GOAUS!
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 20, 2010
- 9,782
- 7,519
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
It looked like the ideal case for HTB in my eyes, I think the ball spilled free.
The Holding the Ball Rule
- Thread starter Mateyman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It looked like the ideal case for HTB in my eyes, I think the ball spilled free.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I'd make a case that Atley got his fist to the ball and handballed it out, but it could be argued that he simply released it. Should've been HTB either way, had clear prior and took too long to dispose (legally or otherwise) when tackled.
Dozens of holding the ball decisions that never get paid anymore. Its quite ridiculous how the rules of this game change in interpretation from week to week.
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-07-01/holding-the-ball-explained
The interesting was Robbie Gray who apparently hand balled it, but it was caught on the camera.
I expect them to be hot on holding the ball this week. Also admitted that the Melbourne guy who conceded a goal for rushing behind should not have been a free kick.
The interesting was Robbie Gray who apparently hand balled it, but it was caught on the camera.
I expect them to be hot on holding the ball this week. Also admitted that the Melbourne guy who conceded a goal for rushing behind should not have been a free kick.
bkozican
Norm Smith Medallist
Just reading the first page and some posters have hit it on the head.
"Play on, Genuine attempt", Since when did a genuine attempt mean disposing of the ball properly and this whole not paying free kicks because there is 2 mins left is utter BS.
Sometimes I wonder why I come into this board, I get fired up at the umps and I just finished reading the thread title.
"Play on, Genuine attempt", Since when did a genuine attempt mean disposing of the ball properly and this whole not paying free kicks because there is 2 mins left is utter BS.
Sometimes I wonder why I come into this board, I get fired up at the umps and I just finished reading the thread title.
- Aug 6, 2010
- 13,234
- 19,356
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- MCFC, The Exers
Just been revealed on 360 that "4 steps is a rough guide for prior opportunity", which is the first I've heard of it, and evidently the first the players on they panel had heard of it. A pretty important piece of information I would've thought.
This was mentioned in reference to Dom Barry tackling Bob Murphy and not getting a frankly obvious HTB decison. It was deemed Murphy only took 3 steps. Amusingly, if you watch the footage carefully, Murphy actually takes 5 steps. So to add to the farcical nature of all of this is an inability of those reviewing these decisons to be able to count.
This was mentioned in reference to Dom Barry tackling Bob Murphy and not getting a frankly obvious HTB decison. It was deemed Murphy only took 3 steps. Amusingly, if you watch the footage carefully, Murphy actually takes 5 steps. So to add to the farcical nature of all of this is an inability of those reviewing these decisons to be able to count.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I understand the need for such "rough guide" rules when it comes to trying to reach a consistent standard of interpretation between umpires and between games, but the idea that prior opportunity is determined by how many steps a player takes is ludicrous. The correctness or otherwise of a decision shouldn't be measured by whether it tallies with their rough guide rule, it should be by whether it tallies with the actual rule. Like I said, I get the need for consistency, but if they can't trust those they employ to use their discretion where the rules call for it, all we get is what we've got now - consistency, but consistently wrong.
- Jun 9, 2012
- 2,259
- 2,800
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Timberwolves
Have the rules actually been changed so players can legally drop the ball? After watching the Cats game tonight I'm convinced. There was about a dozen times where a Dogs or Cats player would get tackled and the ball would spill out and nothing was called. No kick, no handball, they just dropped the ball and it was play on.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
not just in this game. it appears to be the norm these days, unfortunately.
GOAUS!
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 20, 2010
- 9,782
- 7,519
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
You haven't been watching much footy this year then? The only way to get a HTB decision is if the player runs for 20m and then gets tackled or 5 guys lock the ball in there.
- Jun 9, 2012
- 2,259
- 2,800
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Timberwolves
Yeah, it was just really bad tonight.
Bob_vic
Club Legend
Whether you agree or not, if the umpire rules "no prior opportunity", then players caught in the act of kicking/handballing aren't penalised. There's nothing new about this.
15.2.4 Application — Specific Instances where Play shall Continue
For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:
(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is
swung off-balance and does not make contact with the
football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had
a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football,
in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;
15.2.4 Application — Specific Instances where Play shall Continue
For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:
(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is
swung off-balance and does not make contact with the
football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had
a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football,
in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;
There is no doubt that over the past couple of seasons the umpires have been instructed to give the players the benefit of the doubt if the ball spills out of a tackle without handballing or kicking. The umpired dept thought this would "let the game flow" they were dead set wrong. It does the exact opposite. Why?
Because unless a player sees a clear advantage of pushing the ball out of congestion they are coached to hold the ball in and create a maul / ball up.
Just look at the period just before the end of a quarter or game and the team trying to score quickly, its amazing how quickly a player can move the ball on if they are prepared to take a risk to score / win the game. So really how much prior opportunity do players really need? If they want to play on quickly and take a risk its less than a second before they do, if they want to defend and lock the ball in they pretend they have no prior opportunity and hold the ball in or drop it at their feet.
The umpiring dept with their changes in "interpretation" have created a loophole that coaches are exploiting to play safe, boring time wasting football. Take away the loophole and the game will open up, start penalising teams for not taking the game on and not taking risks and who incorrectly dispose the ball. The crowd will love it, rewarding the tackle. The game will spread and flow and we will see more goals and more forwards in one on one contests taking big marks.
I also believe that the professional kicking for touch along the boundary needs looking at. If a player between the two 50 m arcs kicks the ball and it isn't touched by anyone goes over the boundary then the opposition gets a free. It's a blight on our game and is another risk minimisation tactic that results in defensive boring football. Less risks, more congestion and less flow and goal scoring. We need to get this rugby tactic out of our game.
Fix these two negative coaching tactics and we end our game looking more like rugby and end up with a much better game to watch.
