How to fix Holding the Ball

[D-N-R]

The single most ridiculous thing about the current holding the ball rule.

The man who make effort to win ball has ALL the responsibility for that ball leaving the pack, the tackler has none.

The player who is tackled must make every effort to clear the ball out; if he doesn't, he is punished. Probably fair enough

But from there on, things get stupid quickly. The tackler, and third, fourth, fifth man in, have no obligation to get the ball out. Instead, and I'll put this bit in caps, because it's so fundamentally stupid I can't believe it.

THEY DEVOTE ALL THEIR EFFORT TO ENSURING THE BALL DOESN'T LEAVE THE CONTEST, AND IF THEY DO IT CORRECTLY, NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT PUNISHED, THEY WILL GET REWARDED!

Those who have training in psych will recognise simple operant conditioning in action; the ball is continually locked in, because the tacklers are rewarded for doing so

If the AFL can't see how logically flawed this is, one rule for the ball winner, the completely opposite rule for the tackling team, I don't know what hope there is. The consequences, a scrum down in very contest, are entirely predictable when one realises the factors in play.


I don't know what the solution is, but rewarding the tackler for locking the ball in will only ensure contests where the ball is locked in. It's simple Skinner Box behaviourism, it's not really that hard to see that the result will be the exact opposite of what they claim to want, a flowing, open game...Perhaps, after the initial tackle, some other scene comes into play, perhaps the umpire calls tackle, at which point the tackler must immediately release the player, and the ball carrier must release the ball (just a first thought, not sure about it, but something is completely wrong at the moment)

Re: the bolded part. Funny thing is that only a few years ago when they started this crusade against holding the ball in the contest was that they had a rule that if the tackler dragged the ball back in or if he held it in, then he would be penalised. That went out the window at some point.

Back in the 90s they used to 'hail a taxi'. When a player was tackled and brought to ground, the tackler would put one hand in the air to show the umpire he wasn't holding it in. If it was clear the player with the ball wasn't trying to get rid of it, he was penalised. If the tackler bear-hugged the opponent so that the ball was trapped, it was ball up.

An example rule;
a) - If a player is tackled 1:1 and brought to ground, the tackler must demonstrate that he is not holding the ball to the player by raising an arm above his head. He must also tackle in a way which does not lock the ball in.
b) - The player in possession must immediately get rid of the ball by legal means to a team mate or allow it to be taken by an opponent. Failure to do so will result in a free against him.
c) - The player tackling may not be pushed off the opponent and may only be tackled if he takes possession of the ball. A free will be rewarded to the opposing team of any player who goes 'third man in'. (ie. a WCE player tackles a Carlton player and brings him to ground 1:1, then in another WCE player locks the ball in it will be a free against him and likewise if a Carlton player comes in and locks it in.)

This only looks at one scenario though and perhaps it should be an interpretation of the rule rather than being so prescriptive.

Really the umps need to focus on throws or illegal disposals and penalise them rather than 'letting the game flow'. (A free kick can open up a game pretty quickly). Also, they need to give players who are being tackled by one or more larger opponents the benefit of the doubt that they can't actually move, and making an attempt isn't as easy as they think.

Prior op is ok, but they could clamp down on players ducking and dodging to avoid a tackle as part of prior op. A fend off, duck or weave are all prior opportunity in my book.

A thinking-outside-of-the-box suggestion might be cutting the amount of players on the field to 15 or 16 a side so the packs don't get so large, and play is freed up. Added bonus is that teams could rotate players more if they played fewer of them a week and they could play more games in a season.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

As far as a I can tell, Aussie Rules is the only sport that rewards tackles with a free kick. Rugby League and Union dont,

No. Rugby union does pay a penalty if the tackled ball-carrier doesn't dispose correctly and quickly enough.

 

[Wallaby]

Feenix Said:

No. Rugby union does pay a penalty if the tackled ball-carrier doesn't dispose correctly and quickly enough.

