How did the AFL get the ducking rule so wrong?

[BigRedRoo]

How cant he AFL get this so WRONG?
Surely the rule was designed to stop players charging with their heads down?
This has now morphed into any player who bends over to pick up the ball is free to be tackled around the head.
Even the dopey commentators called the free against Swallow last night the worst decision of the year!

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Because they've rooted the HTB ball rule, why not add to it. Seriously, how do they continually screw that up, its not difficult. Opportunity to get rid of it, yes, did he kick or handball, no, was he tackled and he dropped it, yes, that's HTB, but apparently not some weeks and others its a throw, absolute morons run the umpire and AFL rules department.

 

[Pusswah]

Yep, I thought pretty much the same thing. It's shocking. I'm not sure why i'm surprised. AFL has always had a bit of Casanova about it.

 

[replicant]

Commentators are mostly morons though. They get it wrong all the time.

Swallow picked up the ball, keeps his head low. He walks into Goodes with no force. Goodes grabs him around the waist. Swallow wraps his right arm around Goodes leg, and starts walking forward. Goes about 6-10 paces.

Did he make an attempt to stand up? Nope, stays down.
Did he make any attempt to get rid of it? Nope, wraps his arm around Goodes' leg and makes no attempt.
Was he tied up with no options? Nope, managed to walk 8-10 paces.

Could have tried to stand up. Could have tried to release the ball. Could have put it on his boot for a kick (it was only a foot way the way he was bent over).

So, holding the ball. Free kick. Umpire was right.

They could let it go, but the fact is Swallow had an opportunity to do something with it, and never even tried.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Commentators are mostly morons though. They get it wrong all the time.

Swallow picked up the ball, keeps his head low. He walks into Goodes with no force. Goodes grabs him around the waist. Swallow wraps his right arm around Goodes leg, and starts walking forward. Goes about 6-10 paces.

Did he make an attempt to stand up? Nope, stays down.
Did he make any attempt to get rid of it? Nope, wraps his arm around Goodes' leg and makes no attempt.
Was he tied up with no options? Nope, managed to walk 8-10 paces.

Could have tried to stand up. Could have tried to release the ball. Could have put it on his boot for a kick (it was only a foot way the way he was bent over).

So, holding the ball. Free kick. Umpire was right.

They could let it go, but the fact is Swallow had an opportunity to do something with it, and never even tried.

None of that is relevant. The umpire told Swallow that he had paid the free because Swallow had prior opportunity. He clearly didn't.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

The rule is fine in theory, but if umpires can't distinguish between a player deliberately ducking/leading with his head and a player bending over to pick up the ball, there's no hope for it.

Right now it seems there's no onus on the tackler to show duty of care when coming front on, which is arguably more dangerous than a player ducking into a contest.

 

[hcd199]

Holding the Ball becomes too difficult to officiate, so all the nuances that are there to make the rule work correctly end up complicating it too much and making the problem worse.

Just to make the point, the umpire now has to consider:
Has the player been correctly tackled? If they have not been tackled, play continues; if they have been incorrectly tackled, pay a free kick for that infringement. If correctly tackled, see below, but note that play continues if the ball drops out following a bump or a knock of the arms.
Has the player had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball? If not, the player must be given a reasonable opportunity to dispose of the ball; if they make a genuine attempt to do so, it is a ball up, but if no genuine attempt is made, pay holding the ball. If the player has had prior opportunity, they must immediately correctly dispose of the ball; if they do, call play on, and if they don't, pay holding the ball. Note, however, that a player who ducks or drives the head, or a player who takes possession of the ball at a bounce or throw, or a player who dives on the ball or drags it underneath their body, shall be deemed to have prior opportunity; however, if the player has dived on the ball or dragged it in, knocking it clear is sufficient to avoid a holding the ball free. Note also that if a players arms are pinned, or if he is swung off-balance, and has no prior opportunity, then it will not be holding the ball.

Trying to bear all that in mind, whilst ensuring you correctly apply the new interpretation in regards to ducking/driving the head, makes the situation too difficult - what we're seeing at the moment is the new rule excessively applied (e.g., to players who lean over to pick the ball up), perhaps at the expense of the requirement for a correct tackle, but favouring one aspect of the rule at the expense of others seems to be common with holding the ball (e.g., the hyper-focus on players diving on the ball, but permitting players to simply drop it despite clear prior opportunity). The rule needs to be simplified in some way if this is to be avoided, I should think.

 

[ziad]

15 years ago the rule was great - then they are regularly changing 'interpretations' trying to develop a better TV product and I suspect umpiring is a closed shop run by the AFL PR team.

 

[Oneiros]

Commentators are mostly morons though. They get it wrong all the time.

Swallow picked up the ball, keeps his head low. He walks into Goodes with no force. Goodes grabs him around the waist. Swallow wraps his right arm around Goodes leg, and starts walking forward. Goes about 6-10 paces.

Did he make an attempt to stand up? Nope, stays down.
Did he make any attempt to get rid of it? Nope, wraps his arm around Goodes' leg and makes no attempt.
Was he tied up with no options? Nope, managed to walk 8-10 paces.

Could have tried to stand up. Could have tried to release the ball. Could have put it on his boot for a kick (it was only a foot way the way he was bent over).

So, holding the ball. Free kick. Umpire was right.

