Removing interpretations and confusion from the game

[Rtg5]

I just watched the last 10 minutes of the Melbourne vs Adelaide game to see what all the controversy is about. While I agree it should've been a free kick for deliberate, scrutinising that non-decision alone distracts from the bigger issue.

For all the talk there's been of opening the game up and making it more fun to watch for spectators, there's another glaring issue that's particularly frustrating for spectators, and extremely confusing for newcomers: too many rules that depend on umpire interpretation. Yes, umpiring across all sports have numerous interpretations, but its on a whole different level in the AFL. Umpires have to interpret player intent, whether or not an attempt is "genuine" or "realistic" and all kinds of stupid rubbish.

How much longer will it be before this stupid game starts becoming easy to understand? There are plenty of ways to make the game both easier to understand and more open at the same time, and the only people who would complain are the boring traditionalists and crybaby coaches.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Regarding the holding the ball non-call on Ben Keays late in the game, I'm just wondering what part of the word "immediately" is ambiguous or requires interpretation. There was a similar non-call on Fyfe in the later game.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Agree "Immediately" leaves no room for interpretation, however the debate is around what is determined as "Tackled".

Is it when the tackle starts (ie you have been caught), or when the ball is dislodged/restricted?

If a player is strong enough to stand up in the tackle, and keep the ball free to dispose, has a tackle actually been made?

Previously players were trained to tackle to ground, however the proliferation of "dangerous tackle", "sling tackle" and "in the back" paid from forceful tackles has seen this technique change and it's about restricting disposal.

We see the "silly salmon" because umpires aren't calling the tackle immediately a player is taken to ground - instead trying to give the player in possession time to disposes in a misguided way to "keep the game flowing". (It doesn't).

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I just watched the last 10 minutes of the Melbourne vs Adelaide game to see what all the controversy is about. While I agree it should've been a free kick for deliberate, scrutinising that non-decision alone distracts from the bigger issue.

For all the talk there's been of opening the game up and making it more fun to watch for spectators, there's another glaring issue that's particularly frustrating for spectators, and extremely confusing for newcomers: too many rules that depend on umpire interpretation. Yes, umpiring across all sports have numerous interpretations, but its on a whole different level in the AFL. Umpires have to interpret player intent, whether or not an attempt is "genuine" or "realistic" and all kinds of stupid rubbish.

How much longer will it be before this stupid game starts becoming easy to understand? There are plenty of ways to make the game both easier to understand and more open at the same time, and the only people who would complain are the boring traditionalists and crybaby coaches.

Now rewatch this footage, in particular Spargos hand as it abruptly jolts upward as the ball deflects off it.

Fresh vision solves huge footy crime

There might be a few apology letters arriving at the AFL umpiring department this week.

www.news.com.au

Are you suggesting the umpire guess?

If any moron argues it was still deliberate go and get a head test. Murray was trying to handball further down the line and the ball deflects sharply off spargo.

Case closed. Suck a fat one all.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Regarding the holding the ball non-call on Ben Keays late in the game, I'm just wondering what part of the word "immediately" is ambiguous or requires interpretation. There was a similar non-call on Fyfe in the later game.

View attachment 1134960

Regarding the HTB on Keays. You need to watch the rest of the game. This happened 15 times and not paid all night. Both teams missed out on what were clear HTB two weeks ago.

 

[Rtg5]

Now rewatch this footage, in particular Spargos hand as it abruptly jolts upward as the ball deflects off it.

Fresh vision solves huge footy crime

There might be a few apology letters arriving at the AFL umpiring department this week.

www.news.com.au

Are you suggesting the umpire guess?

If any moron argues it was still deliberate go and get a head test. Murray was trying to handball further down the line and the ball deflects sharply off spargo.

Case closed. Suck a fat one all.

How about actually reading my post instead of whinging about one specific part? Too hard for you?

Do you even know what this thread is about? Are you not capable of grasping even the most basic context?

 

[Rtg5]

Agree "Immediately" leaves no room for interpretation, however the debate is around what is determined as "Tackled".

Is it when the tackle starts (ie you have been caught), or when the ball is dislodged/restricted?

