Holding The Ball - If you elect to handball, you get 2 steps. If you elect to kick, you get 4.

[Sprout]

Of all the idiot concepts. This whole thing is genuinely starting to piss me off. I just hope there is someone, anyone, at AFL House with an ounce of common sense who can a) recognise the extent of frustration over it and b) FIX it.

In my view it is a simple fix. The concept of prior opportunity remains, however it is not judged in terms of steps taken (which for some reason also varies pending on how the player disposes of the ball). It is judged by way of the amount of time a player has to dispose of the ball, and whether a reasonable amount of time has transpired. Given the pace of the game, a few seconds is enough time. Half a second is not. If the umpires deems there has been enough time and the player is pinned in possession or does not dispose of the ball correctly (AND THIS INCLUDES DROPPING IT), the player is penalised.

I fail to understand why this has become so difficult. It is far from rocket science. If it was ruled on properly, there would be more free kicks being given which also helps in reducing the congestion.

 

[KissKiss]

I am confused how what seemed a relatively simple rule has become so complicated

 

[yebiga]

Of all the idiot concepts. This whole thing is genuinely starting to piss me off. I just hope there is someone, anyone, at AFL House with an ounce of common sense who can a) recognise the extent of frustration over it and b) FIX it.

In my view it is a simple fix. The concept of prior opportunity remains, however it is not judged in terms of steps taken (which for some reason also varies pending on how the player disposes of the ball). It is judged by way of the amount of time a player has to dispose of the ball, and whether a reasonable amount of time has transpired. Given the pace of the game, a few seconds is enough time. Half a second is not. If the umpires deems there has been enough time and the player is pinned in possession or does not dispose of the ball correctly (AND THIS INCLUDES DROPPING IT), the player is penalised.

I fail to understand why this has become so difficult. It is far from rocket science. If it was ruled on properly, there would be more free kicks being given which also helps in reducing the congestion.

"Reasonable amount of time "
There was time to decide to punch, tap, shepherd space for his team mate or kick the ball off the ground and should a player decide to do any of those he cannot be tackled. If the player decided to take possession with both hands he can be tackled. If he can shrug the tackle, good on him. If he can't and is caught in possession unable to dispose of the ball the options are what? - a free kick or a ball up. If the consequences are a free kick against, than in congested areas players will not take possession but will force the ball forward and thereby clear the ball out of congestion. If the consequences are a ball up, they will take possession hoping to get it out but comfortable that the worst case is a ball up.

Thus by giving players a reasonable amount of time, we encourage them to take possession and not take into account whether there is a reasonable opportunity to actually clear the ball. They can kill the game without consequence, they need only pretend to be trying to dispose of it.

Certain Teams like Sydney under Rooos, Fremantle under Lyon, st Kilda under Lyon have evolved an entire game plan exploiting this concept of a reasonable time. Thus the evolution toward big strong bodied midfielders who have the strength to repeatedly be tackled and retain the ball in congestion. These sides attempt to control the entire game from one congestion to the next and set up entirely for it. One or two big bodies in the contest the rest on the outside to prevent the ball leaving the area. The end result is that the stronger bodies and the more disciplined structures will win these dead ball situations far more often. The skill ful silky on baller is negated not only by a tagger but the game style as there simply is no space.

Remove this Concept of a reasonable time and the ball leaves the congestion in much more unpredictable fashion.
Thereby the game becomes more fluid, a quicker games, less tackles, it reduces secondary and tertiary ball ups and players with skill on the outside are advantaged and the quick movement creates more one on o e contests in space.

 

[Bob_vic]

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.

What I'm saying is that some of these things don't help - it makes it more complicated that it needs to be.

What I'm getting at is there isn't an expectation for a player to immediately slam the ball on his boot as soon as he gains possession. He needs to be given a "reasonable time" to dispose, either before or during the tackle. To then say that is 3 steps, 5 steps, 10 steps - you cannot possibly judge a game like that, and it never is, regardless of what anyone believes otherwise. Watch a typical game and see how many possible HTBs are let go under this possible criteria.

