AFL propagandist making stuff up

[Lensen]

Must preface this by pointing out I can't understand why they'd do this. Would seem to go against their point.

But Dwayne Russell has been clearly fed a piece of AFL propaganda to put out for initial discussion to soften the impact for when they actually change the rule. And in my view it's a good change. But it's the standard AFL modus operandi.

However this part pricked my ears:

The “prior opportunity” rule was enshrined from earliest birth of our game, as a key pillar of the sport, to encourage players to prioritise winning the ball over the laying of a tackle, by giving the ball winner a “time to use the ball” advantage over a tackler.

This is an out and out lie. And I find it hard to believe Dwayne wouldn't know that given he played (in SA) in the era pre-1986 that prior was even a consideration, not withstanding the term "prior opportunity" wasn't even brought in until 1996.

Strange one.

 

[manicmagpie]

When I grew up (the era Dwayne played in) holding the ball was simply interpreted:

If you're tackled, you have to attempt to dispose of the ball.
If you don't try or you don't dispose of it properly it's holding the ball.
If you try but are unable to dispose of it because the ball is held to you, it's a ball up.

Never heard of prior opportunity until the mid 90s.

 

[raymond35]

I don't recall hearing it before the mid 90s

 

[Anja_Nees]

Aside from:
- setting up their own news outlet
- stage managing the Essendon and Melbourne hearings to find no tanking or drug taking occurred
- sacking two blokes for bonking subordinates and making them trot out the AFL message in a press conference
- sacking then quietly hiring Matt Rendell over a racism scandal
- threatening to withdraw accreditation from journos who 'make stories up' but letting Hutchy dominate the radio rights

I see no evidence that the AFL indulges in propoganda.

 

[General Soreness]

In 1858 there were no rules concerning tackling. By 1874 a player tackled with the ball had to drop it immediately. By 1930 the player with the ball was not allowed to drop the ball if tackled. By 1939 a tackler was awarded a free kick if the player holding the ball dropped it. In 1996 the prior opportunity concept is introduced.

http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rule-changes-18582013

 

[PowerForGood]

AFL contradicting itself. From 2015

http://aflnswact.com.au/a-surpisingly-short-history-of-several-afl-laws/

-------------
Holding the ball has been around for more or less the entire game’s history, with various aspects and sub-points added over the year.

Yet, believe it or not, the requirement for a tackled player with prior opportunity to immediately kick or handball has only existed since 1996.

The very law we arguably hold central to the very fabric of Australian Football turns 20 next year.

Even weirder still, from the game’s inception until 1930, players were permitted to simply drop the ball when tackled – without even attempting a disposal.

And when the law was introduced to penalise players who did this, it was repealed just two months later because players and fans alike hated it!

The law was reintroduced in 1939.
-------------

http://aflnswact.com.au/a-surpisingly-short-history-of-several-afl-laws/

 

[Kwality]

I don't recall hearing it before the mid 90s

Pre the Rules Committee(?) a body that must change the rules or be disbanded ....

 

[Mr Ripper]

Footy Record, round one, 1996.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

Yes it's clear that after a litany of ridiculous htb rulings this past couple of rounds that the rule is getting an overhaul next season. & the OP is right, AFL is trying to rewrite history in order to sell the message.

HTB rule was fine when interpreted correctly, I don't get this obsession to speed up the game at any cost, it's a mistake.

 

[Wallaby]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[Heisenberg_]

You're forgetting Dwayne Russell is a complete and utter moron so wouldn't be a shock if he genuinely thought that was true.

 

[HTT]

This is the same Dwayne that claimed richmonds strength all year has been efficiency up forward

 

[King Brown]

Footy Record, round one, 1996.

Great find.

It's odd that it says it provides reward for tackler, because now prior opportunity currently gets defended as a way of not rewarding the tackler.

 

[courageous_tom]

You're forgetting Dwayne Russell is a complete and utter moron so wouldn't be a shock if he genuinely thought that was true.

