VFL Game Day Semi Final, Richmond vs Essendon, North Port Oval, Saturday 08/09/18, 12:30 PM

[mike14]

Those umpires should give it away.

If you bounce while a opponent has hold of you its HTB.

Cool. Show me the wording.

I certainly agree at least one should. Worst in the comp IMO

 

[boncer34]

Cool. Show me the wording.

I certainly agree at least one should. Worst in the comp IMO

Pretty sure the laws of the game are under section 15 or 16 of the handbook.

 

[jmoo wan]

oh christ almighty not this s**t again!

 

[vaughany]

Any word yet on the preliminary final timeslot/venue?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Maxabillions]

Incredible scenes

 

[Vander18]

What a win!

Lots deserving of credit but thought Mutch was genuinely heroic. Got absolutely battered but just kept putting his head over the all.

If he doesn’t make it at AFL level it won’t be down to lack of character.

 

[mike14]

Pretty sure the laws of the game are under section 15 or 16 of the handbook.

Free kicks are Section 15, with 15.2 regarding free kicks relating to possession.
15.2.1 States that bouncing counts as possession
15.2.2(a)States you can have the ball for as long as you want unless Correctly Tackled and that you comply with 15.2.2(b) which is that you bounce it every 15m - 15.2.2(b) also says that doing a Bartlett and hand balling to yourself is still possession.
15.2.3 Holding The Ball States that (a)(i) a free kick will be paid if in the opinion of the ump a player who has possession and prior opportunity (defined elsewhere) does not correctly dispose of the football immediately when Correctly Tackled
15.4.1 Defines a correct Tackle as one in which the player being tackled has possession of the ball (as per 15.2) and that the tackle is above the knees and below the shoulder.

That's it, there's no separate rule about being tackled while bouncing, its the same as any other prior opportunity incident. The difference (and the grey area) appears to be that tackled while bouncing seems to be the only instance where the umpire deems that there is absolutely no chance for the player in possession to break the tackle, and that just touching the player bouncing the ball counts as a Correct Tackle.

Would Dustin Martin etcl have been penalised for holding the ball if he was fending off a player who was touching him with their finger tips (as per McKenna) or had is jumper for a brief moment (Hind) before breaking free? in 99% of cases the answer is no because it deemed that tackle wasn't applied for long enough. The rule for each instance is the same, yet only one is considered to be a free, and understood by some that way despite not being articulated or shown anywhere. What you have then is this odd grey area of 'accepted wisdom' that isn't written into the rule book.

As I said in the McKenna thread way back when, I met Leigh Fisher about a week after that call and ask him his thoughts. He said he would have paid it because it was in the rules. When I asked where he admitted he didn't know and we went through the Laws to find it, coming up only with what you see above.
I've since happened to be in the same room as two other umpires and they had a similar understanding that it's in the rules, but couldn't explain where.

The only reason I find it interesting is that everyone seems to 'know it's a rule', except no-one can ever nail down why or where it's stated explicitly, or why it's treated differently to every other holding the ball interpretation. Sure we all learned that it was a rule in primary school, but that doesn't really help McKenna or Majak Daw or Alier does it? And the reason I keep bringing it up when it comes around is that this grey area, and umpires admitting they don't fully know the rules, is exactly why instead of appointing random committees, the AFL should have full-time umpires who can spend time reviewing the Laws for discrepancies like this and ensuring that the intent of the Laws is carried out on the field

 

[yodellinhank]

Free kicks are Section 15, with 15.2 regarding free kicks relating to possession.
15.2.1 States that bouncing counts as possession
15.2.2(a)States you can have the ball for as long as you want unless Correctly Tackled and that you comply with 15.2.2(b) which is that you bounce it every 15m - 15.2.2(b) also says that doing a Bartlett and hand balling to yourself is still possession.
15.2.3 Holding The Ball States that (a)(i) a free kick will be paid if in the opinion of the ump a player who has possession and prior opportunity (defined elsewhere) does not correctly dispose of the football immediately when Correctly Tackled
15.4.1 Defines a correct Tackle as one in which the player being tackled has possession of the ball (as per 15.2) and that the tackle is above the knees and below the shoulder.

That's it, there's no separate rule about being tackled while bouncing, its the same as any other prior opportunity incident. The difference (and the grey area) appears to be that tackled while bouncing seems to be the only instance where the umpire deems that there is absolutely no chance for the player in possession to break the tackle, and that just touching the player bouncing the ball counts as a Correct Tackle.

Would Dustin Martin etcl have been penalised for holding the ball if he was fending off a player who was touching him with their finger tips (as per McKenna) or had is jumper for a brief moment (Hind) before breaking free? in 99% of cases the answer is no because it deemed that tackle wasn't applied for long enough. The rule for each instance is the same, yet only one is considered to be a free, and understood by some that way despite not being articulated or shown anywhere. What you have then is this odd grey area of 'accepted wisdom' that isn't written into the rule book.