There are a whole set of guidelines that a good umpire will take into account in deciding prior opportunity, not just counting the number of steps.

 

[yebiga]

Why don't we permit a ruckman who grabs the ball from a ball up a reasonable time to dispose of it?
Why should it be any different anywhere else?
End of argument

 

[hcd199]

"Reasonable amount of time "
There was time to decide to punch, tap, shepherd space for his team mate or kick the ball off the ground and should a player decide to do any of those he cannot be tackled. If the player decided to take possession with both hands he can be tackled. If he can shrug the tackle, good on him. If he can't and is caught in possession unable to dispose of the ball the options are what? - a free kick or a ball up. If the consequences are a free kick against, than in congested areas players will not take possession but will force the ball forward and thereby clear the ball out of congestion. If the consequences are a ball up, they will take possession hoping to get it out but comfortable that the worst case is a ball up.

Thus by giving players a reasonable amount of time, we encourage them to take possession and not take into account whether there is a reasonable opportunity to actually clear the ball. They can kill the game without consequence, they need only pretend to be trying to dispose of it.

Certain Teams like Sydney under Rooos, Fremantle under Lyon, st Kilda under Lyon have evolved an entire game plan exploiting this concept of a reasonable time. Thus the evolution toward big strong bodied midfielders who have the strength to repeatedly be tackled and retain the ball in congestion. These sides attempt to control the entire game from one congestion to the next and set up entirely for it. One or two big bodies in the contest the rest on the outside to prevent the ball leaving the area. The end result is that the stronger bodies and the more disciplined structures will win these dead ball situations far more often. The skill ful silky on baller is negated not only by a tagger but the game style as there simply is no space.

Remove this Concept of a reasonable time and the ball leaves the congestion in much more unpredictable fashion.
Thereby the game becomes more fluid, a quicker games, less tackles, it reduces secondary and tertiary ball ups and players with skill on the outside are advantaged and the quick movement creates more one on o e contests in space.

That's the purpose of the "genuine attempt" rule, to remove the incentive to collect the ball and choose to take the tackle knowing that you can simply lock the ball in. Attempts to standardise umpiring interpretations by recourse to a guideline that differs from the rule itself are the fault here, both as to what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of time (there's a reason the rule is discretionary, and has nothing to do with steps taken) and what constitutes a "genuine" attempt (the current interpretation permits the rule to be exploited in precisely the same way it was before; somewhere along the line, "genuine attempt" seems to have come to mean "resembling an attempt").

You could argue the "genuine attempt" provision does more harm than it does good, but I'd argue it's a far better solution to the problem than setting some arbitrary standard as to what is and isn't a reasonable time to dispose.

 

[yebiga]

That's the purpose of the "genuine attempt" rule, to remove the incentive to collect the ball and choose to take the tackle knowing that you can simply lock the ball in. Attempts to standardise umpiring interpretations by recourse to a guideline that differs from the rule itself are the fault here, both as to what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of time (there's a reason the rule is discretionary, and has nothing to do with steps taken) and what constitutes a "genuine" attempt (the current interpretation permits the rule to be exploited in precisely the same way it was before; somewhere along the line, "genuine attempt" seems to have come to mean "resembling an attempt").

You could argue the "genuine attempt" provision does more harm than it does good, but I'd argue it's a far better solution to the problem than setting some arbitrary standard as to what is and isn't a reasonable time to dispose.

Reasonable time - genuine attempt
Great for under 11s

Why is the reasonable time and genuine attempt forgotten in ruck contest?

 

[Bob_vic]

Reasonable time - genuine attempt
Great for under 11s

Why is the reasonable time and genuine attempt forgotten in ruck contest?

I agree, I don't like the "prior opp" rule for taking the ball from the ruck. However, there were many prominent people in the footy community/media that advocated for this (e.g. Robert Walls)

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Don't like the idea that a legitimate tackle, prior opportunity or not, should be rewarded with a free kick. Where is the incentive to play the ball? Too many players sweating on tackles these days instead of going in and getting the bloody thing.