Reported

 

[Lensen]

You're forgetting Dwayne Russell is a complete and utter moron so wouldn't be a shock if he genuinely thought that was true.

I'd buy that if he hadn't played through the old rule. He's conniving and would be happy to bend the truth to keep his spot IMO

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The main difference now is that the bloke who gets the ball first is no longer looked after, you are better off now being second to the ball. They have decided to now give the tackler the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the player with the ball.
They of course have it all wrong as usual.

 

[Lensen]

The main difference now is that the bloke who gets the ball first is no longer looked after, you are better off now being second to the ball. They have decided to now give the tackler the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the player with the ball.
They of course have it all wrong as usual.

*If* they police it properly, it removes the current problem where bloke is first to the ball, has a small window of "prior opportunity", then is done holding the ball because the tackler pins the ball to the ball player. If the ball is locked in by the tackler it should be a ball up as long as the ball player is making a genuine attempt to get rid of it

 

[LoungeLizard]

The main difference now is that the bloke who gets the ball first is no longer looked after, you are better off now being second to the ball. They have decided to now give the tackler the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the player with the ball.
They of course have it all wrong as usual.

I don't know what you mean by "looked after"
Do you just expect 1st in gets a free if tackled?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

When I grew up (the era Dwayne played in) holding the ball was simply interpreted:

If you're tackled, you have to attempt to dispose of the ball.
If you don't try or you don't dispose of it properly it's holding the ball.
If you try but are unable to dispose of it because the ball is held to you, it's a ball up.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that was how they called it today?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

In the late 60s/early 70s, they changed the rule to prevent players from "bouncing" the ball just prior to a tackle and receiving a free for hanging on. Darrel Baldock (among others) were masters at knowing they were about to be tackled, so they "bounced" the ball with no intention of it bouncing back to them. Free kick for hanging on. Very frustrating for the tackler.

 

[King_Steele]

Reported

Shake & bake it

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't know what you mean by "looked after"
Do you just expect 1st in gets a free if tackled?

The player with the ball is no longer protected as they once were. The AFL in their wisdom decided that because less than 1% of the players were dropping their knees or leading with their head that all tackles now whether high or in the back are the player with the ball's fault.
I have never seen so many high tackles not penalised as we see now. So many players are laying in players backs and again no penalty. The tackler is no longer at fault and that is wrong in my view. People say the game is over officiated yet I see it different, it is extremely under officiated. Not necessarily the umpires fault as they are trying to implement a set of rules which are a total mess now.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Look forward to Gil stripping Deeeerrrrwwaynes press accreditation for this lie.

 

[LoungeLizard]

The player with the ball is no longer protected as they once were. The AFL in their wisdom decided that because less than 1% of the players were dropping their knees or leading with their head that all tackles now whether high or in the back are the player with the ball's fault.
I have never seen so many high tackles not penalised as we see now. So many players are laying in players backs and again no penalty. The tackler is no longer at fault and that is wrong in my view. People say the game is over officiated yet I see it different, it is extremely under officiated. Not necessarily the umpires fault as they are trying to implement a set of rules which are a total mess now.

1%?
You must watch a different game than i do.

How many players do you see get swung 360 degrees or more now before they get rid of the ball?
How many players do you see gather the ball stand up and then get laid out?

The ball players are more looked after now than they ever were.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

1%?
You must watch a different game than i do.

How many players do you see get swung 360 degrees or more now before they get rid of the ball?
How many players do you see gather the ball stand up and then get laid out?

The ball players are more looked after now than they ever were.

I certainly agree that players seem to have more time to get rid of it, but that is just poor umpiring.
I have a real issue with blokes who are bending over to pick up the ball not being protected, so many head on high contacts and even the commentators now say they are leading with their head which is garbage.
Unfortunately I am a believer of any high contact no matter how it occurs should be a free kick and make the coaches have to instruct their players to change.