The Holding the Ball Rule

[base615]

I don't see why they can't quantify the prior opportunity.If someone has full control of the ball for more than 2 seconds and drops the ball in a tackle they should get pinged. If you are on the ground not in control, drag the ball in and it fails to clear within 2 seconds you get pinged. Surely the rules can be more definitive to remove ambiguity.

 

[thethinkingcat]

I don't see why they can't quantify the prior opportunity.If someone has full control of the ball for more than 2 seconds and drops the ball in a tackle they should get pinged. If you are on the ground not in control, drag the ball in and it fails to clear within 2 seconds you get pinged. Surely the rules can be more definitive to remove ambiguity.

If you get the ball and get tackled it's holding the ball. The idea is as soon as you get the ball you need to dispose of it quickly before being chased down and tackled.
The prior opportunity is when the player gets the ball...
When you see a player dive onto the ball and get tackled wanting a ball up they will get free kicked because they are deliberately stopping the play from happening.
Just with the issue of consistency, the umpires are all still learning to be consistent. Just like what we expect all of our players from our clubs to play consistent footy the umpires are also trying their hardest to be consistent.
You might see a new umpire who is a bit gunshy when there is a holding the ball decision and doesn't want to pay it. If you know that particular person don't embarrass them and tell them off. Just go up to them and encourage them to do the right thing and to help them get the confidence up.
A bit like that new player at your club who seems to be shy around everyone. Encourage that player to speak to people and not to be so shy when it comes to talking to people. It all takes time.

 

[base615]

If you get the ball and get tackled it's holding the ball. The idea is as soon as you get the ball you need to dispose of it quickly before being chased down and tackled.
The prior opportunity is when the player gets the ball...
When you see a player dive onto the ball and get tackled wanting a ball up they will get free kicked because they are deliberately stopping the play from happening.

I agree with you but they certainly ain't paying it with any consistency and that's my point, if you quantify exactly how long a player has to get rid of the ball after receiving it then it's easier to be consistent with the calls. In the Geelong / Carlton game, someone (I can't remember who) was running with the ball for at least 3 seconds, gets tackled and drops the ball. The umpire calls play on. Yesterday in the GWS / Essendon game a guy receives a handball, gets tackled the moment he receives the ball with the ball stuck in and gets pinged for HTB. No consistency at all.

 

[Linc3333]

The umpiring in the bombers Giants match last night was some of the worst in history. Im a mad bombers fan but at one stage paddy ambrose had all day to get rid of the ball, got tackled by 2 giants and just dropped the ball. Play on! Similar thing 20m out from the bombers goal with a giants player which was just as bad.

And then 7 or 8 times a player would immediatley get the ball - get tackled and jumped on without a chance to get rid of it but get pinged for holding it. Plus the other 7 or 8 throws from players in heavy traffic but not necessarily even getting tackled is amazing.

The umpiring at the moment is a joke. 4 free kicks to the dockers last week. I think the dons only got about 6 when they came to perth.

And when the game is in the balance like it was on Friday night (blues v cats) you can get away with absolutely anything.

Its just s**t.

 

[Tigerland]

Holding the ball - the rule that has been the same for 100 plus years has been changed by the umpires bosses in the last few years.

I'd like the rule back and those umpire bosses sacked for being complete idiots.

Every fan wants it yet the pig headed morons refuse to enforce it.

 

[mick06]

No free kicks for htb friday and the rest of the weekend has been destroyed. I am disgusted by what has been paid and rage at the tv. They have it totally and utterly backwards not paying the dropping the ball and crucifying guys with no prior who get jumped on. Shame shame shame AFL.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Think the holding the ball rule is only paid now to free congestion.

Those incorrect disposals are keeping the ball moving so it's usually play on unless the player had a decent amount of time with the ball before being tackled.

Basically, it seems like the difference between holding the ball and a ball up is how congested the game has become. If there's been some stoppages after stoppages, you can bet a holding the ball is coming soon.

 

[KissKiss]

I agree with you but they certainly ain't paying it with any consistency and that's my point, if you quantify exactly how long a player has to get rid of the ball after receiving it then it's easier to be consistent with the calls. In the Geelong / Carlton game, someone (I can't remember who) was running with the ball for at least 3 seconds, gets tackled and drops the ball. The umpire calls play on. Yesterday in the GWS / Essendon game a guy receives a handball, gets tackled the moment he receives the ball with the ball stuck in and gets pinged for HTB. No consistency at all.