As I said in the McKenna thread way back when, I met Leigh Fisher about a week after that call and ask him his thoughts. He said he would have paid it because it was in the rules. When I asked where he admitted he didn't know and we went through the Laws to find it, coming up only with what you see above.
I've since happened to be in the same room as two other umpires and they had a similar understanding that it's in the rules, but couldn't explain where.

The only reason I find it interesting is that everyone seems to 'know it's a rule', except no-one can ever nail down why or where it's stated explicitly, or why it's treated differently to every other holding the ball interpretation. Sure we all learned that it was a rule in primary school, but that doesn't really help McKenna or Majak Daw or Alier does it? And the reason I keep bringing it up when it comes around is that this grey area, and umpires admitting they don't fully know the rules, is exactly why instead of appointing random committees, the AFL should have full-time umpires who can spend time reviewing the Laws for discrepancies like this and ensuring that the intent of the Laws is carried out on the field

You've posted the answer but not seen it for yourself. Bouncing is remaining in possession, ergo remaining in possession whilst tackled = HTB.

 

[eth-dog]

It should have been HTB but with the free ride they got for most of the day, do not give a s**t.

 

[mike14]

You've posted the answer but not seen it for yourself. Bouncing is remaining in possession, ergo remaining in possession whilst tackled = HTB.

Ok. But then any touch tackle has to be paid the same way if the player had prior. And from the games i see they never are. So why the difference?

 

[adsla69k]

Just watched the last 15mins then. Was satisfying to see the tigers loose. Hope this cripples their back to back chances. Haha.

 

[yodellinhank]

Ok. But then any touch tackle has to be paid the same way if the player had prior. And from the games i see they never are. So why the difference?

Players afforded different opportunity to dispose of it when being tackled is one of (if not) the biggest inconsistencies in the game. But the demonstrative nature of taking a bounce, the fact it would often mean you've had it a while and plan on having it longer, means it is usually called consistently in that situation.

 

[boncer34]

Ok. But then any touch tackle has to be paid the same way if the player had prior. And from the games i see they never are. So why the difference?

Well I guess it should be.

But at least we cleared up that the Hind example was HTB.

 

[mike14]

Players afforded different opportunity to dispose of it when being tackled is one of (if not) the biggest inconsistencies in the game. But the demonstrative nature of taking a bounce, the fact it would often mean you've had it a while and plan on having it longer, means it is usually called consistently in that situation.

I get that. I just find amusing/interesting that there's this inconsistency in the rules, and moreso that when questioned everyone's default position is that "it's a rule".
In the issues relating to AFL and the Laws of the Game, this is well down the list

 

[vast]

Just heard what happened lol.

Good work JS

 

[MiguelM]

Wish they umpired the AFL like the VFL, let it flow, don't get too technical

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Match of the weekend so far, what a disappointing first three AFL finals

 

[Blind Turn]

Our future senior defensive talls are the major reason for us being contenders. BZT, Franga (not great today but they put a lot of work into him), and Ridley are definite AFL quality for many years to come.
They all read the play exceptionally well and so long as they are fit and healthy we will be difficult to score against.

 

[sameolds33]

You've posted the answer but not seen it for yourself. Bouncing is remaining in possession, ergo remaining in possession whilst tackled = HTB.

so it depends on what is judged to be a "tackle" - whether the player held is in possession is stopped (ie tackled) or manages to break the tackle (ie is an ineffective tackle).

Wish i had seen today's game. Well done Twos

 

[daffo]

Anyone have a link to a replay of the game? My IQ crashed and didn't record it....

 

[tha Freak]

Don’t know why the discussion? Hind was not tackled! Not impeded. Beautiful run and carry and kick to advantage. Stewart did what he paid to do. Great finish to a great game. Be happy we won!

 

[Foreverdon]

Anyone have a link to a replay of the game? My IQ crashed and didn't record it....

The 7plus app will have it takes a few days for it to show up
I’ll need to watch it myself missed the game didn’t have any phone reception

 

[daffo]

That's good to know. At least I can watch it.

 

[Towno78]

Don’t know why the discussion? Hind was not tackled! Not impeded. Beautiful run and carry and kick to advantage. Stewart did what he paid to do. Great finish to a great game. Be happy we won!

Was less of a tackle than the McKenna incident, which also wasn't a tackle.

 

[Yoda_]

Our future senior defensive talls are the major reason for us being contenders. BZT, Franga (not great today but they put a lot of work into him), and Ridley are definite AFL quality for many years to come.
They all read the play exceptionally well and so long as they are fit and healthy we will be difficult to score against.

Im going out on a limb here but the AFL guys you know what your'e going to get. It was our VFL guys that set up the win for us today.

A.Heppel. Hind, Younan, Lazzaro shows a bit, ditto McQueen. Harrison showed something in the clinches.