How to fix Holding the Ball

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 17, 2004
11,090
19,554
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
tl;dr Remove the Free Kick

OK, so the interpretations of holding the ball that get us all wound up each season are:

1. Incorrect tackle
2. Incorrect disposal
3. Prior opportunity

These grievances exist largely because they are factors in whether a free kick should be paid, and if so, to whom. As far as a I can tell, Aussie Rules is the only sport that rewards tackles with a free kick. Rugby League and Union dont, Gridiron doesnt. Tackles in those codes are not a means to get a free kick, rather to stop a play. As long as the tackle is deemed fair, the ball carrying team generally does not lose possession if a fair tackle is made.

So what if we applied that concept to Aussie Rules. The rule would simply state that a player in possession of the ball may be tackled fairly (as per existing guidelines). If the ball is knocked or spills free, it's play on, if the ball is held up (ie congestion) the ball is thrown up. If the tackle is illegal, then a free against the tackler is paid.

In implementing this rule, we remove the tackle as a means to get a free. We address points 2 and 3 (above) directly by removing those factors in interpretation, and we address point 1 indirectly, as it becomes the only thing an Umpire has to judge.

The main point being, we define the sole purpose of tackling a player as a means to inhibit his movement and/or that of the ball. NOT to try and be awarded a free kick.

So wont that introduce an increased amount of "throwing"? Possibly. So supplement the rule by saying that the tackled player may only dispose of the ball to a team mate, if disposal is within the rules, otherwise, should the ball leave the tackled players possession in a manner not deemed a legal disposal, it must hit the ground before a team mate can take possession.

So the resulting rule would be:

A player in possession of the ball may be tackled fairly (as per current rules) to impede his movement or remove the ball from his possession.
  • If the tackle is deemed illegal, a free kick will be paid to the ball carrier.
  • If the ball spills free in a manner not deemed a legal disposal, the ball must hit the ground before a team mate can take possession
  • If the ball is disposed of legally, then any player may take direct possession without waiting for the ball to hit the ground
  • If the ball becomes held up (ie congestion), a ball up will occur.
Seems to me that this would take 90% of the interpretation out of the rule and add ten years to all our lives in reduced anxiety levels.

/discuss
 
Started off thinking this was a terrible idea but I've warmed slightly to it by the end of your post. Still think it changes the game far too much though. Good tackles deserve to be rewarded with a free kick.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Aug 21, 2008
12,563
15,279
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I don't know why this isn't talked about more, but:

Penalise the players who purposely hold the ball in to the player in question. How often do we see this? And how frustrating is it when the player furiously trying to get rid of it is penalised?

The only reason I can see that the AFL haven't tried to stamp this out is because they are worried about the amount of congestion and unattractive scrambling for the ball.
 
Mar 23, 2007
34,928
23,531
Where Premiership dreams are made...
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man U, Canucks and 49ers
If you've got the ball and had a chance to get rid of it and you get tackled:

a) if you don't dispose of it its holding the ball

b) if it is knocked free or incorrectly disposed off it's incorrect disposal/dropping the ball

c) if you get rid of it legally immediately, it is play on

???
 
Apr 29, 2012
24,113
34,585
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
It's pretty ******* simple really


Prior Opportunity + Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + correct Tackle = Holding the Ball
Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + No Opportunity + Correct Tackle = Throw it up
Incorrect Tackle = Free kick to the ball carrier

THe only time it should be play on - is if the tackler knocks the ball out himself, unlike the current interpretation which is where the ball just gets knocked out it's play on. If the ball is knocked out due to a tackle on the arms or body that is incorrect disposal, if the ball is knocked out by the tacklers hand or fist, that is play on.
 

Sugar2Sideshow

All Australian
Sep 7, 2014
704
523
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If you've got the ball and had a chance to get rid of it and you get tackled:

a) if you don't dispose of it its holding the ball

b) if it is knocked free or incorrectly disposed off it's incorrect disposal/dropping the ball

c) if you get rid of it legally immediately, it is play on

???
Yup. And if your first movement is to fend off, dusty I'm looking at you, and you are tackled than *should* be called prior opportunity but is often not for some reason.
 
