Can an independent commission investigate the AFL for blatant cheating?

[doppleganger]

I am in vast minority here but there is definitely doubt it was holding the ball, by the rules.

Why bother actually understanding the rules when being critical of the umpiring though?

Who has time to actually read and understand that rule interpretations have changed from when they may have played.

And yeah when watching live, immediate thought was that was holding the ball...wanting the Lions to get the W and all, nothing beats a Scott presser when he feels cheated!

But going back to rule and how umpires are coached to make their decision, you can understand the grey.

The AFL should almost force C7 and fox to have an umpire as part of comments team, they can then help educate people on how/why things are paid / not paid.

Instead we are given idiots like BT who is more interested in trying to make himself an integral part of the broadcast with his nicknames and stupid wow weees.

EPL and NBA both do that, where they have the ex ref giving a view on some contentious decisions...so you understand the actual decision making process.

Sigh at how bad our commentary is.

 

[Triniboy]

How exactly is is corrupt? It was an incorrect decision. Posting that it is corrupt just makes you look like an idiot sorry.

What makes the AFL more money, Brisbane team winning or the team that has been around the mark for nearly twenty years that everyone is sick of seeing?

A Brisbane win does, AFL growth in QLD has exploded which is a result of them winning and being in the 8 in the last couple years.

 

[RodnyDangrfield]

100% HTB.. that’s corrupt!

 

[doppleganger]

He had a clear opportunity to dispose of it. He didn’t take it.

Gee pretty hot take on prior opportunity, very much debatable and against the spirit of the rule itself...which is to give the player in possession the chance to get rid of it.

He received the handball from Smith and was tackled almost instantaneously. Very much a team prior opportunity, and a change that many people are wanting to be made.

But what actual opportunity did Blicavs have? He was already being tackled when he turned, this wasn't a he had the ball in the clear and tried to step around situation. For mine most comparable to the maul post a bounce, players often take possession from a HO and are immediately tackled, if tackle knocks it clear play on.

But again listen to BTs commentary, he doesn't get the rule. You don't "reward" the tackler.

Did blicavs have prior opportunity - very much debatable.

If AFL add a team dimension to prior opportunity, it if you receive the ball from teammates you are deemed to have had prior opportunity then yes it is a no brainer...but that isn't how the rule is written, or currently interpreted.

And pretty hard to argue that the tackle itself (almost the perfect tackle, pinned the arms and drove to the ground) didn't help dislodge the ball incorrectly, which again as per rules works in favour of the player in possession of the ball.

Heaps of grey, and hardly the howler it is being made out to be...Guthrie to Selwood was much worse

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I thought the Guthrie to Selwood was the bigger howler.

But yes, people not actually knowing the rules is a huge problem. Especially when you have BT commentary setting the narrative and the bloke has absolutely no idea of the actual correct rule interpretations.

What help do the mug punters at home have??

This is the actual rule

18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

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.

So whether the Player has had Prior Opportunity is ALWAYS the first consideration in any Holding the ball decision.

Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:
(a) is balanced and steady; or
(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or (c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or
(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent.

Smith handballs the ball to Blicavs, he didn't try to fend and didn't have time to be balanced or steady, so the interpretation is that by Blicavs trying to turn is that 'evading'....for mine it is a no, that was just Blicavs trying to break the Tackle, as he was almost instantaneously tackled by Bailey.

So if you are ruling out Prior, you only then consider "incorrect disposal" if the Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of it....note the avoidance of doubt where it states it is NOT Incorrect Disposal if the Player makes an attempt or the legal Tackle causes the ball to be dislodged.

The fact that Bailey's tackle was perfect actually made it harder for the umpire to penalise Blicavs, as you can see thinking that

A - No prior, immediately Tackled by Bailey
B - no handball....but he shaped to try, and the strong Tackle actually contributed to the ball dropping as Bailey prevented Blicavs arms from swinging as he took him to the ground

Enough grey there to understand, if you actually know the rules and how umpires are told to interpret them, why the umpire made the call to not penalise Blicavs.

And that is the key part, the rule is about penalising the player who holds onto the ball, not 'rewarding' the tackler.

Did Blicavs have prior opportunity and did the Tackle contribute to the ball being dislodged?