If a player is strong enough to stand up in the tackle, and keep the ball free to dispose, has a tackle actually been made?

Previously players were trained to tackle to ground, however the proliferation of "dangerous tackle", "sling tackle" and "in the back" paid from forceful tackles has seen this technique change and it's about restricting disposal.

We see the "silly salmon" because umpires aren't calling the tackle immediately a player is taken to ground - instead trying to give the player in possession time to disposes in a misguided way to "keep the game flowing". (It doesn't).

Get rid of all these boring semantics. It should be this: if you get tackled, it's a ball up. If you get tackled again before the opposition gets tackled, its a free kick. None of this crap about diving on it or making a genuine attempt, just a simple, easy to understand rule.

Of course people will cry about it being a rugby-style rule, but at least it clears up a huge amount of confusion. Instead they're introducing rules like having to stand perfectly still on the mark, which looks so stupid in play.

 

[thedank]

Now rewatch this footage, in particular Spargos hand as it abruptly jolts upward as the ball deflects off it.

Fresh vision solves huge footy crime

There might be a few apology letters arriving at the AFL umpiring department this week.

www.news.com.au

Are you suggesting the umpire guess?

If any moron argues it was still deliberate go and get a head test. Murray was trying to handball further down the line and the ball deflects sharply off spargo.

Case closed. Suck a fat one all.

embarrassingly passive-aggressive lad, you got the win im not sure why you're so pent up about it. Ball doesn't look like it deviates direction to my eye, looks like spargo makes contact with the players arm not the ball, the kooky slow-mo to regular speed editing job doesn't help matters either.

Must be something incredible in the water down adelaide way regarding vision; the dee's goal that was 'clearly' touched, spargo 'clearly' touching the ball in the final 30secs, hell even the umpires being able to see through flesh+bone from 30m away to determine it was touched!

Crows played well, no denying that and giving up a 15/16pt lead with 5 to go is a disgraceful effort from melb.

 

[Chopperdave]

Go back and watch games from the '80s. If you get tackled 9/10 times it's holding the ball. Teams were doing 20-30 tackles a game and there were 20-30 free kicks given away. And many games where 30+ free kicks were totally normal. If you got touched and didn't get rid of it immediately it was holding the ball.

Now you have teams doing 40-80 tackles a game yet frees haven't gone up. Are they recording tackles differently? Maybe? But anyone who watches old games will be amazed at the difference in umpiring with free-kicks been given out like candy.

Edit: Forgot my actual point. The absolute easiest way to clear congestion and create a more flowing game is to just pay holding the ball/throws when they actually happen and it will stop this rugby scrum style pack situations that keep forming. As soon as a player tries to throw out of a pack or gets tackled and just drops it to start the pack all over again pay a free-kick and wow suddenly everyone spreads and the game opens up.

 

[mike123]

which looks so stupid in play

Personally I like the look of runners being able to make themselves an option without immediately being manned up.

 

[sprockets]

Agree "Immediately" leaves no room for interpretation, however the debate is around what is determined as "Tackled".

Is it when the tackle starts (ie you have been caught), or when the ball is dislodged/restricted?

If a player is strong enough to stand up in the tackle, and keep the ball free to dispose, has a tackle actually been made?

Previously players were trained to tackle to ground, however the proliferation of "dangerous tackle", "sling tackle" and "in the back" paid from forceful tackles has seen this technique change and it's about restricting disposal.

We see the "silly salmon" because umpires aren't calling the tackle immediately a player is taken to ground - instead trying to give the player in possession time to disposes in a misguided way to "keep the game flowing". (It doesn't).

That right there is part of the problem. A tackle's a tackle, regardless of whether a player is "strong enough to stand up in the tackle". It's an interpretation that's pointless when a tackle has already been made.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

That right there is part of the problem. A tackle's a tackle, regardless of whether a player is "strong enough to stand up in the tackle". It's an interpretation that's pointless when a tackle has already been made.

Ok then, so following your point to a logical conclusion a Dusty fend-off where he is strong enough to push the tackle off = HTB, as the tackle had already been made.

 

[sprockets]

Ok then, so following your point to a logical conclusion a Dusty fend-off where he is strong enough to push the tackle off = HTB, as the tackle had already been made.