Jun 27, 2013
46,977
43,978
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, SSC Napoli, ESH
It's pretty ******* simple really


Prior Opportunity + Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + correct Tackle = Holding the Ball
Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + No Opportunity + Correct Tackle = Throw it up
Incorrect Tackle = Free kick to the ball carrier

THe only time it should be play on - is if the tackler knocks the ball out himself, unlike the current interpretation which is where the ball just gets knocked out it's play on. If the ball is knocked out due to a tackle on the arms or body that is incorrect disposal, if the ball is knocked out by the tacklers hand or fist, that is play on.
As a local umpire myself yes correct, but the thing that frustrates many fans is the amount of time required to be deemed as an opportunity for the tackled player and also the home ground advantage factor. WCE has been a major beneficiary of borderline calls over the years due to their screaming fans encouraging an umpire to prematurely blow his whistle but on the flipside when there's no noise it might not get called to the opposition.

When I umpire I always communicate to the players etc say "knock it out" to try and get the game moving.
 
Aug 17, 2004
11,090
19,554
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
Not trying to regulate the discussion, but could we discuss the value of removing the reward for a good tackle, which is the crux of the idea. We could debate the vagueries of the current rules/interpretations for the next 100 years.....
 

Hawkers

Cancelled
Feb 18, 2005
8,528
4,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
It's pretty ******* simple really


Prior Opportunity + Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + correct Tackle = Holding the Ball
Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + No Opportunity + Correct Tackle = Throw it up
Incorrect Tackle = Free kick to the ball carrier

THe only time it should be play on - is if the tackler knocks the ball out himself, unlike the current interpretation which is where the ball just gets knocked out it's play on. If the ball is knocked out due to a tackle on the arms or body that is incorrect disposal, if the ball is knocked out by the tacklers hand or fist, that is play on.

The only thing I'd change is your middle statement

"Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + No Opportunity + Correct Tackle = Throw it up"

It needs to be a free against you. Take away the prior or no opportunity clause. That is what causes the problems.
If we do this then it'll free up the game as players will make sure they can get a proper disposal before taking possession and if they think they can't get a clear disposal then they'll tap it out or quickly kick it off the ground into space, we'll see a lot more 'hack' kicks.

That'll open the game up and reduce packs and congestion.

I've argued that many times in gameday threads

Basically it's summed up like this

Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + correct Tackle = Holding the Ball
Incorrect Tackle = Free kick to the ball carrier
 
The single most ridiculous thing about the current holding the ball rule.

The man who make effort to win ball has ALL the responsibility for that ball leaving the pack, the tackler has none.

The player who is tackled must make every effort to clear the ball out; if he doesn't, he is punished. Probably fair enough

But from there on, things get stupid quickly. The tackler, and third, fourth, fifth man in, have no obligation to get the ball out. Instead, and I'll put this bit in caps, because it's so fundamentally stupid I can't believe it.

THEY DEVOTE ALL THEIR EFFORT TO ENSURING THE BALL DOESN'T LEAVE THE CONTEST, AND IF THEY DO IT CORRECTLY, NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT PUNISHED, THEY WILL GET REWARDED!

Those who have training in psych will recognise simple operant conditioning in action; the ball is continually locked in, because the tacklers are rewarded for doing so

If the AFL can't see how logically flawed this is, one rule for the ball winner, the completely opposite rule for the tackling team, I don't know what hope there is. The consequences, a scrum down in very contest, are entirely predictable when one realises the factors in play.


I don't know what the solution is, but rewarding the tackler for locking the ball in will only ensure contests where the ball is locked in. It's simple Skinner Box behaviourism, it's not really that hard to see that the result will be the exact opposite of what they claim to want, a flowing, open game...Perhaps, after the initial tackle, some other scene comes into play, perhaps the umpire calls tackle, at which point the tackler must immediately release the player, and the ball carrier must release the ball (just a first thought, not sure about it, but something is completely wrong at the moment)
 

Hawkers

Cancelled
Feb 18, 2005
8,528
4,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
The single most ridiculous thing about the current holding the ball rule.

The man who make effort to win ball has ALL the responsibility for that ball leaving the pack, the tackler has none.

The player who is tackled must make every effort to clear the ball out; if he doesn't, he is punished. Probably fair enough

But from there on, things get stupid quickly. The tackler, and third, fourth, fifth man in, have no obligation to get the ball out. Instead, and I'll put this bit in caps, because it's so fundamentally stupid I can't believe it.

THEY DEVOTE ALL THEIR EFFORT TO ENSURING THE BALL DOESN'T LEAVE THE CONTEST, AND IF THEY DO IT CORRECTLY, NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT PUNISHED, THEY WILL GET REWARDED!

Those who have training in psych will recognise simple operant conditioning in action; the ball is continually locked in, because the tacklers are rewarded for doing so

If the AFL can't see how logically flawed this is, one rule for the ball winner, the completely opposite rule for the tackling team, I don't know what hope there is. The consequences, a scrum down in very contest, are entirely predictable when one realises the factors in play.


I don't know what the solution is, but rewarding the tackler for locking the ball in will only ensure contests where the ball is locked in. It's simple Skinner Box behaviourism, it's not really that hard to see that the result will be the exact opposite of what they claim to want, a flowing, open game...Perhaps, after the initial tackle, some other scene comes into play, perhaps the umpire calls tackle, at which point the tackler must immediately release the player, and the ball carrier must release the ball (just a first thought, not sure about it, but something is completely wrong at the moment)


Get rid of prior opportunity, remove the doubt. The player with the ball will know exactly what's going to happen
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Get rid of prior opportunity, remove the doubt. The player with the ball will know exactly what's going to happen
That's probably the most logical solution, but I'd like to see it accompanied by a 'no third man' rule. You'd still like to see one player win the ball and back himself to barge through one other player before getting rid of the ball.

If he can't, free against. If he can, good, play on. Either way, we like to see a bit of bash and crash.

It's the pile on which buggers things up. Remove that, and it would go a way to solving it.

Your solution is very good, but I'm worried to create an environment where a player would be loathe to win the ball unless he was totally without threat of being tackled.
 
Apr 29, 2012
24,113
34,585
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
The only thing I'd change is your middle statement

"Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + No Opportunity + Correct Tackle = Throw it up"

It needs to be a free against you. Take away the prior or no opportunity clause. That is what causes the problems.
If we do this then it'll free up the game as players will make sure they can get a proper disposal before taking possession and if they think they can't get a clear disposal then they'll tap it out or quickly kick it off the ground into space, we'll see a lot more 'hack' kicks.

That'll open the game up and reduce packs and congestion.

I've argued that many times in gameday threads

Basically it's summed up like this

Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + correct Tackle = Holding the Ball
Incorrect Tackle = Free kick to the ball carrier
* freeing the game up, I want to see handpasses and kicks. Not the ball spilling out. I dont care if there are one hundred ball ups a match. As long as the rauling mawl and dropping the footy goes
 

Sherrinator

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2004
7,546
6,599
SEQLD
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
BBFFC, Southport AFC
Reward the tackle if:

Player in possession changes direction with the ball or takes longer than 2 seconds to dispose and is either wrapped up or loses the ball in the tackle be that knocked out or not.

Players should not be allowed to take possession unless they are on their feet. Players should slap the ball to advantage to avoid a pack. Automatic free.
 

Hawkers

Cancelled
Feb 18, 2005
8,528
4,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
That's probably the most logical solution, but I'd like to see it accompanied by a 'no third man' rule. You'd still like to see one player win the ball and back himself to barge through one other player before getting rid of the ball.

If he can't, free against. If he can, good, play on. Either way, we like to see a bit of bash and crash.

It's the pile on which buggers things up. Remove that, and it would go a way to solving it.

Your solution is very good, but I'm worried to create an environment where a player would be loathe to win the ball unless he was totally without threat of being tackled.

One of the best things, if not the best thing, of our game is the freedom that it allows it's players.
Any player can go anywhere and do pretty much anything they want to get the ball - if a team wants to stack 3 or 4 guys on to 1 then let them. The other team was the benefit of loose players elsewhere.

If we remove the prior rule then the best players will still back themselves in, Judd used to do it in his WC days, Mitchell does it now, Williams got the ball out constantly under pressure from multiple opponents. The pure ball winners will be back and will be better because they have to be otherwise they'll be done for holding the ball.

What you'll find is also less players around the ball and more positional play. As the ball is in a pack, a player grabs it and has a small amount of time to get rid of it otherwise he'll be tackled, then he'll just throw it on the boot, he can't really direct where that will go, or he'll smash it clear, as far as he can because he knows he can't take possession.
So then coaches will then be telling players to hold to their positions on the field, as you never know when a quick kick is coming, thus stopping them from getting sucked into the contest at the ball
So it equals, less players at the contest, more positional play, less ball ups, better ball winners
 

Hawkers

Cancelled
Feb 18, 2005
8,528
4,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
**** freeing the game up, I want to see handpasses and kicks. Not the ball spilling out. I dont care if there are one hundred ball ups a match. As long as the rauling mawl and dropping the footy goes

Which you will as there will be less players around the ball to create the mauls
 

Hawkers

Cancelled
Feb 18, 2005
8,528
4,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
Reward the tackle if:

Player in possession changes direction with the ball or takes longer than 2 seconds to dispose and is either wrapped up or loses the ball in the tackle be that knocked out or not.

Players should not be allowed to take possession unless they are on their feet. Players should slap the ball to advantage to avoid a pack. Automatic free.


No, players have freedom to get the ball however they want, once they get it they need to dispose of it correctly.
Taking away the games freedoms is not the way to go. Less laws, not more
 
Apr 17, 2006
27,237
16,555
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
Decide what constitutes a tackle, all other contact sports have a "held rule" be it arm or knee touching the ground, or forward momentum being stopped

Don't allow the play to continue once a tackle occurs, it's either a ball up, or a free

We have 3 umpires on the ground, the officiating one shouldn't need to seagul to make sure where the ball is
 

Hawkers

Cancelled
Feb 18, 2005
8,528
4,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
Decide what constitutes a tackle, all other contact sports have a "held rule" be it arm or knee touching the ground, or forward momentum being stopped

Don't allow the play to continue once a tackle occurs, it's either a ball up, or a free

We have 3 umpires on the ground, the officiating one shouldn't need to seagul to make sure where the ball is

We do already.
If you have a hold of the person then they are in a tackle
 

TigerTime3

Cancelled
Aug 19, 2014
1,658
3,562
AFL Club
Richmond
The only thing I'd change is your middle statement

"Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + No Opportunity + Correct Tackle = Throw it up"

It needs to be a free against you. Take away the prior or no opportunity clause. That is what causes the problems.
If we do this then it'll free up the game as players will make sure they can get a proper disposal before taking possession and if they think they can't get a clear disposal then they'll tap it out or quickly kick it off the ground into space, we'll see a lot more 'hack' kicks.

That'll open the game up and reduce packs and congestion.

I've argued that many times in gameday threads

Basically it's summed up like this

Incorrect Disposal (or no disposal) + correct Tackle = Holding the Ball
Incorrect Tackle = Free kick to the ball carrier

I haven't come across your opinion before but this idea really impressed me. I am 100% on board.

It makes so much sense.

Removing "prior opportunity" altogether = much more open game and more accountability must be taken by the player in possession.
 

TigerTime3

Cancelled
Aug 19, 2014
1,658
3,562
AFL Club
Richmond
Your solution is very good, but I'm worried to create an environment where a player would be loathe to win the ball unless he was totally without threat of being tackled.

You have to win the ball to win the game, so ultimately players will have to be smarter with possession retention and we would see marking become a stronger feature.

Also, getting a free kick paid against you for holding the ball would become more common than it is today, so it's less of a penalty if you do get pinned as a player. It'd be more like carelessly giving away a free for a high tackle.
 
May 11, 2014
1,510
2,380
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
THEY DEVOTE ALL THEIR EFFORT TO ENSURING THE BALL DOESN'T LEAVE THE CONTEST, AND IF THEY DO IT CORRECTLY, NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT PUNISHED, THEY WILL GET REWARDED!

I've thought about this multiple times... I understand why my suggestion won't be popular but here goes, only one tackler is allowed to tackle the ball carrier.

You'd have to keep prior opportunity and the ability for that lone player to lock it in otherwise basically ball-ups literally would disappear. But have a pile on or two, three, four tacklers then it's a free to the other team.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,999
3,443
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
If the ball becomes held up (ie congestion), a ball up will occur.

The problem I see with this part, is that there is no incentive for the player with the ball to get rid of it. If he doesn't have a good option, he will just hold onto it until the umpire blows the whistle. This will in turn spawn new tactics to take advantage of this, especially if they wanted to wind down the clock. They probably introduced HTB as a way to stop players doing this in the first place.

I don't mind your idea about letting the ball hit the ground before a team mate can pick it up. I would prefer if the umps cracked down on players handing the ball to team mates (or letting them take it from them.) I think a pass should have some 'air' between the passer and receiver or touch the ground for it to be legal - then the ump can decide if it was legal.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back