim boy]

* Illegal disposal is illegal disposal and should be penalised regardless of whther the player is being tackled or not.
* Prior opportunity should mean having possession of the ball for 2 second (or ruck tap) - that is normally enough time to legally dispose of the ball. Sure there will be cases where it isn't, but its is better to make the rules simpler than try and accommodate every caveat. that's where the rules have gone wrong

 

[JackFlash]

The ball winner must make an attempt to either hand pass or kick the ball, the annoying thing for most fans is the knocked free because of the tackle nonsense, the tackler must be rewarded for this in the first place. The ball winner has been caught with the ball and the tackler has prevented the correct disposal. It's simple. Most of the time the tackler is out of the contest after making a perfect tackle only to see the ball knocked free and picked up and cleared by the opposition. I don't think fans have a problem if the ball winner has at least made an attempt to kick the ball and does an airy, but too often we are seeing throws and general shove outs and at times players just handing the ball to a teammate. That has to stop.

 

[caitsith01]

should they attempt to correctly dispose and in so doing incorrectly dispose of the ball, they should be penalised for incorrect disposal

This is the critical missing piece of the puzzle at the moment.

If the ball is forcefully smashed out of players' hands, maybe that should be play on. Any other scenario, other than a kick or handball, where the ball leaves their possession should be a free kick against them.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The other problem I have is that players are tackled before they have even taken possession of the ball, players are instructed and taught to tackle under the presumption a player will take possession. This is a free kick in my view that a player is tackled without the ball.
As for the holding the ball rule, just umpire it as the rule is written, no interpretations of the rule. Black and white. Was not an issue ever before, is now an issue because of interpretation.
There is no rule in the game of Aussie Rules that the game must flow for the betterment of the public.

 

[hcd199]

This is the critical missing piece of the puzzle at the moment.

If the ball is forcefully smashed out of players' hands, maybe that should be play on. Any other scenario, other than a kick or handball, where the ball leaves their possession should be a free kick against them.

The current situation seems to me to be a combination of Law 15.2.4 (which provides specific situations where play ought to continue when the player being tackled loses possession of the ball) and of a misinterpretation of "genuine attempt" that somehow over-rides "incorrect disposal". The former is solvable - simply remove the exceptions or tweak them - but the latter could only be changed by ensuring correct interpretation of the rule. Maybe a provision should be added specifically stating that the "genuine attempt" rule in relation to no prior opportunity does not over-ride the incorrect disposal rule?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Get ready for about 80 free kicks a game.

People arguing that the "aesthetics" of the game will be better if you pay incorrect disposal are kidding themselves. Players will either drop the ball and give away a free or hold onto it and there will be another stoppage instead of a clearance from the ball spilling free.

Paying incorrect disposal will fix the "rolling maul" (stupidest term in football) but it will fix it by awarding a buttload of free kicks. Is that what people want?

There will not be 80 free kicks a game, the coaches and players will adjust to play within the rules of the game. And who cares if there is anyway, if the laws are infringed 80 times then that means 80 free kicks.
For the life of me how an administrator can choose roughly how many free kicks they want to pay in a game is beyond me. No one can decide how many infringements of the rule there will be in a game.

 

[seanoff]

No prior - ball it up instantly. Don't wait for 30 guys to get there. Blow the whistle, ball it up ASAP.
If you penalise people for not disposing of when they have no prior the ball will sit on the ground and no one will go near it. Or it will turn into soccer.

Prior, get rid of it or holding the ball. Once again, quickly.

If it's one of those battles on the deck, 3rd man in penalised for holding it in.


Generally pull it up much quicker, ball it up. Try and stop the packs forming. Now the umps don't bounce it is much quicker.

 

[El_Scorcho]

People keep saying players will adapt if we start paying incorrect disposal as a free. But how will they adapt?

Obviously the first option would be to make more of an effort to hold onto the ball. This will naturally lead to a lot more stoppages and more free kicks. That's not really even up for debate.