If he's actually been tackled while in possession and not simply touched or 'grabbed at' it should be holding the ball.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Agree "Immediately" leaves no room for interpretation, however the debate is around what is determined as "Tackled".

Is it when the tackle starts (ie you have been caught), or when the ball is dislodged/restricted?

If a player is strong enough to stand up in the tackle, and keep the ball free to dispose, has a tackle actually been made?

Previously players were trained to tackle to ground, however the proliferation of "dangerous tackle", "sling tackle" and "in the back" paid from forceful tackles has seen this technique change and it's about restricting disposal.

We see the "silly salmon" because umpires aren't calling the tackle immediately a player is taken to ground - instead trying to give the player in possession time to disposes in a misguided way to "keep the game flowing". (It doesn't).

It is a defined term:
Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled: a tackle by a Player where:
(a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Legal Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body
or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from
behind is not pushed in the back.
There is nothing about *ing the tackled player's movement, restricting the ball or any other 'trigger' to say the tackle has occurred.
A strict interpretation would not give a player who had prior opportunity the chance to break a tackle as they should have disposed of the ball immediately.

 

[Power Raid]

I was supporting the crows so happy with the no call on "deliberate" but what a poor call by the ump

There were poor decisions regarding holding the ball and throws but let's get real..........our umpires are not doing their job properly week in week out


If a handball is so fast, one can't see correct disposal, umpires should call incorrect disposal. Throws are undermining the game.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

They’ve purposefully allowed a metric *load of grey area to allow justification of any decisions that are viewed as wrong.

 

[HTT]

Prior opportunity needs to stay in the game. Without it players just won't take possession in contested situations. It will probably always be a bit grey but they can definitely do things to improve it.
Ducking/attempting to evade the tackle are already considered prior and that is good. I'd add a time requirement, say one second between taking possession and being tackled is considered prior opportunity. Successfully evading a tackle shouldn't be considered prior opportunity either (but if you have had prior opportunity before the first tackle, that counts as prior opportunity for the second tackle.

'Knocked out in the tackle' and 'attempted to dispose correctly' should be done away with as factors. If a player takes possession and then loses it, if it wasn't via a legal kick or handball, its incorrect disposal - regardless of prior opportunity. To balance this for the attacker, if they take possession and are tackled without prior, they should be able to just hold the ball without being pinged.

To summarise, when the ball gets pinned at a contest, holding the ball should be paid if and only if the attacker has had prior opportunity (through attempted evasion or time before being tackled), otherwise it's a ball up.
If a player takes possession it is always their responsibility to dispose of it legally, and if they lose it through any other means it is incorrect disposal.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Prior opportunity should allow you not to have to dispose of it when tackled. But if you are tackled and you drop the ball, surely that is incorrect disposal.

It happened in yesterday's Carlton-Hawthorn game. Murphy had the ball, was tackled by Jiath, he didn't make a correct disposal (happy to stand corrected on that but from where I was sitting I saw no handball) but ended up getting a free for the tackle holding on too long. I thought Jiath was incredibly stiff as Murphy hadn't disposed of the ball legally. It was probably a correct decision with the wriggle room in the interpretation but it seemed so wrong to me.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

I think that the man on the mark taking a step, giving away a 50, should not apply if the player with the ball takes a step off the line of the mark itself.
Some absolutely atrocious decisions this week.

 

[StevieP24]

I think that the man on the mark taking a step, giving away a 50, should not apply if the player with the ball takes a step off the line of the mark itself.
Some absolutely atrocious decisions this week.

GWS v WCE game there was one where the gws guy ran wide and then past Oscar Allen on the mark ump never called play on Oscar had to stand and watch was a joke, the umps have no idea what angle the player is running most plays and swallows the whistle.

