Can an independent commission investigate the AFL for blatant cheating?

Remove this Banner Ad

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
17,133
8,833
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
You've put a good case and I suspect the AFL will tick off the decision. I'm more comfortable with it after reading your post. But regardless of the technicalities, I think the footy public wants and expects a free kick to be paid in those circumstances. It's potentially a good opportunity to get fans aligned - explain why prior opportunity didn't apply and why incorrect disposal didn't apply.

Blicavs himself said he was trying to rush a behind, but that's not apparent from the footage.
You will never get fans aligned, but by having commentators who actually understand the umpires decision making process will help set the narrative.

The narrative was set by BT, it was supposedly a howler because the tackle wasn't rewarded and he didn't kick or handball....problem is that none of that matters if the first decision made was that Blicavs had no prior opportunity.

Another factor is that the pressure built each time Geelong touched the ball, forcing it backwards, until finally a player was nailed by a perfect tackle. There's almost a cumulative expectation that the sustained forward pressure will be rewarded.
Yes, this is the 'team prior opportunity' concept. Has been discussed previously....perfect for instances like last night.

If you receive a HB from a teammate then you ain't potentially saved by not having prior opportunity, as could tweak prior opportunity to note that if receive ball directly from teammate that prior opportunity doesn't apply. Prior opportunity intent is more for winning contested ball and clearance etc.

But under the current rules, the umpire needs to judge if Blicavs had prior opportunity from when HE possessed the ball to when was tackled.

Look at the vision, he is tackled almost instantaneously, already being tackled as he turns, and it is the great tackle that then sends him the full 360 as he gets taken to ground and the ball spills free.

He currently gets an out as the umpire is coached to assess solely based on when he takes possession of the ball, he is treated no differently to a player attempting to win a hard contest.

Introduction of 'team prior opportunity' would have 'fixed' the problem last night that most pundits believe that Brisbane should have been rewarded for their pressure that forced the error and Blicavs to be caught in possession.
 

donbooger

Club Legend
Sep 27, 2007
1,750
1,582
Williamstown
AFL Club
Geelong
Because he propelled it upwards. Once again an issue of interpretation, and I accept he didn't deliberately throw it.
If you dont think he did then you just cleared him of incorrect disposal as it needs to be intentional.

18.6.3 Holding the ball: Incorrect Disposal – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player -elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled-. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:

(a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football

(b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.




Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
17,133
8,833
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Prior opportunity or not, didn't he throw it ??
That again isn't what the umpire is assessing. The throw is treated separately when their is no tackle involved.

If there is tackle pressure, the umpire is assessing whether 18.6.3 applies.

18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession
.

And pretty easy to argue that the legal tackle caused, was a ripper of a tackle that spun him and took him to the ground, the football to be dislodged from Blicavs.

Thus it was deemed that Blicavs did not elect to Incorrectly Dispose the ball.

Again people need to go back to the intent of the rule, they are giving benefit of doubt to the player who wins possession of the footy. That works in most scenarios and it is what fans want in a contents....but it doesn't really fit in the instance where a player gets the ball from a teammate and is pinged straight away.
 

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
17,133
8,833
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Be interesting to see if the boffins actually articulate detail behind it.

assume they will deem he had prior, but who knows they could also go down the path that Blicavs didn't have prior, but also didn't make a genuine attempt to HB.

So much grey in holding the ball.
 

donbooger

Club Legend
Sep 27, 2007
1,750
1,582
Williamstown
AFL Club
Geelong
Be interesting to see if the boffins actually articulate detail behind it.

assume they will deem he had prior, but who knows they could also go down the path that Blicavs didn't have prior, but also didn't make a genuine attempt to HB.

So much grey in holding the ball.
It was either going to be 'corruption' if the AFL affirmed the call, 'incompetence and corruption' if they said it was wrong.

AFL lose either way.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

hoopla

Premiership Player
May 17, 2007
3,372
3,352
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Maybe to a Geelong supporter. Tackled immediately, didn't try and take the tackler on and tried to dispose of it immediately
Incorrect disposal overrides prior opportunity. It always been adjudicated that way.

If that incident had happened with 20 seconds to go in the game, the same reaction would have occurred.
 
Last edited:

hoopla

Premiership Player
May 17, 2007
3,372
3,352
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Incorrect disposal overrides prior opportunity. It always been adjudicated that way.

If that incident had happened with 20 seconds to go in the game, the same reaction would have occurred.
Funny. A Swans player was just penalised for exactly that. Tackled with little prior opportunity and dropped the ball.
 

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
7,685
10,188
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Would umpires get it right more if the rules were made simpler and didn't require interpretation? I've been wondering if there'd be less controversy over HTB if prior opportunity was defined as being in possession of the ball for 2 seconds or more, and disposals were just considered as correct or incorrect without the need to interpret intent.
 

donbooger

Club Legend
Sep 27, 2007
1,750
1,582
Williamstown
AFL Club
Geelong
Incorrect disposal overrides prior opportunity. It always been adjudicated that way.

If that incident had happened with 20 seconds to go in the game, the same reaction would have occurred.
I believe they can coexist somewhat.

You are right though, Incorrect disposal does take precedence and is judged first. It requires the player to purposely ELECT to dispose of the ball incorrectly, which gets very grey in a tackle and very hard to umpire. However even so, if disposed of incorrectly and the umpire deems it to be done purpopsely EVEN in a tackle, there is no need to apply holding the ball rules its called incorrect disposal on the spot and a free kick awarded.

However if intention is unclear or its deemed the player did not elect to dispose of the ball incorrectly then you move on to holding the ball rules.

For the Brisbane player and Blicavs it looks pretty clear they did not want to dispose of the ball incorrectly or at all in the case of the Brisbane player, at the very least they should get the benefit of that doubt.

So holding the ball rules are applied to both of them, the Brisbane player was deemed to have had no prior opportunity so its play on.

Blicavs was also deemed to have no prior by the umpire on the day. Later the AFL called this wrong and he was attempting to evade the tackler when he turned his back which is one of the triggers of prior opportunity in the rule book.
 

hoopla

Premiership Player
May 17, 2007
3,372
3,352
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I believe they can coexist somewhat.

You are right though, Incorrect disposal does take precedence and is judged first. It requires the player to purposely ELECT to dispose of the ball incorrectly, which gets very grey in a tackle and very hard to umpire. However even so, if disposed of incorrectly and the umpire deems it to be done purpopsely EVEN in a tackle, there is no need to apply holding the ball rules its called incorrect disposal on the spot and a free kick awarded.

However if intention is unclear or its deemed the player did not elect to dispose of the ball incorrectly then you move on to holding the ball rules.

For the Brisbane player and Blicavs it looks pretty clear they did not want to dispose of the ball incorrectly or at all in the case of the Brisbane player, at the very least they should get the benefit of that doubt.

So holding the ball rules are applied to both of them, the Brisbane player was deemed to have had no prior opportunity so its play on.

Blicavs was also deemed to have no prior by the umpire on the day. Later the AFL called this wrong and he was attempting to evade the tackler when he turned his back which is one of the triggers of prior opportunity in the rule book.
“Grey areas” sums up our game’s rules. Basically both incidents would have been paid as free kicks 90% of the time.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad