Crazy Idea - Why not just pay holding the ball? - Reward the tackle

[yebiga]

What if we just rewarded the tackle when a player can't release the ball? What does it matter whether he had prior opportunity, leave that for when the ball is stripped by the tackle but when the player is tackled and the ball is wrapped up to his body why not just pay the free

Isn't this what the crowd has always wanted when it yells "ball"

 

[blue harvest]

Isn't this what the crowd has always wanted when it yells "ball"

Only if it's their team.

 

[LosBeatles]

I agree. The rule should be when you take posession of the ball you must get rid of it by handball or kick, if you are tackled and can't do this, its holding the ball. Fullstop. No more ambiguity or room for idiot umpires to make interpretations, just black and white.

 

[yebiga]

I agree. The rule should be when you take posession of the ball you must get rid of it by handball or kick, if you are tackled and can't do this, its holding the ball. Fullstop. No more ambiguity or room for idiot umpires to make interpretations, just black and white.

I think it would really add to the spectacle and crowd involvement, whilst keeping the game flowing and making it a hell of a lot easier to umpire and understand

 

[LosBeatles]

I think it would really add to the spectacle and crowd involvement, whilst keeping the game flowing and making it a hell of a lot easier to umpire and understand

Yep. I have seen people say it's a bad idea 'cause then no one will go for the ball, but that's idiotic, the first instinct and focus will always be to get the ball. At worst a player sourrounded by 3 opposition players and knowing he will be tackled immediately will do the one motion grab ball - handball it out in the direction of his goals, thus clearing the pack and keeping the game flowing

 

[Tiger08]

Another crazy idea - how about we allow throwing?

The AFL has always wanted to speed up the game. Imagine the spectacle if you could throw it as well! The ball would fly around. It would be so much easier to clear congestion and you wouldn't get those stupid holding the ball because he happened to tackle one arm decisions.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why not just umpire by the rules as they are written, rather than refereeing the game in accordance to thousands of bullshit interpretations?

 

[Daveismad]

We want the game to move

I don't want to see 76 free kicks paid per game

I prefer the ball coming out ....some leeway granted is better than blowing the whistle 70 times game

We would see more congestion

 

[qman]

What if we just rewarded the tackle when a player can't release the ball? What does it matter whether he had prior opportunity, leave that for when the ball is stripped by the tackle but when the player is tackled and the ball is wrapped up to his body why not just pay the free

Isn't this what the crowd has always wanted when it yells "ball"

I've been thinking this for a while too, no ambiguity, caught with the ball and you're gone.

 

[1970crow]

Yep. I have seen people say it's a bad idea 'cause then no one will go for the ball, but that's idiotic, the first instinct and focus will always be to get the ball. At worst a player sourrounded by 3 opposition players and knowing he will be tackled immediately will do the one motion grab ball - handball it out in the direction of his goals, thus clearing the pack and keeping the game flowing

Said this many a time, it's the only way to go. The interpretation component must be removed in favour of consistency. The worst case scenario us that a player faced with the situation above will soccer or punch the ball, either way the game keeps moving.

 

[kickazz]

- HTB sould be seen as a penalty, not a reward. Footy to me is about taking initiative, making the play. I don't want to see second to the ball 'rewarded'. I want to see players not disposing of the ball reasonably punished.

The above is the key reason why I would suggest the idea is 'crazy'.

BUT

I have read before on BF something along the lines of the following: Let's adopt the above proposal. It would change the nature of the game, whereby chooing to take possession of the ball is no longer the obvious instinctive thing to do. You would have to be confident you would have time to dipose of it. If you were not confident, you would have to 'tap it on to space' until you were confident.

I watch old videos of games and would laugh at my old man saying how s**t they were back then, all they did was tap the ball along the ground. He informed me that back then, if your were tackled and did not correctly dispose, it was HTB, similar as to what OP proposes.

It is worth considering. How would tactics and strategy change? Would it free up congestion - as if there was a small pack, it would be more likely that somebody would knock or punch the ball clear than risk taking posession. If this were the case, you would need more players 'outside' the contest to get the knocked out ball, further freeing congestion.

I'd still be concerened about 1on1 scenarios, and if it could lead to a state of Zugzwang if I may borrow a term from chess, with neither player wanting to take the initiative and get the ball.

 

[kickazz]

We want the game to move

I don't want to see 76 free kicks paid per game

I prefer the ball coming out ....some leeway granted is better than blowing the whistle 70 times game

We would see more congestion

Possibly yes. With such a high reward for a relatively easy task (tackling a player and either knocking th ball out in the tackle or pinning the ball is much easier than getting it and getting rid of it) the focus may come on having twoor three players at each contest simply geared up to tackle straight away (hello Paul Roos) and get the free.