 

[Hoops]

Good question.
How do we remove "deliberate" from the OoB rule?
I would have a free when the ball crosses the line if;

• Any disposal that's is not touched - shepherding is allowed.
• Possession of the ball if tackled or bumped after having prior.
• Running the ball over the line. We have the "insufficient attempt" BS when a player can run full pelt at the ball, grab and run it over. Where's the attempt there? if you were trying to keep it in you would change angles and grab it running with the boundary line so it wouldn't go over.
• The ball punched or slapped- not from a marking contest

So when would a throw in occur

• the ball going out of bounds from a marking contest
• for touching the ball the rule should be the same to determine when a behind is scored from a touched kick after the siren that goes between the behind posts

A bit stricter than the current rules but more simplified and takes away the interpretations except for prior which is there for tackling anyway.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Good question.
How do we remove "deliberate" from the OoB rule?
I would have a free when the ball crosses the line if;

• Any disposal that's is not touched - shepherding is allowed.
• Possession of the ball if tackled or bumped after having prior.
• Running the ball over the line. We have the "insufficient attempt" BS when a player can run full pelt at the ball, grab and run it over. Where's the attempt there? if you were trying to keep it in you would change angles and grab it running with the boundary line so it wouldn't go over.
• The ball punched or slapped- not from a marking contest

So when would a throw in occur

• the ball going out of bounds from a marking contest
• for touching the ball the rule should be the same to determine when a behind is scored from a touched kick after the siren that goes between the behind posts

A bit stricter than the current rules but more simplified and takes away the interpretations except for prior which is there for tackling anyway.

...then what would the Cats players appeal for? (and how can the AFL manipulate the outcome?)

Seriously, that's a good post. Well thought out and articulate.

I fear unless we change the game to "last touch" ala Soccer/Basketball/(come to think of it, any game), this will always rear it's head.

I suggested once that no shot on goal could be made from OOF/deliberate - perhaps in combination with last touch this would also work?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I think that the man on the mark taking a step, giving away a 50, should not apply if the player with the ball takes a step off the line of the mark itself.
Some absolutely atrocious decisions this week.

I know this rule was brought in to allow quick play - my (radical) suggestion is to have no-one allowed on the mark at all! With a 5m protected zone the whole 360 degree around the player. Similar to rugby, a player in the area cannot influence play (essentially offside).

If a player wants more than X seconds (to have a shot), they can call the mark, and play stops whilst the umpire sets a man on the mark, the kicker on his line, and protected area to the side. (Like a Soccer Free Kick). STOP the kicker from playing on. He must kick over the mark, and MUST score or it's a turnover (opposition free kick)

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

I know this rule was brought in to allow quick play - my (radical) suggestion is to have no-one allowed on the mark at all! With a 5m protected zone the whole 360 degree around the player. Similar to rugby, a player in the area cannot influence play (essentially offside).

If a player wants more than X seconds (to have a shot), they can call the mark, and play stops whilst the umpire sets a man on the mark, the kicker on his line, and protected area to the side. (Like a Soccer Free Kick). STOP the kicker from playing on. He must kick over the mark, and MUST score or it's a turnover (opposition free kick)

I've advocated for the "score or turnover" for a while. Great idea.

I've got a more "out there" thought about improving the game from talking with a bunch of old timers over the years. But weirdly, it's too radical for today's game.

 

[kickazz]

I just watched the last 10 minutes of the Melbourne vs Adelaide game to see what all the controversy is about. While I agree it should've been a free kick for deliberate, scrutinising that non-decision alone distracts from the bigger issue.

For all the talk there's been of opening the game up and making it more fun to watch for spectators, there's another glaring issue that's particularly frustrating for spectators, and extremely confusing for newcomers: too many rules that depend on umpire interpretation. Yes, umpiring across all sports have numerous interpretations, but its on a whole different level in the AFL. Umpires have to interpret player intent, whether or not an attempt is "genuine" or "realistic" and all kinds of stupid rubbish.

How much longer will it be before this stupid game starts becoming easy to understand? There are plenty of ways to make the game both easier to understand and more open at the same time, and the only people who would complain are the boring traditionalists and crybaby coaches.

I agree. Watch a game with a foreigner and explaining the rules comes down to "you just get to know them after watching for a while"

You know what a good exercise would be?

Get some Gaelic Footy umpires (or another football code I suppose) to come out and umpire the pre-season. Given them a set of rules, maybe some video examples if you like, and then get them to umpire the game.

Because they (mostly) have no experience or 'feel' for the game, the rule makers would have to make damn sure the rules are as easy as possible to adjudicate.