 

[SuperSub17]

Absolutely moronic. Wake the * up AFL.

 

[hawkman]

Both are legal disposals why should you be allowed more time to complete one of them?

 

[yebiga]

Don't like the idea that a legitimate tackle, prior opportunity or not, should be rewarded with a free kick. Where is the incentive to play the ball? Too many players sweating on tackles these days instead of going in and getting the bloody thing.

Players are sweating on tackles because they know their opponent will take possession so they have to stop them with a tackle. It is a symbiotic grind to stop play. On the other hand, if the tackler is rewarded with a free kick, the player will not take possession and will find some way to move the ball out of the area. The tackle never occurs, rather the ball is up the field were someone with some space can win it.

The incentive the win the ball is always there. Currently the incentive is to kill the contest unless it is entirely on your terms.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Players are sweating on tackles because they know their opponent will take possession so they have to stop them with a tackle. It is a symbiotic grind to stop play. On the other hand, if the tackler is rewarded with a free kick, the player will not take possession and will find some way to move the ball out of the area. The tackle never occurs, rather the ball is up the field were someone with some space can win it.

The incentive the win the ball is always there. Currently the incentive is to kill the contest unless it is entirely on your terms.

Some players take possession to use the ball to their advantage. If they don't take possession and 'find some way to move the ball out of the area', how much control do they have over whether their team retains possession? It's not like there is a plethora of outriders running free within an uncontrolled tapping distance from the play.

It seems we are acknowledging that people sweat on the tackle to hold up play, but our answer is to reward those that do this and encourage players not to take possession. Is this when the game truly becomes aerial ping pong as we soccer and punch the ball forward in haphazard fashion so as to avoid being tackled with it? Stoppages vs rolling mauls or smashing the ball out of the area on a wing and a prayer. I know we do this anyway but usually it is with a 40m+ kick forward.

 

[yebiga]

I agree, I don't like the "prior opp" rule for taking the ball from the ruck. However, there were many prominent people in the footy community/media that advocated for this (e.g. Robert Walls)

The interchange and the prior opportunity rule should be dropped from VFL games from next season and lets watch the consequences. I would put money on VFL attendances increasing dramatically and the quality of the games improving so significantly that the AFL will be embarrassed and rush their implementation.

No new rules should be made at AFL until it has been trialled at VFL level for 3-5 seasons, so that all the unintended consequences are apparent.

we have a rabid media with media personalities who by fabricating hysteria are obtaining knee jerk reactions from the AFL on rules. This must stop as the integrity of the game has been seriously compromised.

 

[yebiga]

Some players take possession to use the ball to their advantage. If they don't take possession and 'find some way to move the ball out of the area', how much control do they have over whether their team retains possession? It's not like there is a plethora of outriders running free within an uncontrolled tapping distance from the play.

It seems we are acknowledging that people sweat on the tackle to hold up play, but our answer is to reward those that do this and encourage players not to take possession. Is this when the game truly becomes aerial ping pong as we soccer and punch the ball forward in haphazard fashion so as to avoid being tackled with it? Stoppages vs rolling mauls or smashing the ball out of the area on a wing and a prayer. I know we do this anyway but usually it is with a 40m+ kick forward.

Haphazard, unpredictable or aerial ping pong is what the game was, it was not rugby mauls, set play after set play. But the exciting players, with the best ability to anticipate, evade and execute thrived when they had a single opponent to out mark, evade....

If I am given the benefit of the doubt when taking possession, I will take more time to dispose of the ball to the advantage of my team. Two things happen now: I am tackled and unable to dispose of it and their is a ball up or because I take the time I hit the target and my team retains possession. Neither of these outcomes is a positive for the game. Either more ball ups or more chipping around to continue to retain possession.

Alternatively, we see numerous players, when the game is desperate, who will kick the ball forward without even taking a single step. The result is no stoppage or ball up and the ball is now likely to be flying to a one on one aerial or ground contest. Unpredictability is increased making for a more exciting and interesting contest and favouring the the more talented player in space who can read the play and beat one opponent.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Why don't we permit a ruckman who grabs the ball from a ball up a reasonable time to dispose of it?
Why should it be any different anywhere else?
End of argument

I'm not sure where I stand on the ruling or any of this step business, but you can't be serious with this post?

