ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Roosy just mentioned this is the official interpretation on 360.
What kind of moronic, stupid idea is this!?
What kind of moronic, stupid idea is this!?
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Holding The Ball - If you elect to handball, you get 2 steps. If you elect to kick, you get 4.
- Thread starter ManWithNoName
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I presume this is a proposal for next year?
My only context is the heading - brilliant decision IMO, could even go further.
Take possession and more than four steps - must dispose - legal tackle results in HTB.
A tackle is only complete when player knees to ground, or ball pinned. Ball spills loose = HTB.
Instant whistles - gets rid of the "made an attempt" worm dance farce.
My only context is the heading - brilliant decision IMO, could even go further.
Take possession and more than four steps - must dispose - legal tackle results in HTB.
A tackle is only complete when player knees to ground, or ball pinned. Ball spills loose = HTB.
Instant whistles - gets rid of the "made an attempt" worm dance farce.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
- Thread starter
- #4
No Roos said this is the interpretation in place now.
Bob_vic
Club Legend
Bob_vic
Club Legend
I've heard stuff like this before too (these simplistic coaching interpretations/instructions) - been around for donkey's years. It's not useful.
Why bother playing if no-one has a reasonable chance to make the play.
The AFL, the clubs, the media and the umpires need to stop fighting with themselves. They're their own worst enemies.
You can't have the rules both ways at the same time.
Why bother playing if no-one has a reasonable chance to make the play.
The AFL, the clubs, the media and the umpires need to stop fighting with themselves. They're their own worst enemies.
You can't have the rules both ways at the same time.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I understand 100% what you are trying to say here, but I will respond to what I think you are saying.
Umpires have had this types of additional information to help make decisions for a long time.
In marking contests, the advice given to umpires is if the ball is controlled to the ground as a player is falling and it is jarred free from contact, then it should be paid as a mark. This type of instruction is useful and gives framework to rules which state things like 'the player must control the ball', which is in itself quite a broad definition and open to interpretation. It does, however, work.
In this HTB advice, I don't see how it fails to give players a chance to 'make the play.' (Again, this is how I interpret your sentence.) The main complaint seems to be that there aren't enough HTB decisions made or at least not for the right things, not that players aren't given a chance to take possession and dispose of it.
I don't see this as being a bad thing, but the questions need to be asked; Is this how it is being interpreted for all decisions or is this just when a player is in the act of disposing of the ball and he is tackled? Just because Roos said it, doesn't mean he is 100% correct or is talking about the right thing.
2 years ago there was a game where a player was tackle in front of goal but the call was play on (Hawks v Geelong I think, Rioli tackle) - it was controversial because it was in the dying seconds and the free would have allowed the opposition to score and win. Details aside, the AFL came out and said it was a correct decision because if a player attempts to dispose of the ball immediately, but is tackled and fails to correctly dispose of it, it is called play on. If a player hasn't tried to dispose immediately (eg has taken a few steps), and then is tackled whilst trying to kick or handball, then they will be punished. It is possible that this is the particular interpretation refers to, rather than every decision. It seems to me to be a reasonable guideline.
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
Dumb. If a player has prior opportunity to dispose of the football in any legal way and is then tackled, it should be HTB no matter what.
I think this guideline is there to determine if a player has had prior op. I don't think it is a hard and fast rule - if a player has the ball, but isn't moving but has had time to dispose, then he would probably be pinged as well. I think this refers to the situation I outlined above.
Get rid of "prior opportunity", if a player can lay a good tackle and prevent the guy from disposing correctly then reward him with a free.
This crap about "he didn't have time to get rid of it" is a farcical cop-out that is actually a recent introduction by those clowns known as the rules committee.
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
But then what happens if a player is tackled 0.000000000001 seconds after receiving the ball? Do you ping them?
If the tackle is legitimate and correct, then absolutely !!
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
Harsh.
The rule gets applied equally for every player so those guys with the better skills and quicker reflexes will have an advantage.
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
If your ruling did take place, would you keep the "knocked out in the tackle" thing? I think you'd need to if you're going to ping them no matter what.
I'm not completely sure what you are referring to there ?? I'm assuming it's the ball, not the player.
If that is the case, then as I wrote in that earlier post "If the tackle is legitimate and correct" only then does the player with the ball get penalised.
If the ball is knocked free in the act of the tackle being laid then it's 'play on' because the tackler has not pinned the ball AND the player.
At present, we see players being rewarded for tackles (I use that term in the loosest definition here) when they simply brush the arm in a knocking motion or partially hold an arm, at no stage have they impeded the player with the ball and ensured he has not disposed of it at all or disposed of it correctly.
If a tackle is applied in a true and correct manner, there are only two outcomes that can take place :
- the first being the tackler is awarded a free kick due to the tackled player "holding the ball" (he did not dispose of it at all)
- secondly the tackler is awarded a free kick due to the tackled player "dropping the ball" (he did not dispose of it by handballing it with both hands or kicked it with one of his feet.
What we are seeing in the game now is none of those scenarios and its a blight on the game !!
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
I'm not completely sure what you are referring to there ?? I'm assuming it's the ball, not the player.
If that is the case, then as I wrote in that earlier post "If the tackle is legitimate and correct" only then does the player with the ball get penalised.