The tackle clearly did IMHO, and I am fine with umpire deeming him to have not had Prior.....thus play on.

The prior Opportunity ruling is critical in situations where the Tackle is really good.

Our rules book is starting to look like a tender document from Rio Tinto. It is out of control.

 

[Gavin Excell]

He had a clear opportunity to dispose of it. He didn’t take it.

Yep

 

[Madas]

Gee pretty hot take on prior opportunity, very much debatable and against the spirit of the rule itself...which is to give the player in possession the chance to get rid of it.

He received the handball from Smith and was tackled almost instantaneously. Very much a team prior opportunity, and a change that many people are wanting to be made.

But what actual opportunity did Blicavs have? He was already being tackled when he turned, this wasn't a he had the ball in the clear and tried to step around situation. For mine most comparable to the maul post a bounce, players often take possession from a HO and are immediately tackled, if tackle knocks it clear play on.

But again listen to BTs commentary, he doesn't get the rule. You don't "reward" the tackler.

Did blicavs have prior opportunity - very much debatable.

If AFL add a team dimension to prior opportunity, it if you receive the ball from teammates you are deemed to have had prior opportunity then yes it is a no brainer...but that isn't how the rule is written, or currently interpreted.

And pretty hard to argue that the tackle itself (almost the perfect tackle, pinned the arms and drove to the ground) didn't help dislodge the ball incorrectly, which again as per rules works in favour of the player in possession of the ball.

Heaps of grey, and hardly the howler it is being made out to be...Guthrie to Selwood was much worse

This is where those of us that grew up with the " dropping the ball " rule look at that and lose our s**t .
A good tackle that results in the opposition losing possession of the ball should be rewarded .
call it incorrect disposal or whatever , there was a free there
If the umpires didn't see it (like they didn't see a heap of other frees that game ) then that's a different story

 

[doppleganger]

Our rules book is starting to look like a tender document from Rio Tinto. It is out of control.

Don't disagree.

AFL could put someone in commentary to help actual clarify rule interpretations, like EPL / NBA do.

BTs commentary doesn't help, as he isn't addressing the actual rule.

 

[2Knights]

Fundamental misunderstanding of the rules here. If you don't have prior opportunity and make a genuine attempt, there's no such thing as illegal disposal.

Prior opportunity is 100% relevant in this case. And he did have prior opportunity as he was trying to avoid the tackler. It was a clear holding the ball.

Not so. You cannot throw the ball, or hand off the ball (eg Guthrie-Selwood) under any circumstances. See rule 18.13 (a) and (b).

18.13 OTHER A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who: (a) Throws the football; (b) hands the football to another Player;

 

[donbooger]

This is where those of us that grew up with the " dropping the ball " rule look at that and lose our sh*t .
A good tackle that results in the opposition losing possession of the ball should be rewarded .
call it incorrect disposal or whatever , there was a free there
If the umpires didn't see it (like they didn't see a heap of other frees that game ) then that's a different story

It would become soccer, the game has heated up and now the player gaining possession needs to be rewarded.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[Jamolad]

44% of your scoring came from frees...5.3 goals

I wouldn’t carry on too much

Which of those frees weren't there?

That stat is meaningless in this discussion if that 5.3 came from non-contentious legit frees - stat is probably more relevant to discussion about forward pressure on Cat's backs.

They should have had one more free for and one more scoring shot.

 

[Strange Cat]

Which of those frees weren't there?

That stat is meaningless in this discussion if they that 5.3 came from non-contentious legit frees - stat is probably more relevant to discussion about forward pressure on Cat's backs.

They should have had one more free for and one more scoring shot.

Ok princess

 

[Madas]

Don't disagree.

AFL could put someone in commentary to help actual clarify rule interpretations, like EPL / NBA do.

BTs commentary doesn't help, as he isn't addressing the actual rule.

This is a good idea but I can't see it working whilst the AFL rule like the Gestapo and no one is allowed to speak up against them .
if the commentary umpire was regularly calling out incorrect decisions then none of us would have any faith and the AFL would be in constant review of decisions post game . It would be a shambles .
Agree though that commentary Explanations would be helpful.

I think people who knock AFL umpiring should try it themselves , it's ridiculously hard ( even at local club level ) so I can't even imagine how hard it would be with the pace and ferocity of AFL and the noise of the crowd . Give em a break

 

[2Knights]

I am in vast minority here but there is definitely doubt it was holding the ball, by the rules.