The reason that rule was brought in was so ruckmen wouldn't grab the ball, get tackled and another ball-up happens again. It's a great rule and shouldn't have any impact on the around the ground holding the ball decisions.

 

[yebiga]

I'm not sure where I stand on the ruling or any of this step business, but you can't be serious with this post?

The reason that rule was brought in was so ruckmen wouldn't grab the ball, get tackled and another ball-up happens again. It's a great rule and shouldn't have any impact on the around the ground holding the ball decisions.

It is a great rule
And It is just as great a rule for around the ground
And I am serious
Please tell me why a rule which is great for the ruck would not be great for around the ground?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If the tackle is legitimate and correct, then absolutely !!

So you suggesting we bring back the old "dont grab the ball if an opponents near you because you'll get tackled and pinged for HTB, instead throw your arms back and play for the holding the man free kick" mentality?

Theres nothing wrong with prior opportunity. The rules are simple. Not always umpired well but simple. If you have had no prior opportunity to get rid of the ball legally then an attempt to dispose of it is fine.

As for counting steps, assume its not a rule as such, more a guideline for umpires to be able to consistently determine whether a player has had prior opportunity. It sounds reasonable if they are actually moving, not so much if they are doing a pirohouette

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

It is a great rule
And It is just as great a rule for around the ground
And I am serious
Please tell me why a rule which is great for the ruck would not be great for around the ground?

Because no one would go for the ball, they'd elect to go the tackle so they'd get a free, unpressured disposal?

 

[LordLucifer]

Why don't we permit a ruckman who grabs the ball from a ball up a reasonable time to dispose of it?
Why should it be any different anywhere else?
End of argument

The ruckman should be able to grab it when & where they like, any rule that penalises them for trying to actually get the ball is farcical & non-productive.

If they get tackled correctly and don't dispose of it correctly then they should be penalised.

 

[LordLucifer]

So you suggesting we bring back the old "dont grab the ball if an opponents near you because you'll get tackled and pinged for HTB, instead throw your arms back and play for the holding the man free kick" mentality?

The "old" ??

When I played, the object of the game was to get hold of the ball and via your team-mates, get it through the big sticks. The recent phenomenon is for players to stand around and wait until someone picks it up and then tackle them.

This is not the game that I grew up with and it is a direct result of the constant unnecessary rule changes that have been implemented over the past decade or so. A lot of these rule changes are completely at odds with the fabric & intent of the game and what made is so great to play as well as watch.

There is no "contest" now, it's all a circular game of "keepings off" !! Why do we need "rotations" ?? This is another recent phase that has turned the game into a joke !!

It's a sad situation when a major sport takes all of the actual contest out of it and that is what we are witnessing now.

 

[LordLucifer]

Because no one would go for the ball, they'd elect to go the tackle so they'd get a free, unpressured disposal?

Isn't that a sad indictment on the mindset of the players though ??

I'll play a sport but won't be a real player, I'll just be a seagull and take the easy way out.

It hasn't always been like that but this is what you get when you pander to soccer mums & the chardonnay set.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Isn't that a sad indictment on the mindset of the players though ??

I'll play a sport but won't be a real player, I'll just be a seagull and take the easy way out.

It hasn't always been like that but this is what you get when you pander to soccer mums & the chardonnay set.

No, it's not an indictment at all. It's smart football if they were the rules. Why would you risk taking the ball if a tackle means you're giving away a free kick? Think about how many tackles there are a game.

 

[LordLucifer]

No, it's not an indictment at all. It's smart football if they were the rules. Why would you risk taking the ball if a tackle means you're giving away a free kick? Think about how many tackles there are a game.

Why would you risk taking the ball ??

Well for one, that is the object of the game !!

 

[Oneiros]

Has anyone actually seen anyone done for taking three steps and attempting to handball? They say only two is allowed if handballing, but I can't say I've seen it happen in practice.