Conversely, it might change the game so much that (asI mention above) plyrs simply don't take possession of the ball as readily.

Could go either way really.

 

[Daveismad]

Possibly yes. With such a high reward for a relatively easy task (tackling a player and either knocking th ball out in the tackle or pinning the ball is much easier than getting it and getting rid of it) the focus may come on having twoor three players at each contest simply geared up to tackle straight away (hello Paul Roos) and get the free.

Conversely, it might change the game so much that (asI mention above) plyrs simply don't take possession of the ball as readily.

Could go either way really.

What we will see is players then just shooting out wold kicks and handballs that go no where

That's why a player is given leeway to get rid of the ball

We want to see the ball go to it's intended target

If we penalise every one of them we will see a lot of free kicks paid, then we will see the game played between the 50 arcs with a lot of turnovers and very few goals .....hmmm

Leave the game alone

I also ask why should we reward the guy without the ball (tackler) over the guy who has it in the first place

Sure reward perfect tackles but I also think we want to see the ball move

I don't think our game will ever be an easy game to umpire at all

 

[Power Raid]

We want the game to move

I don't want to see 76 free kicks paid per game

I prefer the ball coming out ....some leeway granted is better than blowing the whistle 70 times game

We would see more congestion

agree


I want to see ball movement and where the person taking on the game has the advantage. Rewarding the second person to the ball, or a person who doesn't even want to take possession doesn't seem right and a game interrupted with non-stop frees doesn't sound exciting.

we have had it about right but the balance has seemed to move to far in favour of the ball carrier. just a slight tweak back and we everyone will be happy.

 

[Daveismad]

agree


I want to see ball movement and where the person taking on the game has the advantage. Rewarding the second person to the ball, or a person who doesn't even want to take possession doesn't seem right and a game interrupted with non-stop frees doesn't sound exciting.

we have had it about right but the balance has seemed to move to far in favour of the ball carrier. just a slight tweak back and we everyone will be happy.

If you look through games the best ones are ones where there is about ten frees each or there abouts


If we have 30 frees each the game is going to be ugly

 

[yebiga]

The idea that players would not go for the ball and instead choose to sweat on opponents is nonsense. If you sweat on the opponent, tackle him but he has his hands free and is able to clearly get it to a target, the sweater will look very silly.

The other nonsensical objection, that players will kick indiscriminately and not hit targets beggars belief. Who wants a game where every kick hits a target for an uncontested mark. That is duller than The congestion. The indiscriminate kick forward will increase positional play and one on one contested marking.

The objection that more players will congregate a meter or so around the pack hoping to intercept tap ons, only further locking up the game is also irrational. The indiscrimate tap which may travel a meter or two is one of many other options, 5-10 meter punches, 5-25 meter soccer kicks, volleys, quick hand balls and more one step kicks.

What is beyond doubt is there would be more space and less congestion.

But as I said somewhere else - any rule changes should be initiated in the VFL for a minimum 3 year period before being introduced at the elite level. I am confident the game would so improve at VFL level the crowds would swell significantly. A significant reduction in ball ups. Whilst free kicks may jump up whilst players transition to the new rule, this would quickly drop below current levels.

The unintended consequence would be it would favour footy skills and smarts over athleticism and strength.

 

[Modified Dog]

What if we just rewarded the tackle when a player can't release the ball? What does it matter whether he had prior opportunity, leave that for when the ball is stripped by the tackle but when the player is tackled and the ball is wrapped up to his body why not just pay the free

Isn't this what the crowd has always wanted when it yells "ball"

This idea of "rewarding tackles" is actually against the spirit of the laws of the game.

The purpose of the HtB rule is to penalise the player who is caught in possession and elects to hold onto the ball and create an ugly pack instead of disposing of the ball and keeping the game moving.

The free kick for HtB is a penalty against the player in possession. It's not a reward for the tackler.

The real reward for a good tackle is that the opposition's play was thwarted.

 

[yebiga]

This idea of "rewarding tackles" is actually against the spirit of the laws of the game.

The purpose of the HtB rule is to penalise the player who is caught in possession and elects to hold onto the ball and create an ugly pack instead of disposing of the ball and keeping the game moving.

The free kick for HtB is a penalty against the player in possession. It's not a reward for the tackler.

The real reward for a good tackle is that the opposition's play was thwarted.

I can't disagree with you.
But I think to resolve this congestion even more radical solutions, not in the spirit of the game, have already been considered: not being able take possession unless a player is on his feet was touted by some recently.

I think rewarding the perfect tackle is a shift from the spirit but no so much as to radically change the game.