Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions

[archereleven]

And whilst we're at it, is anyone any closer to understanding the holding the ball rule?

Because I've been playing, coaching and watching the game for over 40 years, and I have absolutely no idea about it right now.

This is what I understand -

If you pin an arm, prior opportunity doesn't matter. You'll be pinged.

If you tackle a player to the ground, they can drop, throw, or hand the ball to a team mate, and it's play on.

If you're tackled and you raise your arm to brace for contact, prior opportunity doesn't matter. You'll be pinged.

If you are tackled and flop with the tackler, it'll be a ball up.

Summary -

Do not try and win the ball as you might have an arm pinged. Free kick against.

If you do win the ball, flop with tackler. Ball up.

If you do win the ball, flop with tackler, drop, throw, or hand off. Play on.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Soggy2112]

If you pin an arm, prior opportunity doesn't matter. You'll be pinged.

The arm pin thing confuses me.

Last night there was an instance where the was a one on one ground ball. Fogarty won it with correct technique (side on, protecting himself), and was tackled immediately, with the arm holding the ball free. He was then dragged down onto his back with no realistic chance of getting a kick away and could obviously not handball it. Because he had his arm free it was deemed holding the ball, however he had no prior opportunity and no realistic way to dispose of the ball correctly.

 

[Rob]

The arm pin thing confuses me.

Last night there was an instance where the was a one on one ground ball. Fogarty won it with correct technique (side on, protecting himself), and was tackled immediately, with the arm holding the ball free. He was then dragged down onto his back with no realistic chance of getting a kick away and could obviously not handball it. Because he had his arm free it was deemed holding the ball, however he had no prior opportunity and no realistic way to dispose of the ball correctly.

Theoretically all he has to do is attempt to get rid of it. If, in that attempt, he just drops the ball then theoretically (again) it should be play on. The confusing bit to me is that if he was to do that, he'd probably get pinged as well.

 

[archereleven]

The arm pin thing confuses me.

Last night there was an instance where the was a one on one ground ball. Fogarty won it with correct technique (side on, protecting himself), and was tackled immediately, with the arm holding the ball free. He was then dragged down onto his back with no realistic chance of getting a kick away and could obviously not handball it. Because he had his arm free it was deemed holding the ball, however he had no prior opportunity and no realistic way to dispose of the ball correctly.

Mate, they all confuse me...

Some players get an eternity, some get a split second after contact, and it all depends on interpretation and 'feels'.

I think we can all agree that the pencil necks at AFL house who have never kicked a football in competition have well and truly ****ed a rule that should be relatively simple to adjudicate.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Soggy2112]

Theoretically all he has to do is attempt to get rid of it. If, in that attempt, he just drops the ball then theoretically (again) it should be play on. The confusing bit to me is that if he was to do that, he'd probably get pinged as well.

That’s the part that frustrates me, as Fogarty did what we would say is correct, first to the ball, protected himself and didn’t drop the ball.

However, had he done the wrong thing and dropped it as you say, he likely gets away with it.

 

[Soggy2112]

Mate, they all confuse me...

Some players get an eternity, some get a split second after contact, and it all depends on interpretation and 'feels'.

I think we can all agree that the pencil necks at AFL house who have never kicked a football in competition have well and truly ****ed a rule that should be relatively simple to adjudicate.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

It should be simple.

Is there prior opportunity? If yes then it’s holding the ball. If no, then the player must do whatever is practical to dispose of it legally.

Now obviously there is grey there, but we’ve always accepted that.

At the start of the year they just weren’t paying holding the ball at all. The AFL’s response was rather than going back to that first paragraph, they tried to engineer it to make it black and white which it never will be.

Now we’re in a situation where people who have played and watched the game their whole life genuinely have no idea what will and won’t be paid.

 

[Dogs till i die]

And whilst we're at it, is anyone any closer to understanding the holding the ball rule?

Because I've been playing, coaching and watching the game for over 40 years, and I have absolutely no idea about it right now.

I understood the Rule before hand, understood the difference between prior and no prior, the difference between disposing and attempting to dispose depending on whether "prior" existed.......but now, after the interpretation was changed, I'm confused and so are many of the umpires.