Both of these happened a few times in the Bris WB game. Just seems totally wrong. A couple of times when the first scenario happened I was starting to think that it actually disadvantaged the tackler as he was taken out of the play when the ball spilt free

 

[CQTiger]

Seem to be a further interpretation change in the Roos tigers game. No prior seemed to not matter the player was always pinged even though he had 3 players on top of him his arms pinned and the ball held to him.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Seem to be a further interpretation change in the Roos tigers game. No prior seemed to not matter the player was always pinged even though he had 3 players on top of him his arms pinned and the ball held to him.

You gotta do "the worm", or a variation thereof. That gives you the right to cling onto the ball with all your might. Or just drop it early.

 

[Bob_vic]

Asked what a player buried under a pack should do to indicate they were making an attempt to get rid of the ball even if it was physically impossible, umpires coach Hayden Kennedy suggested moving their eyebrows could be a last resort. Seriously. Source: Herald-Sun

If this is really what Hayden said (multiple grand final umpire, umpired since the 80s), then there's really something very wrong. Either he's been told interpret the rule like this, or he's just a really bad coach (or he's been misquoted).

The rules are clear. There still needs to be a reasonable time/opportunity for the player to dispose of the ball for HTB to be paid. Any other interpretation is a total contradiction to what the rules say.

15.2.6 Football Held to the Body of a Player
(b) If the player being tackled is not making a genuine attempt
to Correctly Dispose of the football 15.2.3(b) shall apply.

Nothing new, just a cross-reference to the main rule...

15.2.3 Holding the Football
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession
of the football:
(b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if,
upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly
Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the
football after being given a reasonable opportunity to
do so.

If no reasonable opportunity, then...

15.2.6 Football Held to the Body of a Player
(a) The field Umpire shall bounce the football when a Player,
in the act of applying a Correct Tackle, holds the football
to the body of the Player being Tackled or the football is
otherwise pinned to the ground

If it's not possible to make an attempt within a reasonable time of being tackled (only if the ball is held to the player or pinned to the ground, I'm not talking about when the ball is in a free hand/arm), then there can't possibly be any reasonable opportunity - there's no opportunity. Therefore, no free kick should be paid. I don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp, since it's been always been paid this way in the past. There's nothing in the wording of the rules that makes it possible to interpret it any other way.

 

[SuperSub17]

Another blatant one early in the Collingwood-Melbourne game today.

Deep in Collingwood's forward line early in the first quarter, a Melbourne player had AGES to get rid of it, tackled, dispossessed, play on.

It's getting ridiculous.

 

[caitsith01]

Another blatant one early in the Collingwood-Melbourne game today.

Deep in Collingwood's forward line early in the first quarter, a Melbourne player had AGES to get rid of it, tackled, dispossessed, play on.

It's getting ridiculous.

I can only assume they are taking the "ball jarred loose" so-called 'rule' to its ultimate conclusion, which is that so long as you drop or throw the ball when tackled then all other considerations fall away.

It is an absolute blight on the game and urgently needs to be changed back to the rule which worked perfectly well from the 19th century through to the 21st century.

 

[flyinghi64]

After watching last nights game, where I reckon carlton were a little rough with some of the umpiring, especially the throwing of the ball by Hawks that they do all the time and get away with, I was once again getting frustrated with the holding the ball decisions.
The one that really irritates me is when a player goes in for the ball and is immediately jumped on by 2,3,4 players, who all hold the ball in, and get's pinged for holding the ball.
SO ANNOYING!!!!!!
Here's a very simple, and easy to umpire, solution.
Only one player can place a tackle on another. If a player is laying a tackle and another team mate jumps in to smother the opposition player, hence making it even more difficult for the ball to come out hence holding up the play and allowing more to get to the contest hence causing more congestion, it should be a free kick to the player getting tackled.
I can guarantee you there will be very few free kicks paid for this as players will adhere to the rule.

 

[Modified Dog]

After watching last nights game, where I reckon carlton were a little rough with some of the umpiring, especially the throwing of the ball by Hawks that they do all the time and get away with, I was once again getting frustrated with the holding the ball decisions.
The one that really irritates me is when a player goes in for the ball and is immediately jumped on by 2,3,4 players, who all hold the ball in, and get's pinged for holding the ball.
SO ANNOYING!!!!!!
Here's a very simple, and easy to umpire, solution.
Only one player can place a tackle on another. If a player is laying a tackle and another team mate jumps in to smother the opposition player, hence making it even more difficult for the ball to come out hence holding up the play and allowing more to get to the contest hence causing more congestion, it should be a free kick to the player getting tackled.
I can guarantee you there will be very few free kicks paid for this as players will adhere to the rule.