Correct. Plenty of penalties are paid for players 'Not Releasing' - which they must do as soon as they are tackled. It also has to be released backwards.
In RL, if a player is tackled and he drops the ball - that is a loss of possession. The only rider is that the tackler is not allowed to deliberately try to force the ball free. Ditto NRL (although there, you are allowed to force the ball free - and you see plenty of tacklers swatting at the arms to force a fumble).

So other sports have similar rules re holding the ball, or dropping it in a tackle. (You could also say the in the NRL, after a tackle a player must do a particular 'Play the Ball' - and penalties apply if they do it wrong).

I do agree with the sentiment that a 'perfect tackle' should not automatically be rewarded. A free kick should only be paid against the player in possession if he infringes - ie - by incorrect disposal, or not disposing. A free kick is paid against an infringing player - it should never just be a 'reward' for doing something well. Otherwise, perhaps we could give a free kick to a player making a perfect spoil - or a perfect smother. (I suppose you could argue a mark is a 'rewarded' free kick).

 

[DroppingTheBall]

Not trying to regulate the discussion, but could we discuss the value of removing the reward for a good tackle, which is the crux of the idea. We could debate the vagueries of the current rules/interpretations for the next 100 years.....

The game will become very stop-start because ball carrier will be told to hug the ball if a clear disposal to a teammate isn't there.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

Feenix Said:

No. Rugby union does pay a penalty if the tackled ball-carrier doesn't dispose correctly and quickly enough.

That was actually me. I stuffed up my post formatting so it looked like Feenix said it. All fixed now.

 

[djpaulydemon]

I agree with the 3rd man tackling suggestions. They wouldn't necessarily need to make a rule that the 3rd man into the contest gives away a free kick, rather that if your teammate has tackled an opposition player and you jump on top of the pack holding the ball want be called on your opposition and your teammate's good tackle will go unrewarded. Conversely, if you correctly tackle a player and their teammate jumps on to you creating a pack then the umpire will call holding the ball a give you a free kick as his teammate has tried to lock the ball in.

I've noticed teammates tackling the tackler or tacklers to try and square up the pack as umpires this year seemed to call HTB when 3 players jumped on top of the player with the ball. I think this slight change would remove incentives for both teams to create a pack, but it would still give the defending team the freedom to lock the ball in to create a ball up if they felt that it would be a better option than trying to get a free kick. The main thing is there would be pros and cons to gang tackling a player as it could lock the ball in, but you would be more likely to get a free if only one person tackles and the gang tackling team would leave themselves open to be burnt on the outside if the player gets the ball out.

You wouldn't really need to change any rules either just how HTB is interpreted.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

NEW RULE

I can fix this very easily with a new rule: Any player who loses his feet is deemed out-of-play. This means: He cannot play the ball or the man, or be the next person to gain the ball. He cannot take possession, tackle or interfere in play, until play has cleared the area by 5 metres. Losing one’s feet is deemed to occur when any part of the body touches the ground, other than the feet. For safety, the ball-carrier who loses his feet can quickly push the ball along the ground no more than arms-length away, then release it. Anyone deemed out-of-play can get up if they immediately leave the 5 metre area without interfering in play.

Break this rule and the umpire awards a free kick for ‘Interference’.

Therefore, in a tackle where they both go to ground, the ball-carrier has to release the ball immediately. He cannot pass it, because he is off his feet. He lost his chance to pass the ball (and that is the tackler's reward). As for the tackler, he is also out-of-play, and has to release the ball and the opponent immediately. He also cannot be next to take possession of the ball. And neither of them can get up and hover over the ball to smash the next man who comes in; they have to get 5 metres away and wait for play to clear the area. Essentially, play passes to the next man, or men, to arrive.

Basically, the tackler and the ball-carrier both have to throw their arms out to show they are out-of-play.