 

[Fadge]

I understood the Rule before hand, understood the difference between prior and no prior, the difference between disposing and attempting to dispose depending on whether "prior" existed.......but now, after the interpretation was changed, I'm confused and so are many of the umpires.

Yep, so did I, even if the umpires occasionally got it wrong.

How often do you see a player get wrapped up in a tackle with no prior, and the umpire will sometimes blow the whistle immediately for a ball up, and other times wait a couple of seconds before paying holding the ball.

I have no idea what the rule is, let alone what the different interpretations of the rule can be.

 

[SuperSub17]

The arm pin thing confuses me.

Last night there was an instance where the was a one on one ground ball. Fogarty won it with correct technique (side on, protecting himself), and was tackled immediately, with the arm holding the ball free. He was then dragged down onto his back with no realistic chance of getting a kick away and could obviously not handball it. Because he had his arm free it was deemed holding the ball, however he had no prior opportunity and no realistic way to dispose of the ball correctly.

Yeah, the AFL desperately need to sort out the arm pinning thing. Here’s the rule if anyone doesn’t know…

18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.


It pretty explicitly says a player must be ABLE TO make an attempt for this free to be paid. We are now seeing deliberate chicken-wing style tackles because tacklers know this will lead to a guaranteed free kick. And the only alternative being offered up is…don’t pick up the ball in the first place.

It’s not good enough.

 

[Rob]

That’s the part that frustrates me, as Fogarty did what we would say is correct, first to the ball, protected himself and didn’t drop the ball.

However, had he done the wrong thing and dropped it as you say, he likely gets away with it.

You missed the point. If he dropped it as past of attempting to dispose, he should rightly get away with it. No prior, made an attempt. But the way the rule is umpired he'd probably get a free against.
If he just holds the ball with a free arm and does nothing, it should be HTB. And rightly so.

 

[Fadge]

So the Daicos example from Friday night...

He's on his knees and gets tackled as soon as he picks up the ball (so no prior). He was chicken wing tackled, so only had the arm with the ball in his hand free.

What is he meant to do, as he is unable to dispose of it legally?

Is the understanding that if he places it on the ground, or throws it indiscriminately, he's OK because 'he attempted to dispose of it'?

 

[Soggy2112]

You missed the point. If he dropped it as past of attempting to dispose, he should rightly get away with it. No prior, made an attempt. But the way the rule is umpired he'd probably get a free against.
If he just holds the ball with a free arm and does nothing, it should be HTB. And rightly so.

I can’t find the footage of where, but the way he was being tackled meant it was near impossible for him to kick the ball and he obviously couldn’t handball it.

As another poster put, holding the ball should be paid if a player could make a legitimate attempt to dispose of it but didn’t.

 

[Soggy2112]

So the Daicos example from Friday night...

He's on his knees and gets tackled as soon as he picks up the ball (so no prior). He was chicken wing tackled, so only had the arm with the ball in his hand free.

What is he meant to do, as he is unable to dispose of it legally?

Is the understanding that if he places it on the ground, or throws it indiscriminately, he's OK because 'he attempted to dispose of it'?

It seems like that’s the case which is against the whole purpose of the rule.

Holding the ball is there for when players have the option to get rid of the ball legally but choose not to.

As you point out, a player who is pinned to the ground, with only one arm free and no prior opportunity does not have a chance to get rid of it. It shouldn’t be holding the ball.

Again, it shows why you can’t make holding the ball black and white. I don’t understand why instead of just saying “hey umpires, we’re not calling holding the ball when players have had prior, let’s fix that”, the AFL has tried to engineer it to be black and white and ended up with these scenarios, where if you apply footy logic you wouldn’t pay a free.

 

[Rob]

I can’t find the footage of where, but the way he was being tackled meant it was near impossible for him to kick the ball and he obviously couldn’t handball it.

As another poster put, holding the ball should be paid if a player could make a legitimate attempt to dispose of it but didn’t.

Yeah maybe. It might prevent the chicken wing tackle which has the potential to cause serious injury.

But I suspect it would get exploited by players who will simply never attempt to get rid of the ball under the guise of being unable to. Well, more so than what they do now.