Under the 2021 release of the Laws of Australian Football, holding the football is covered by Law 18.6.[2] Four specific clauses apply, mostly depending upon how the player came to be in possession of the ball. The wording of these variations in the laws is as follows:

• 18.6.2 Holding the ball: Prior Opportunity – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
• 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.
• 18.6.4 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 to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
• 18.6.5 Holding the ball: Diving on Top of the Football – A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

A Prior Opportunity is defined in Law 1.1 (Definitions and Interpretation) as a player who has possession of the ball and:

• (a) is balanced and steady; or
• (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or
• (c) has taken a mark or been awarded a free kick; or
• (d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent

------

18.6.3 - Does not seem to apply as the following is my interpretation of what happened.

• (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.

18.6.4 and 18.6.5 are also obviously out as well so its 18.6.2 we want which means it needs to be deemed that Blicavs had prior opportunity. So he would need to be accepted on one these points.

• (a) is balanced and steady; or
• (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent

I think (a) is not the one we are looking at, they take a harder defintion on what balanced and steady means, probably a couple seconds of balance is needed, otherwise prior would nearly always be deemed to have happened.

Its 18.6.2 (b) that is the contentious one to me, he did turn to attempt to unload a hand ball, is that evadeing? I think it is more in question then puiblic opinion makes it appear and even harder for an umpire on the ground in real time to call. Give the umpires a break. For the record I would not have complained if it was called holding the ball I think that 18.6.2 (b) could certainly apply.

There are also rules 18.13 (a) and (b), which outright ban throwing the ball and handing it off.

 

[Madas]

It would become soccer, the game has heated up and now the player gaining possession needs to be rewarded.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying?

 

[donbooger]

There are also rules 18.13 (a) and (b), which outright ban throwing the ball and handing it off.

The umpire deemed it to have come out in the tackle, not thrown out.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[donbooger]

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying?

there will be much less incentive to take possession of contested ball if prior opportunity was taken oit of the rules.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[Madas]

there will be much less incentive to take possession of contested ball if prior opportunity was taken oit of the rules.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Fair Point but I guess I'm talking about the blatant ones not the grey ones where there hasn't been much time in the oppositions hands .
The pinning of the ball to the oppositions chest ( which makes it look like they had no prior) is part of a good tackle that should be rewarded

 

[doppleganger]

This is where those of us that grew up with the " dropping the ball " rule look at that and lose our sh*t .
A good tackle that results in the opposition losing possession of the ball should be rewarded .
call it incorrect disposal or whatever , there was a free there
If the umpires didn't see it (like they didn't see a heap of other frees that game ) then that's a different story

Exactly, BT is one of them.

The big shift in modern interpretation of prior opportunity came in mid 90s, and has had minor refinements since.

A good tackle that results in ball spilling free is only deemed holding the ball IFF the player was adjudged to have had prior opportunity BEFORE being tackled.

The important part in the clip is actually the micro second when Smith handballs to Blicavs and he is tackled...Blicavs doesn't even get to take a clean step, he is already being tackled as he turns.

The entire spirit of the rule is to give the player winning the ball a chance to get rid of it.

The problem with current interpretation is the 'team' prior. Smith had the ball, his HB to Blicavs actually put him in the s**t.

Many people noting the team aspect and that if you gain by possession via a direct handball from your teammates should prior opportunity not apply? That way you punish Geelong and reward Brisbane for the pressure that created the incorrect disposal.

But the current rulebook doesn't consider team, it is only individual act.

So once again watch the first 3 seconds of the clip, a hint that Blicavs is already tackled then...., then pause it....do you consider Blicavs had any prior opportunity before being tackled??

If a player is deemed not to have had prior opportunity, they don't need to kick or handball it!

 

[Jamolad]

...Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:
(a) is balanced and steady; or
(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or (c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or
(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent...

 

[donbooger]

Fair Point but I guess I'm talking about the blatant ones not the grey ones where there hasn't been much time in the oppositions hands .
The pinning of the ball to the oppositions chest ( which makes it look like they had no prior) is part of a good tackle that should be rewarded

I get that, good tackling is good football.

AFL have the spectacle in mind though, they want people picking up balls and clearing congestion. They will reward the players who do this with not having prior opportunity if they are tackled.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Don't disagree.

AFL could put someone in commentary to help actual clarify rule interpretations, like EPL / NBA do.

BTs commentary doesn't help, as he isn't addressing the actual rule.

I really think it’s hard mate, the rules change yearly and interpretations can change weekly, no one has any chance of knowing the rules anymore let alone the umpires who as soon as they do get a grasp of them the AFL introduce or change some more.
I have no idea what the rules are anymore but it doesn’t bother me as this sport they play now is a different sport to the one I loved most of my life. AFL is a completey different sport to Australian Rules football in my opinion. I find it comedy relief now when it was once a passion. I miss our great game.

 

[FastLane]

Looks terrible particularly given the time of the game- yet reality is they barely paid it all night- and the night before. I watched Geelong and Carlton in particular drop the ball all night and rarely pinged- perhaps it is a directive to speed the game up??

The most glaring issue for me last night was how Geelong seem to be able to run over the mark on numerous occasions- worst was when Jed Bews

24

Jed Bews

Age

30

Ht

186cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.9

3star

K

6.1

2star

HB

4.8

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.6

4star

MG

178.2

3star

D

9.5

2star

K

7.5

3star

HB

2.0

1star

M

2.3

2star

T

1.7

3star

MG

205.8

3star

D

8.8

3star

K

3.8

2star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

3.2

5star

crept about 5 metres over the mark when Joe Daniher would have had a shot at goal from about 55- instead pushed him beyond range.

If there is a directive not to pay holding/dropping the ball- let us all know

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Exactly, BT is one of them.

The big shift in modern interpretation of prior opportunity came in mid 90s, and has had minor refinements since.

A good tackle that results in ball spilling free is only deemed holding the ball IFF the player was adjudged to have had prior opportunity BEFORE being tackled.

The important part in the clip is actually the micro second when Smith handballs to Blicavs and he is tackled...Blicavs doesn't even get to take a clean step, he is already being tackled as he turns.

The entire spirit of the rule is to give the player winning the ball a chance to get rid of it.

The problem with current interpretation is the 'team' prior. Smith had the ball, his HB to Blicavs actually put him in the sh*t.

Many people noting the team aspect and that if you gain by possession via a direct handball from your teammates should prior opportunity not apply? That way you punish Geelong and reward Brisbane for the pressure that created the incorrect disposal.

But the current rulebook doesn't consider team, it is only individual act.

So once again watch the first 3 seconds of the clip, a hint that Blicavs is already tackled then...., then pause it....do you consider Blicavs had any prior opportunity before being tackled??

If a player is deemed not to have had prior opportunity, they don't need to kick or handball it!

What happened to the dropping the ball rule? Where has that gone?

 

[doppleganger]

This is a good idea but I can't see it working whilst the AFL rule like the Gestapo and no one is allowed to speak up against them .
if the commentary umpire was regularly calling out incorrect decisions then none of us would have any faith and the AFL would be in constant review of decisions post game . It would be a shambles .
Agree though that commentary Explanations would be helpful.

I think people who knock AFL umpiring should try it themselves , it's ridiculously hard ( even at local club level ) so I can't even imagine how hard it would be with the pace and ferocity of AFL and the noise of the crowd . Give em a break

The point being by having someone who actually understands how umpires are currently being coached to interpret the rules, they can help clarify decision making process.

As with Blicavs, it is the following

1st - did he have prior opportunity - A = yes, B =
2A - did he immediately correctly dispose?
2Bi did tackle contribute to ball being dislodged
2Bii did the player make a genuine attempt

BT completely ignores the crucial decision, and immediately jumps to 2A.

Get somebody who actually understands the umpiring decision making process, and they can help educate the public on why decisions are made.

It isn't about pointing out right or wrong, simply helping educate how decisions are made.

The deliberate out of bounds another perfect candidate, as commentators revert to the 'what is he expected to do','he is under pressure' etc., once again harking back to their days when the boundary was a safe zone.

That isn't how umpires are coached to enforce it, so it would be great having someone actually say what the umpires are told to look for....you don't have to agree, emotions are good for that....but at least it can help improve our own understanding.

But no we get Wow weeees