Supporting Rule Change: If both players keep their feet in a tackle, holding-the-ball does not apply. The ball-carrier has unlimited time to dispose of the ball. The umpire can ball-up if he deems that the ball is not coming out. I don’t think this will happen too often, because either the ball-carrier or the tackler will want to see the game in motion and will try to dispose the ball or get the tackle to ground, depending on the game situation.

Consequences

The game is more exciting and easier to umpire. Decisions will be more clear-cut. One contest is immediately followed by another contest involving different players. Players will try to keep their feet in general, which becomes a skill that is rewarded, and that is safer: there will be less heads at or below knee level.

A new skill will arise, the ‘throw-down tackle’. If the tackler throws the ball-carrier to the ground and keeps his feet, he is the ‘winner’ because he can immediately pick up the ball that the ball-carrier has had to release, and play on. He remains in-play, and the ball-carrier cannot interfere in any way until he has gone 5 metres from where he picked up the ball.

 

[AstonSouffle]

NEW RULE

I can fix this very easily with a new rule: Any player who loses his feet is deemed out-of-play. This means: He cannot play the ball or the man, or be the next person to gain the ball. He cannot take possession, tackle or interfere in play, until play has cleared the area by 5 metres. Losing one’s feet is deemed to occur when any part of the body touches the ground, other than the feet. For safety, the ball-carrier who loses his feet can quickly push the ball along the ground no more than arms-length away, then release it. Anyone deemed out-of-play can get up if they immediately leave the 5 metre area without interfering in play.

Break this rule and the umpire awards a free kick for ‘Interference’.

Therefore, in a tackle where they both go to ground, the ball-carrier has to release the ball immediately. He cannot pass it, because he is off his feet. He lost his chance to pass the ball (and that is the tackler's reward). As for the tackler, he is also out-of-play, and has to release the ball and the opponent immediately. He also cannot be next to take possession of the ball. And neither of them can get up and hover over the ball to smash the next man who comes in; they have to get 5 metres away and wait for play to clear the area. Essentially, play passes to the next man, or men, to arrive.

Basically, the tackler and the ball-carrier both have to throw their arms out to show they are out-of-play.

Supporting Rule Change: If both players keep their feet in a tackle, holding-the-ball does not apply. The ball-carrier has unlimited time to dispose of the ball. The umpire can ball-up if he deems that the ball is not coming out. I don’t think this will happen too often, because either the ball-carrier or the tackler will want to see the game in motion and will try to dispose the ball or get the tackle to ground, depending on the game situation.

Consequences

The game is more exciting and easier to umpire. Decisions will be more clear-cut. One contest is immediately followed by another contest involving different players. Players will try to keep their feet in general, which becomes a skill that is rewarded, and that is safer: there will be less heads at or below knee level.

A new skill will arise, the ‘throw-down tackle’. If the tackler throws the ball-carrier to the ground and keeps his feet, he is the ‘winner’ because he can immediately pick up the ball that the ball-carrier has had to release, and play on. He remains in-play, and the ball-carrier cannot interfere in any way until he has gone 5 metres from where he picked up the ball.

All due respect this would not be easier to Umpire, I have a hard enough time as it is reading body movement to ascertain whether it was a throw since I don't have the ability to see what's going on when the players have their backs to me. You can say I should be circling the contest but literally takes a second for the contest to flip direction. Apply that to multiple players to potentially be rubbed out of the contest due to touching the ground, that's basically on the difficult of remembering 30 peoples orders at a restaurant without a notepad yeah... it can be done but it makes it way harder than it needs to be lol.

The rule in its current format is not hard to umpire, the only reason it has difficulties currently is because the AFL definition of prior has too much leeway to be interpreted. Since technically more often than not you'll find the calls they get 'wrong' are bang on to letter of the law the only issue is the disagreement in what was deemed prior opportunity. Why is this interpretation so generous to AFL players? Well at this level tackles can happen in a second and constantly active the no prior aspect.

What we need to do to is work out ways to break down packs and reduce congestion. If we can successfully do that then we can start talking about whether we can remove prior/no prior opportunity.