 

[Soggy2112]

Yeah maybe. It might prevent the chicken wing tackle which has the potential to cause serious injury.

But I suspect it would get exploited by players who will simply never attempt to get rid of the ball under the guise of being unable to. Well, more so than what they do now.

Again, if we trusted our umpires to make that judgement call about whether there is a legitimate chance to get rid of the ball or not and accept the odd bad decision I think we end up better calls then what is currently the case.

 

[western royboy]

It seems like that’s the case which is against the whole purpose of the rule.

Holding the ball is there for when players have the option to get rid of the ball legally but choose not to.

As you point out, a player who is pinned to the ground, with only one arm free and no prior opportunity does not have a chance to get rid of it. It shouldn’t be holding the ball.

Again, it shows why you can’t make holding the ball black and white. I don’t understand why instead of just saying “hey umpires, we’re not calling holding the ball when players have had prior, let’s fix that”, the AFL has tried to engineer it to be black and white and ended up with these scenarios, where if you apply footy logic you wouldn’t pay a free.

Let me assure you in the country we’ve tightened up marginally on what is prior but not if they can’t dispose of it - cross your arms and ball it up

 

[Saint12]

And whilst we're at it, is anyone any closer to understanding the holding the ball rule?

Because I've been playing, coaching and watching the game for over 40 years, and I have absolutely no idea about it right now.

None whatsoever, completely clueless to know what they will pay. Not even talking about my teams matches. Every game it seems to be different.

 

[westie]

On a different issue. Four players in the same game get pinged for Careless Contact with an Umpire, does that mean that there are too many umpires or have the ****ing idiots got no idea of spatial awareness?

 

[p4p1]

These were the correct decisions IMO but we never see them paid. But Harley Reid got two frees for holding the man at centre bounces. Every game, almost all the mids will be held off the ball at stoppages multiple times throughout the game and it is barely ever called. I would like to see it paid more, because the best mids are constantly held and paying it consistently would see less holding on stars but the umps can't just pick one or two a game randomly and give frees.

 

[BomberManU]

HTB is the flavour of the month (well, season I guess), but what has happened to high contact and push in the back? The amount of tackles that are 'slipping' high is crazy at the moment. And push in the back?? The Luke Bruest double handed push on the Freo player was a great example - the side on vision showed the push and in the background, with the same line of sight as the camera, was an umpire.
'Dissent' isn't a thing anymore, for the most part. Until they pluck a random one out.
And maybe I've got the rule wrong?? - but I see a lot of players coming from behind the mark and replacing the player that should be there.

 

[westie]

HTB is the flavour of the month (well, season I guess), but what has happened to high contact and push in the back? The amount of tackles that are 'slipping' high is crazy at the moment. And push in the back?? The Luke Bruest double handed push on the Freo player was a great example - the side on vision showed the push and in the background, with the same line of sight as the camera, was an umpire.
'Dissent' isn't a thing anymore, for the most part. Until they pluck a random one out.
And maybe I've got the rule wrong?? - but I see a lot of players coming from behind the mark and replacing the player that should be there.

That'll be a big hello from Harley Reid, a serial dissenter.

 

[SplintWhisky]

I have this question about the umpiring of High Tackles for a long time. So when a player has been tackled by one player and is on the ground or dragged down it appears that you can come in high and not get pinged. Also if a player is wrapped up it seems that you can start to grapple and slip an arm above the shoulder if you are the second player. It happens about 4 or 5 times a game and it never gets called and confuses the hell out of me.

I always thought it was hard and fast that if you put a hand above the shoulder, no matter the force, it was always a high tackle.

 

[3207]

Giants player clearly legs a Gold Coast player in their 50. Should’ve had a shot at goal.

We get ball kick 2 in a minute.

18 point turn around.

And I’m a giants supporter.

These umpires are fried.

 

[kickazz]

My one tip for next year is to start out very strict. Especially in the back, high tackles, trips, and HTB when you've had prior opportunity.

It can look disruptive at first, but if you go easy on this stuff the players stretch the rules more and more until we all get pissed off.

 

[Muddiemoose]

As a tigers nuffie I see this as a pretty bad missed free kick for sliding/contact below the knees

I was curious what some neutral supporters views are