Carlton were hard done by, huh?

I thought they got an absolute ride from the umps. Their no-talent full back was permitted to hold onto Roughie, hit him in the head and chop his arms all night long. Not one free kick. Carlton players dived on the ball (in front of Hawthorn's goal) and failed to get the ball out on at least 4 occasions. This is supposed to be holding the ball. Each time, the umpire called for a ball-up and then plucked a soft free to Carlton to help them clear the danger zone

As for you griping about Hawthorn's incorrect disposal, I actually came here to post about the free against Hodge in the 3rd quarter.

Maybe you weren't watching the game closely enough.

 

[Modified Dog]

In the 3rd quarter of the Carlton v Hawthorn game, Luke Hodge won the ball at a centre bounce and he was immediately stood up in a tackle. He had one arm pinned and no prior opportunity. He dropped the ball down towards his boot - or it "fell out" in the tackle - and the umpire penalised him for incorrect disposal.

Has this free kick been paid this year? I've seen people on here whinging about hawthorn "throws" all year, but have any of these been paid? I can't remember any other instances. They've basically let this go all season. It seemed like a really inconsistent random interpretation to me. It infuriates me the way umpires chage their interpretations from week to week.

JUST BE CONSISTENT, FFS!!!!

Not sure how Hodge was supposed to dispose of the ball correctly when he had one arm pinned and no prior opportunity. If he doesn't make an attempt to get rid of it, he gets pinged. If he tries to get rid of it and drops it, he gets pinged. What's he supposed to do?

 

[Modified Dog]

There is far too much reward for the tacklers. The AFL hate the rolling mauls, but they encourage it by rewarding players who do nothing more than sweat on the ball-players, hoping to win a cheap free for holding the ball. The idea of the HtB rule is to encourage players to get the ball out and keep it moving, but they're rewarding tacklers for keeping the ball locked in. It's ridiculous.

 

[BG32]

It's become a joke. If this is the AFLs response to stop the maul, it's pathetic

 

[SydCrow]

One simple fix is to not pay the free if the tackler holds the ball in.

 

[flyinghi64]

There is far too much reward for the tacklers. The AFL hate the rolling mauls, but they encourage it by rewarding players who do nothing more than sweat on the ball-players, hoping to win a cheap free for holding the ball. The idea of the HtB rule is to encourage players to get the ball out and keep it moving, but they're rewarding tacklers for keeping the ball locked in. It's ridiculous.

So what do you think about the one tackler idea to stop congestion?
Not sure if the Hodge one in the middle you are referring to was one of the ones I noticed as there was one in the center after a bounce where he was tackled with his left hand held and he flicked it out to a team mate, play on.
All teams throw it but I find Hawks do it more and better than the rest.

 

[PrideOf]

One simple fix is to not pay the free if the tackler holds the ball in.

Two or three of those against us v North last night that ended up in goals.

More today in the two Melbourne games. It's beyond a joke - it almost makes me wish the Giesch was back.

 

[ok.crows]

Think the holding the ball rule is only paid now to free congestion.

On Saturday night umpire #2 paid it (incorrectly) to gift goals to North.

 

[Bob_vic]

I don't see why they can't quantify the prior opportunity.If someone has full control of the ball for more than 2 seconds and drops the ball in a tackle they should get pinged. If you are on the ground not in control, drag the ball in and it fails to clear within 2 seconds you get pinged. Surely the rules can be more definitive to remove ambiguity.

Have you actually read the rules?

 

[base615]

Have you actually read the rules?

Of course but my post has nothing to do with the current rules as written. I'm suggesting a way they can change the rules to make it a bit easier to officiate prior opportunity because they aren't doing a very consistent job at the moment

 

[Bob_vic]

Of course but my post has nothing to do with the current rules as written. I'm suggesting a way they can change the rules to make it a bit easier to officiate prior opportunity because they aren't doing a very consistent job at the moment

Prior opportunity means "a reasonable time to dispose of the ball prior to being tackled".

There are a set of guidelines for judging reasonable time/prior opportunity.

What do you suggest?

People on here need to remember there is 3 levels of accreditation which explains all the rules, along with guidelines for interpretation. Often, there is more to know that what the laws say.

Just like lawyers go through a university degree to know how the law is applied, umpires go through accreditation to do the same. I'm not saying the umpires are getting all the decisions correct, but the accreditation manuals answer a lot of questions. Quoting the laws doesn't necessary show an understanding of the interpretations.