If the ball is knocked free in the act of the tackle being laid then it's 'play on' because the tackler has not pinned the ball AND the player.
At present, we see players being rewarded for tackles (I use that term in the loosest definition here) when they simply brush the arm in a knocking motion or partially hold an arm, at no stage have they impeded the player with the ball and ensured he has not disposed of it at all or disposed of it correctly.
If a tackle is applied in a true and correct manner, there are only two outcomes that can take place :
- the first being the tackler is awarded a free kick due to the tackled player "holding the ball" (he did not dispose of it at all)
- secondly the tackler is awarded a free kick due to the tackled player "dropping the ball" (he did not dispose of it by handballing it with both hands or kicked it with one of his feet.
What we are seeing in the game now is none of those scenarios and its a blight on the game !!
Yeah, I meant the ball.
I think if you're going to ping a player regardless of prior opportunity or the lack thereof, you'd have to keep the rule of playing on if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. I think it could work, but I doubt it'll ever be put into effect.
Rules applied equally for every player? I want the drugs you're on.
Yeah, I meant the ball.
I think if you're going to ping a player regardless of prior opportunity or the lack thereof, you'd have to keep the rule of playing on if the ball is knocked out in the tackle. I think it could work, but I doubt it'll ever be put into effect.
Yep, that is how it used to be when I played too.
If the ball was jarred loose, the umpire would just call out loudly "PLAY ON" so everyone in the vicinity knew that there was no free kick awarded and the ball is still in play.
Hey, *-knuckle, I'm talking in the general sense here.
I realise that it is a lottery from week to week but what is meant to happen is that the rules get applied in the same manner and interpretation by all of the umpires at all times and in each match.
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
A lot of people hate the rule today though in the AFL.
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #23
Each week we see players kick the ball out of a congestion without taking a single step
But Monfries is now to be permitted to take 4 steps or according to the senile Gerard Healy - on the couch - 6 steps or he has not been given sufficient time to dispose of the ball!
Where did this step business come into the game?
Does a player who pivots on one leg therefore become immune from a holding the ball or an incorrect disposal decision which may cause the ball to be spilled from a tackle?
If a player takes 2 steps forward and then 2 steps back is that 4 steps or zero steps?
What if a player were to hop on one leg?
Now I am all for giving the under 11s time to take a kick. It would be harsh to penalise them before they had a chance to get their kick. I think Gerard Healy and the afl rules really are very appropriate for junior football, particularly for under 12s.
But honestly, in a real professional team sport with athletic beasts, if your teammate hand balls the ball to you and you instantly are tackled - poor thing! - I expect the boys could survive a harsh holding the ball decision and I suspect there would not be many who become so traumatised that as a result they abandon the sport.
It is a team sport
No one has to take possession, they can punch it, tap it forward. They can shepherd to create space for a team mate to take possession, they an kick it off the ground. They can do what was done for a hundred years before this under 11s modification infected the elite level.
Not surprisingly following this under 11s modification - give the poor kid a chance to dispose of it - and the game increasingly is played like under 11s game with virtually 30 players on the ball.
Where the hell did these steps come from?
But Monfries is now to be permitted to take 4 steps or according to the senile Gerard Healy - on the couch - 6 steps or he has not been given sufficient time to dispose of the ball!
Where did this step business come into the game?
Does a player who pivots on one leg therefore become immune from a holding the ball or an incorrect disposal decision which may cause the ball to be spilled from a tackle?
If a player takes 2 steps forward and then 2 steps back is that 4 steps or zero steps?
What if a player were to hop on one leg?
Now I am all for giving the under 11s time to take a kick. It would be harsh to penalise them before they had a chance to get their kick. I think Gerard Healy and the afl rules really are very appropriate for junior football, particularly for under 12s.
But honestly, in a real professional team sport with athletic beasts, if your teammate hand balls the ball to you and you instantly are tackled - poor thing! - I expect the boys could survive a harsh holding the ball decision and I suspect there would not be many who become so traumatised that as a result they abandon the sport.
It is a team sport
No one has to take possession, they can punch it, tap it forward. They can shepherd to create space for a team mate to take possession, they an kick it off the ground. They can do what was done for a hundred years before this under 11s modification infected the elite level.
Not surprisingly following this under 11s modification - give the poor kid a chance to dispose of it - and the game increasingly is played like under 11s game with virtually 30 players on the ball.
Where the hell did these steps come from?
The rules committee have a lot to answer for, it was very simple back in the 70's & 80's when I played. There was no confusion, there was no ambiguity and the player who wanted to go in hard and get the ball was protected.
On the flipside, if you were good enough to pin the guy with the ball, you also got rewarded which meant that every player on the field regardless of whether they had the aggot or not had a red hot go at the contest.
It made it an even more enjoyable game to play and a sensational spectacle in sport. There wasn't that many guys getting injured as well.
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #25
It really is beyond idiotic
The rolling maul exists precisely because players know they can grab the ball and are protected from a free kick because they never had a chance to dispose of it - which is precisely why they took possession - other wise they would punch, tap or kick it in their direction as it happened for a 100 years. It is total nonsense, killing the spectacle and making the game more and more unwatchable.
Similar threads