Not to mention your rule would aesthetically change the game heavily, I quite like smothers and I'd hate to see them go.

Please don't think I'm raining down on you btw, there's still aspect of what you said I like!

 

[DroppingTheBall]

All due respect this would not be easier to Umpire, I have a hard enough time as it is reading body movement to ascertain whether it was a throw

Whether *what* was a throw? If the ball propels away from him in any way, it would be illegal. He can simply 'let it go'. That's easy to umpire: watch the ball.

...since I don't have the ability to see what's going on when the players have their backs to me. You can say I should be circling the contest but literally takes a second for the contest to flip direction. Apply that to multiple players to potentially be rubbed out of the contest due to touching the ground, that's basically on the difficult of remembering 30 peoples orders at a restaurant without a notepad yeah... it can be done but it makes it way harder than it needs to be lol.

None of that is necessary. You are making it look harder than it need be. Players will be keeping their feet more.

The rule in its current format is not hard to umpire, the only reason it has difficulties currently is because the AFL definition of prior has too much leeway to be interpreted.

That's the definition of 'hard to umpire'.

Not to mention your rule would aesthetically change the game heavily, I quite like smothers and I'd hate to see them go.

Smothers would be okay. Pretty rare that a player smothers on the ground and the ball sticks in hand and doesn't spin 5 metres away (so he can jump up and go for it).

Please don't think I'm raining down on you btw, there's still aspect of what you said I like!

Oh it's revolutionary, not for the conservative. As well as a faster more open but no less tough and competitive game, it mainly stops the player who has the ball but is beaten by the tackler and tries to cause a ball up and prevent the next phase of play.

 

[Power Raid]

I think we have the rule about right but we probably don't reward good tackles often enough

 

[Engimal]

Step 1: Remove the ball.

 

[feenix67]

The rule as it stands is too complex and difficult to umpire. If we want the game to grow in non traditional markets, we need to simplify and make the game easier for newcomers to understand. There is too much interpretation in the current rulebook.

I agree with those who've pointed out that my suggestion would promote holding the ball in. I also agree with those who suggest the current rule is about right, but there's too much dicking around with interpretation. It seems the current rule is too hard to umpire consistently.

A lot of people hate the "hands in the back" rule but I like it, because it gives the umpire a clear and easy decision to make. I'd say that rule has reduced incorrect decisions in regards to that by 90%. We need to apply the same approach to other rules- make them clear and easy to officiate. That's the basis of my suggestion and there's been some other good ones here too.

 

[Garf]

Penalise the third man in. Make it more one on one and that should open things up a bit. Seeing the last bloke who last meaningfully possessed the ball being penalised while four opposition blokes are sitting on him almost makes me want to watch the NRL ! I said 'almost'

 

[Docker Alyssa]

I've thought about this multiple times... I understand why my suggestion won't be popular but here goes, only one tackler is allowed to tackle the ball carrier.

You'd have to keep prior opportunity and the ability for that lone player to lock it in otherwise basically ball-ups literally would disappear. But have a pile on or two, three, four tacklers then it's a free to the other team.

Nah. Fremantles best attribute right now is multiple tacklers and controlling congestion... DO NOT WANT.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Actually, why is it that a lack of putting your hands up to hand pass isn't deemed prior opportunity?

The ruling is the time itself to get the handball away but if a tackle is coming from the front, then there should of been responsibility on the ball carrier to raise their arms no?

Fyi, if I started calling HTB this way I'd get canned and wouldn't get the high paying games so I'm wondering how far my reasoning is off?

 

[Hawksman2014]

If the ball is knocked clear in a tackle and you've had prior it should be holding the ball.

Stuff this "He tried" or "Knocked out in the tackle" rubbish.

Good post though.

If you have had prior oppurtunity and the tackle is legal and no correct disposal is made it should be a free kick. You must reward a good tackle not this rubbish of it came out play on play on. Exactly how you create more congestion.