Of course, what we'd like to see is an attempt to handball or kick the football, but that's now fraught with danger, because even with no prior, if you attempt to handball it as you're getting tackled and it drops out, you're giving away a free, so players will predominantly take the safe option and hold the ball in.

The modern HTB rule is interpreted the way it is because of the flooding situation a decade ago where teams would just park 15 men around the ball and pin it in to one spot on the ground for 15 minutes by either gang tackling the opposition player if he gets the ball, or taking the ball and allowing themselves to be tackled. That kind of endless stoppagefest was about 1000 times worse than the "rolling maul".

The rules 15 years ago were fine for the game as it was then. In 2014 we have what, double or triple the amount of tackles a game? Even since 2004, when this sort of stoppagefest started to become a problem, there are something like 50 more tackles a game.

The game would become unwatchable very quickly, unless you just really really love a heap of ball ups.

 

[ThisIsJake]

If you don't handball, kick or have the ball actually knocked from your possession that is incorrect bloody disposal. It doesn't hinge on prior opportunity, you could get tackled a split second after receiving it and accidentally drop the ball and that should be paid.

It really isn't that difficult.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If you don't handball, kick or have the ball actually knocked from your possession that is incorrect bloody disposal. It doesn't hinge on prior opportunity, you could get tackled a split second after receiving it and accidentally drop the ball and that should be paid.

It really isn't that difficult.

It's not particularly easy to judge a drop vs a ball that is knocked out, and that would make the rule even murkier and hard to adjudicate. The rule at the moment is pretty simple and people are upset with how it's being called, so imagine if umps had to make a judgement call on whether a player dropped it or whether it was knocked out 50 times a game.

It also stops players from trying to get the ball out while tackled, because there is now a massive risk that if you try to dispose of the football and miss because you're being tackled, you'll get a free kick paid against you. Players will take the safe option, take the tackle and do the whole flailing attempt to get the ball out thing.

And we'll have way more free kicks and stoppages.

 

[The Swert]

My view:

If player is tackled and does not dispose of the ball properly eg the ball pops out whether they have had prior opportunity or not it should be holding the ball..

Sounds simple when you don't define any of the key words.

What is a tackle, what is a correct disposal and what is prior opportunity?
That's where the grayness comes from.

 

[JeffDunne]

The easiest rule in the rulebook for umpires is the "throw" when handing the ball to a team-mate.

They never pay it. Why?

Also, it seems whenever a player is tackled & wrapped up, none of his team-mates should be in the "tackle". They are there to either take the ball out of a team-mate's hands (a throw) or to tackle an opposition player (holding-the-man). Allowing this to happen turns a 1-on-1 into a scrum.

It's not rocket science.

 

[1970crow]

Exactly like it was back in the day.

Dunno exactly when said day was, but it was definitely better.

"held to him, my ball"

 

[Citizen Erazed]

Chook lotto rule...

However that isn't even the worst rule currently in the game... that honor goes to not allowing ruckmen to take possession (properly) out of a ruck contest Instead 46 midfielders wait around while a dinky little tap is produced in an effort to avoid a free kick being paid.

Hell removing that rule might even reduce congestion by itself!

 

[Stratton_Gun]

They have to have had prior before HTB is given. Hate it when they give it against the one player going for the ball

 

[vast]

Consistently.

 

[Chism]

Consistently.

This, as the way they pick and choose to pay it is crap. What gets paid at one end of the ground is ignored at the other.

/Thread.

 

[master bate]

Remove the word prior from prior opportunity. Just make it opportunity. Then if you've had a chance and didn't do anything with it you are gone.

If you are tackled as soon as you get the ball then it's a ball up unless the ball spills free. No need to wait for some silly attempt to get rid of it either with players randomly punching at the ball to 'make an attempt'.

If you throw it or drop it then it's illegal disposal.

The issue is at the moment the rules and play styles are trapped in a vicious cycle where the more they don't pay holding the ball the more advantageous it is to keep the game in close. Players aren't trying to make tough handballs or kicks under pressure, they are simply