They could let it go, but the fact is Swallow had an opportunity to do something with it, and never even tried.

Was Goodes stationary?

 

[BF Tiger]

I was happy that a free kick was paid. The explanation given may have been wrong but I don't think Swallow did enough to get rid of it.

 

[winty]

None of that is relevant. The umpire told Swallow that he had paid the free because Swallow had prior opportunity. He clearly didn't.

He had more than enough time to attempt to get rid of the ball though, or even give the impression he was trying to.

 

[hawkman]

He had more than enough time to attempt to get rid of the ball though, or even give the impression he was trying to.

The issue there is the inconsistancy of umpires with how long they wait to blow the whistle. Many umpires would have called a ball up almost immediately

 

[Lester Burnham]

He had more than enough time to attempt to get rid of the ball though, or even give the impression he was trying to.

I agree. But this only comes into play if he had prior opportunity. He didn't but the ump said he did and incorrectly paid HTB.

 

[jatz14]

The rule is fine in theory, but if umpires can't distinguish between a player deliberately ducking/leading with his head and a player bending over to pick up the ball, there's no hope for it.

Right now it seems there's no onus on the tackler to show duty of care when coming front on, which is arguably more dangerous than a player ducking into a contest.

Always the great danger with this rule change. More and more the responsibility for the tackle is being put on the player being tackled. Players see someone with their head down and think it is open season.

 

[winty]

The issue there is the inconsistancy of umpires with how long they wait to blow the whistle. Many umpires would have called a ball up almost immediately

That's what's so frustrating with the game at the moment. It seems every umpire has a different interpretation of each rule. Some umpires wait for ages before blowing the whistle to call for a ball up. Other umpires ping a player for prior opportunity a nanosecond after getting their hands on the ball.

 

[andypie]

Swallow's was holding the ball because at no stage did he try and get rid of the ball. Grabbed hold of Goodes leg to try and lock it in

 

[Pottering]

Swallow's was holding the ball because at no stage did he try and get rid of the ball. Grabbed hold of Goodes leg to try and lock it in

Correct. The tackle was legitimate and rather than try to dispose of the ball Swallow simply locked his free arm around Goodes leg. The commentator who called it a terrible decision, Luke Darcy , has now conceded the umps call was right.

 

[Furn2]

None of that is relevant. The umpire told Swallow that he had paid the free because Swallow had prior opportunity. He clearly didn't.

Driving forward with your head down is now counted as prior.

The rule is fine its just that the comentators and 90% of BF are too stupid to understand it.

 

[Furn2]

Always the great danger with this rule change. More and more the responsibility for the tackle is being put on the player being tackled. Players see someone with their head down and think it is open season.

you still have to tackle correctly, if you get them high its a free. If not, they have had prior and must legally dispose of the ball.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

Was Goodes stationary?

Goodes is always moving towards change.

 

[Oneiros]

Correct. The tackle was legitimate and rather than try to dispose of the ball Swallow simply locked his free arm around Goodes leg. The commentator who called it a terrible decision, Luke Darcy , has now conceded the umps call was right.

Everyone's first clue that the umpire was right should have been that Luke Darcy originally thought it was a bad call.

 

[telsor]

15 years ago the rule was great - then they are regularly changing 'interpretations' trying to develop a better TV product and I suspect umpiring is a closed shop run by the AFL PR team.

Then they decided that the players heads had to be protected and changed the rules.

So (some of) the players decided a free kick was more important than protecting their heads and started ducking and otherwise ensuring their heads got contact.

If I was the AFL I would, quite publicly admit that it's too tough for the umps to judge in the heat of the moment and tell the players/AFLPA that they've got 2 choices....Either lose the protection of the head by their own (collective) choice (AKA, they take the legal onus on themselves), or they go back to the hardline protection the AFL first went with, with every free checked after the event by the MRP. A 'maybe' duck = 1 week suspension, a 'clear' duck = 2 weeks. Don't like it? Blame the duckers.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

How did the AFL get it wrong? The total absence of common sense. They never think anything through, they just introduce and interpretation of a rule and hope it works. High tackles are already catered for in the rules of the game. I've been saying for years that we don't need new rules, all we need is for umpires to start umpiring by the wording and intent of the rule, not by interpretations.

 

[theyellowsash]

Goodes is always moving towards change.

 

[Purple Suit]

How did the AFL get it wrong? The total absence of common sense. They never think anything through, they just introduce and interpretation of a rule and hope it works. High tackles are already catered for in the rules of the game. I've been saying for years that we don't need new rules, all we need is for umpires to start umpiring by the wording and intent of the rule, not by interpretations.

If you take out interpretations, then the rule book would be hundreds of pages long with a 50 page definition section. The only way to figure rules out would be to draw lawyers at 10 paces and have them argue over it as it still wouldn't be that clear. The problem is it is very hard to write a simple, all encompassing rule that allows for the thousands of scenario's and permutations in a footy game. Therefore, the gray area needs massaging by the umpires boss and taught to all the umpires.

The most common fix would be to make all umpires full time and they can spend the extra 20 or so hours they have a week learning and practicing umpiring. Millions of dollars, numerous careers, thousands of peoples happiness are riding on every decision. Surely we can afford to pay the umpire a full time wage to make his job easier to get right.