 

[ShanDog]

The HTB law needs to be simplified, and whatever 'dropping the ball' or 'incorrect disposal' laws that may exist (CBF looking it up) should be amended to parallel this or removed if need be:

1. If a player takes posession of the ball and is tackled, it shall be deemed 'Holding the Ball' and a free kick awarded to the tackler if:

a. The player had a clear opportunity to legally disposal of the ball prior to being tackled; and

b. The player did not legally dispose the ball during the tackle; and

c. The tackle was legal.

2. If a player dives on a loose ball, is tackled legally and fails to either knock the ball clear or legally dispose of it, it shall be deemed Holding the Ball.



From there, it all just becomes an issue of umpire interpretation - but s**t, let's just keep it simple. Dive on it and don't get it out and your are pinged - you have to keep your feet if you want to grab a loose ball. If you could have clearly gotten rid of the ball and get tackled, it doesn't matter that the ball fell out of your hands or got knocked away - you are pinged.

 

[ShanDog]

If people are dead-set on trying to adjust the laws to encourage more free-flowing play, I would offer up one new law that others have touched on a little - the only time holding the ball can be paid is if there is only one tackler.

The idea is that there will be far fewer 'group tackles' that slow down the play and lead to repeat stoppages, because if the team not in posession wants to win a free kick, they can only have one player commit to the tackle. More players on their feet = more chance the ball will be passed out, more players on the move, less time spent on the ground and greater chance the ball carrier can evade a tackler and burst out of packs. I suppose in a way it is similar to the one-on-one strip law in Rugby League (though I am not sure it still exists), where a single tackler can literally rip the ball away from the carrier and it is a turnover.

 

[LoveYaEb]

They will never get this rule correct fully.

 

[bkozican]

The whole problem with umpiring lies in this rule alone.

So many different interpretations of the rule. This isn't going a long way back but when I played footy, If you picked up the ball and gained possession...You had two ways of getting rid of the footy. ONLY TWO, they were to handball or kick. If you did not get rid of the football in that manner...INCORRECT DISPOSAL.
The whole idea of letting the game go is ridiculous. There is nothing better than hearing the home crowd yell as one "BALLLLLLLL"

 

[Engimal]

There is nothing worse than hearing the home crowd yell as one "BALLLLLLLL" at every opportunity, regardless of how the ball is disposed

EFA

 

[TaylorMade]

Umps need to stop getting sucked in to paying Holding the Ball under the pressure of 100,000 fans screaming "ball" before the opposition has even picked it up.

It's like they have 1 less second to dispose of it when playing at the G with a hostile Pies crowd. Can't blame the supporters though, gives them a slight edge.

 

[cleomenes]

Fiddling with the rules rarely has a good outcome. Even altering interpretations is fraught. The problem we face is that the fans want fast open football, but the coaches don't. Coaches will always seek ways to increase their control over the game. We now have professional players who are much more skilled, drilled, fit and speedy than those the game was designed around. With these factors, we will never regain the positional football we want to watch.
It may be worth trying something to minimise the number of players involved in a tackle, by penalizing any extra holders after an initial tackle is made, but even this will cause its own problems and interpretation dilemmas.
My own thought is that the umpires coach should examine vision of pre 1970 games to see how it worked then, and try to use the same interpretations with our game. Coaches, however, will not cooperate.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Players being prohibited from taking possession if not on their feet (if tackled) would be a great rule. They'd have two options:-
a) Hope to regain their footing to dispose of the ball before being tackled (or HTB)
b) Knock it clear if not in possession and take two, regain footing and head to where the ball now is for the next contest.

 

[pinto]

Players being prohibited from taking possession if not on their feet (if tackled) would be a great rule. They'd have two options:-
a) Hope to regain their footing to dispose of the ball before being tackled (or HTB)
b) Knock it clear if not in possession and take two, regain footing and head to where the ball now is for the next contest.

It'd be too hard to administer I reckon. Best to keep it simple and within the historical spirit. You don't want to alter the players instinct to go at the footy either.