Game Day Around the Grounds - Rd 11-15

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If he had a grab on him, it's holding the ball as he disposed of it other than by handball or kick in a tackle. Has been the case since .... always.

Whether it should be or not is another story.

 

[Gethelred]

If he had a grab on him, it's holding the ball as he disposed of it other than by handball or kick in a tackle. Has been the case since .... always.

Whether it should be or not is another story.

Well, of course it should be.

Wanna go back to the days of Kevin Bartlett bouncing the ball in a tackle then asking for holding the ball? Or make the current state of incorrect disposal more dubious again?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well, of course it should be.

Wanna go back to the days of Kevin Bartlett bouncing the ball in a tackle then asking for holding the ball? Or make the current state of incorrect disposal more dubious again?

I don't have a problem with the rule as such but I acknowledge those who think it was barely a tackle.

I'm not too worried about incorrect disposal. I think holding the ball is a complete mess.

 

[happydude]

I've thought it's technically right he had a bit of jumper but had that been us I'd probably crack it.

He wasn't hindered at all by the Brisbane player so even though he had a small amount of jumper I'd say it's not enough to warrant a HTB claim.

 

[Gethelred]

I've thought it's technically right he had a bit of jumper but had that been us I'd probably crack it.

He wasn't hindered at all by the Brisbane player so even though he had a small amount of jumper I'd say it's not enough to warrant a HTB claim.

But then we get into the willy nilly bullshit about what exactly constitutes a tackle.

I'd be upset, but at the player; have awareness enough to know when and when not to take a bounce. It's a rule, complaining because your player copped the dud end of it is like being against any obvious free kick.

When Richo put hands into his opponent's back in the dying minutes of a match and lost a game - I forget who against - the year after the rule came in, despite that being precisely what he did, there was a huge outcry, despite that being clearly the rule.

Richmond love a complain when the umpiring goes against them. Nothing else really to see here.

 

[passmark]

I've thought it's technically right he had a bit of jumper but had that been us I'd probably crack it.

He wasn't hindered at all by the Brisbane player so even though he had a small amount of jumper I'd say it's not enough to warrant a HTB claim.

Always been that the meres tug of the jumper while bouncing is enough.

 

[Sector 7G]

I don't have a problem with the rule as such but I acknowledge those who think it was barely a tackle.

I'm not too worried about incorrect disposal. I think holding the ball is a complete mess.

As soon as the shorts stretched it was a free.

No problem with incorrect disposal? As a Cronulla fan you mustn't mind seeing the Bulldogs/Clayton Oliver style throws 100 times a game.

So much for the tightening up of the rules we were promised at the start of the season.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As soon as the shorts stretched it was a free.

No problem with incorrect disposal? As a Cronulla fan you mustn't mind seeing the Bulldogs/Clayton Oliver style throws 100 times a game.

So much for the tightening up of the rules we were promised at the start of the season.

I said I'm not too worried. Holding the ball and it's changing interpretations piss me off way more.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

To clarify, I'm more concerned with rules that discourage going for the ball and encourage short stepping to wait to apply the tackle. I specifically hate the one armed tackle with no prior opportunity earning a free kick.

One for the tackler though, I think frees for rolling on to the back after a good tackle are rubbish.

 

[katmanblue]

To clarify, I'm more concerned with rules that discourage going for the ball and encourage short stepping to wait to apply the tackle. I specifically hate the one armed tackle with no prior opportunity earning a free kick.

One for the tackler though, I think frees for rolling on to the back after a good tackle are rubbish.

It rewards being second to the ball.

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[thylacine60]

Always been that the meres tug of the jumper while bouncing is enough.

There has to be a line somewhere. The bowling crease is there for a reason.

 

[HBF]

I've thought it's technically right he had a bit of jumper but had that been us I'd probably crack it.

He wasn't hindered at all by the Brisbane player so even though he had a small amount of jumper I'd say it's not enough to warrant a HTB claim.

It was the right call HD - it was paid against those * scumbags.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

There has to be a line somewhere. The bowling crease is there for a reason.

Yeah but even that's changed. Back foot behind or front foot... On the line or behind it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It was the right call HD - it was paid against those * scumbags.

There is the blind hatred rule, I grant you.

 

[Blue Pulse]

It is a black & white rule, bounce the ball while someone has hold of you, even the slightest of threads and it is incorrect disposal. It is one of the few rules that still applies from yesteryear. Please AFL do not change it.
I have stopped taking my son to the football as I'm sick of saying to him, "I don't know", when he asks me what the free kick was for.

 

[happydude]

The amount of times incorrect disposal isn't paid or something similar to this goes unrewarded is what annoys me.

 

[mediumsizered]

If he had a grab on him, it's holding the ball as he disposed of it other than by handball or kick in a tackle. Has been the case since .... always.

Whether it should be or not is another story.

Well, of course it should be.

Wanna go back to the days of Kevin Bartlett bouncing the ball in a tackle then asking for holding the ball? Or make the current state of incorrect disposal more dubious again?

The rule was changed to this interpretation as a result of Kevin Bartlett milking holding the man free kicks by bouncing the ball just as he was about to be tackled. He always made it look worse by throwing his arms out as the tackler grabbed his jumper.

It was a positive rule interpretation change by the then VFL. Such a shame that the holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule has evolved into an absolute 'shemozzle' nowadays & awarding of free kicks has become a lottery.

 

[mediumsizered]

I reckon his cousin Jack a bit the same ,they both have a lot in common including both play for shit clubs ..

I have it on good authority that Jack is actually a decent bloke off the field & quite respectful to those he interacts with. He still plays for a shit club though.

 

[Cripps17]

The amount of times incorrect disposal isn't paid or something similar to this goes unrewarded is what annoys me.

Two identical tackles can be interchangeably adjudicated as any of 'holding the ball', 'play on', 'no prior', 'didn't make an attempt', 'in the back', 'incorrect disposal', 'knocked out in the tackle' etc. Then of course there's the theatrical chase down where every interpretation is thrown out to award a free.

The interpretation for what should just be one rule is clearly too broad, and if I had my tin foil hat on I'd suggest there's some design in that to give umpires greater ability to influence the play.

 

[dumb]

Just quietly is this not the best/worst HTB call ever.

considering what constitutes a holding the man type free, or a hold in a marking contest, or what players like to appeal for around the contest... i don't have a problem with it.
getting down to how we define a tackle.