Moved Thread Holding the ball

[TheLastCall]

That s*** is paid 99/100 even if it snicks the boot or leg and you all know it

Wasn’t the week prior.

There are two reasons it was a HTB.

The fact it touched his foot means it’s not holding the ball. Umpire was in the perfect spot to see. Just because it didn’t go a meter is irrelevant. A kick is a kick as soon as it touches the foot.

He was also in the act of kick before the tackle hit. Which disrupt the kick. Great tackle but not HTB. Still hit the foot.

Hill was caught, had prior and wasn’t trying to get rid of the ball. correct HTB.

Plenty of better examples of bad HTB calls out there those just aren’t incorrect calls.

 

[radiojake]

I think that stinks, Clark should be HTB every day of the week - touching the boot shouldn't count as a kick or legal disposal, also players have been pinged after they've eventually clearly handballed it but took too long


Hill was HTB too but it should have been called before he got it

 

[TheLastCall]

I think that stinks, Clark should be HTB every day of the week - touching the boot shouldn't count as a kick or legal disposal, also players have been pinged after they've eventually clearly handballed it but took too long


Hill was HTB too but it should have been called before he got it

The moment it touched the boot it was a kick. Just because it didn't go anywhere meant it was a crap kick that's all. Still a legal disposal. The reward for the tackle was to break the ball loose.

 

[ubiquitous226]

I think that stinks, Clark should be HTB every day of the week - touching the boot shouldn't count as a kick or legal disposal, also players have been pinged after they've eventually clearly handballed it but took too long


Hill was HTB too but it should have been called before he got it

For the record I also think it should have been HTB and would have been very comfortable had it been called that way.

The week prior against Port we were on the other end of two calls that were very similar, one potentially brushed the boot and the other where Finlayson was knocked off the ball (adjudged not an actual tackle), and neither were called HTB.

However, the problem with the premise of this argument is what constitutes a kick?
If the ball touching the boot isn't a kick, then what is?
If it goes half a metre, one metre, three metres, etc.?
Are we going to ask the umpires to make a judgement call on whether it was 'enough' of a kick?

 

[radiojake]

For the record I also think it should have been HTB and would have been very comfortable had it been called that way.

The week prior against Port we were on the other end of two calls that were very similar, one potentially brushed the boot and the other where Finlayson was knocked off the ball (adjudged not an actual tackle), and neither were called HTB.

However, the problem with the premise of this argument is what constitutes a kick?
If the ball touching the boot isn't a kick, then what is?
If it goes half a metre, one metre, three metres, etc.?
Are we going to ask the umpires to make a judgement call on whether it was 'enough' of a kick?

If you're getting someone on bigfooty zooming in on a screen shot to prove that the ball touched the boot, it's probably enough to constitute incorrect disposal

Anyway there is plenty more wrong with the umpiring so just add this to the s**t sandwich

 

[ubiquitous226]

If you're getting someone on bigfooty zooming in on a screen shot to prove that the ball touched the boot, it's probably enough to constitute incorrect disposal

Anyway there is plenty more wrong with the umpiring so just add this to the s**t sandwich

Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question.
It's not about the Clark non-decision, it's about how would you change the rules so the end result is better, after taking into account the reality that the umpires have to make calls in real time.

 

[TheLastCall]

Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question.
It's not about the Clark non-decision, it's about how would you change the rules so the end result is better, after taking into account the reality that the umpires have to make calls in real time.

You're forgetting the umpire was in the perfect spot for the Clark decision, he chose not to call it HTB, which was correct. A kick is the ball touching the foot, doesn't matter if it's lucky or deliberate.
He was in the act of kicking when the tackle hit. If he missed the foot it would have been a HTB incorrect disposal, but it hit the foot, play on.
I thought at the time the decision was correct.
No matter what the rule, there will be grey areas that are up the the umpires call. There were plenty of other calls missed in the game that would definitely be incorrect calls. StK fans were frothing about this one, but so were Freo fans about a few other missed calls.

We like a tough game, and it wouldn't be our game if players didn't get the chance to break a tackle. So calls will always be after a few seconds. And fans will always think they are hard done by, sometime they may even be right.

 

[Hoops]

If they ever remove prior, they have to be more specific on what constitutes a tackle and to me it will need to be a completed tackle that would in a no prior situation be a ball up. Not hanging off a player and being swung around even if they do turn 360 degrees

 

[ubiquitous226]

Love him or hate him this is pretty much the summary we'd been discussing, just with a little more zazz

 

[DT_35]

Love him or hate him this is pretty much the summary we'd been discussing, just with a little more zazz

Goal line LOL. What a shocking analogy as we all know you can do anything on the goal line.

I’ve seen the same call over, and over and over where the player gets nick on it and it’s still HTB.

More interesting that Stevic is not umpiring at AFL level this weekend…

 

[Hoops]

Love him or hate him this is pretty much the summary we'd been discussing, just with a little more zazz

I agree with that. But in the heat of the moment the 50 should not have been paid.

 

[eastfreo75]

I agree with that. But in the heat of the moment the 50 should not have been paid.

Most people go off at the umpires because they feel that the decision is wrong.

Butler showed his fist at the umpire. That's not on.

 

[eastfreo75]

Goal line LOL. What a shocking analogy as we all know you can do anything on the goal line.

I’ve seen the same call over, and over and over where the player gets nick on it and it’s still HTB.

More interesting that Stevic is not umpiring at AFL level this weekend…

Saints fans are seriously salty.

You can't even listen to umpire who knows the rule.

 

[MF]

I've never understood why breaking a tackle is considered having prior opportunity when that player is immediately tackled by the 2nd tackler.

There's no chance to dispose of the ball and you're basically being penalised for being strong.

I get paying it if the player takes a step or 2 in between tackles but often you see players penalised when they've had absolutely no chance to dispose.

 

[WilloTree]

Absolute garbage last night. The crowd was genuinely confused as to why some were paid and others weren't.

To the average supporter, it just looks like a raffle, or worse.

Extremely frustrating for fans who already have to put up with the ruck infringement, deliberate oob and high-tackle lotto.

It's becoming painfully clear that morons have highjacked our game.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Absolute garbage last night. Crowd was genuinely confused as to why some were paid and others weren't.

To the average suppoerter, it just looks like a raffle, or worse.

Extremely frustrating for fans who already have to put up with the ruck infringment, deliverate oob and high-tackle lotto.

It's becoming painfully clear that morons have highjacked our game.

It's getting worse