Diving on the Ball

[jo172]

Ok, you can bleat as much as you like about the diving on the ball rule and whether it should be a free kick or not. But disregarding your opinion on the rule at least for a few years now it's been relatively consistantly payed that if you dive on the ball you're going to give away a free kick.

My question is why do some players (Richard Douglas, Scott Thompson and Simon Goodwin come to mind) instinctively throw themselves on a ball on the ground in a situation where they're incredibly liable to give away holding the ball. Just dumb footy in my opinion. What happened to simple team rules like keep your feet?

Douglas for the life of me is just not a permanent or even majority of the time small forward. He's not quick enough over the first 5 meters, doesn't have much flair and is incredibly one sided. This for me is one of the reasons he feels the need to dive on the ball when in forward 50 particularly, he knows that it'll be more benifit to the team to have a ball up then for him to poick it up.

Opinions?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Is this a new trend?

Hawthorn have a team full of them (Mitchell/Sewell/Tuck/Ellis/McGlynn) - indeed those that don't do it initially develop it over time.

I'm guessing it's a coaching trait/intention - in which case the acquisition of Viney could have a part to play in it.

 

[jo172]

Is this a new trend?

Hawthorn have a team full of them (Mitchell/Sewell/Tuck/Ellis/McGlynn) - indeed those that don't do it initially develop it over time.

I'm guessing it's a coaching trait/intention - in which case the acquisition of Viney could have a part to play in it.

Nah, Thompson and Douglas are serial offenders. Just more noticable when the opposistion gets 20 more frees than you!

Also, another bugbear of mine on the rules front, the 15 meter mark. Is there any other rule more arbirtrarily paid? Sure the Petrenko to Walker one probably wasn't 15 meters, but it was twice as long as the one with the 50 against Vince in the last quarter! Is it time to paint distance lines all over the ground a la NFL to help out the umpires a bit?

 

[Cap]

thats easy, unlike most players they actually want to get the ball, not sweat off and just tackle

 

[jo172]

thats easy, unlike most players they actually want to get the ball, not sweat off and just tackle

You can still pick the ball up on your feet. This instinctive diving on the ball is just plain stupid.

 

[Cap]

You can still pick the ball up on your feet. This instinctive diving on the ball is just plain stupid.

I grew up a defender, there were three fundamental rules which we followed

1) if you can't reach the ball chop their arms
2) Force a ball up rather than cough it up (this was also a defensive forwards mindset), which means dive on it - the umps protect the man with the ball
3) if there was nothing on go long and for the boundary

now of these three things all of them have been taken away by the w***ers at AFL stadium. There is probably 100 years of fundamental playing style that has been removed from the game in 5 years.

IMO the rule is wrong and what Douglas is doing is a natural instinct of a game where the idea is to get the ball

I really don't care that the rule is in place, its a bad rule and it takes away the need to be first at the contested ball. I would rather them dive on it with the slight possibility of getting it out to a player than watching the opposition run away with it.

I would like to add if there is the chance to run on to it rather than dive onto it then obviously thats the better option, but often they are too far away to actually do that.

 

[pjcrows]

The holding the ball interpretation for "diving on the ball" was a knee-jerk reaction to Sydney being successful through ball-ups. So rather than letting the game evolve and sort itself out, like it always does, they quickly invented the "dragging it in" rule.

Since when is being on the ground and taking possession of the ball a bad thing? It actually creates play! Still bemused.

 

[jo172]

I grew up a defender, there were three fundamental rules which we followed

1) if you can't reach the ball chop their arms
2) Force a ball up rather than cough it up (this was also a defensive forwards mindset), which means dive on it - the umps protect the man with the ball
3) if there was nothing on go long and for the boundary

now of these three things all of them have been taken away by the w***ers at AFL stadium. There is probably 100 years of fundamental playing style that has been removed from the game in 5 years.

IMO the rule is wrong and what Douglas is doing is a natural instinct of a game where the idea is to get the ball

I really don't care that the rule is in place, its a bad rule and it takes away the need to be first at the contested ball. I would rather them dive on it with the slight possibility of getting it out to a player than watching the opposition run away with it.

I would like to add if there is the chance to run on to it rather than dive onto it then obviously thats the better option, but often they are too far away to actually do that.

Hey I hate the rule too, but I hardly think by taking a noble stand and ignoring it we're doing anyone much of a favour!

And as for defenders, possibly the most disgraceful call last night was the free kick to #42 against Otten when Otten took a perfectly good mark. As a forward myself I look at the way forwards are allowed to molest defenders (see Koschitzke last night) relative to what defenders can do to forwards (Gilbert last night) and the game has become a ****ing joke. However, the players do know these jokes of rules but still break them!

 

[smoovy]

thats easy, unlike most players they actually want to get the ball, not sweat off and just tackle

Well too bad, that's the rule. If you are skillful enough, getting to the ball first is still the best way to go about it. Problem is most our players lack the necessary quick hands to do anything about it and always get caught. You don't see Porplyzia get caught that often, because he knows how to get it out.

I think a lot of our players are just ignorant in this respect. Douglas leads the way in this regard.

I actually like the rule and I think diving on the ball and holding it in is the soft option because the offender is too scared to let it spill out. If it wasn't for this rule we would have endless ball ups and stoppages.

 

[Cap]

Well too bad, that's the rule. If you are skillful enough, getting to the ball first is still the best way to go about it. Problem is most our players lack the necessary quick hands to do anything about it and always get caught. You don't see Porplyzia get caught that often, because he knows how to get it out.

I think a lot of our players are just ignorant in this respect. Douglas leads the way in this regard.

I actually like the rule and I think diving on the ball and holding it in is the soft option because the offender is too scared to let it spill out. If it wasn't for this rule we would have endless ball ups and stoppages.

I disagree, there are situations were the ball needs to be held in, 8/10 the umpire calls ball up 2/10 its holding the ball.

YOu would see 100 time a game where a player pulls it drags it in and I reckon most of them get a ball up. Its the same as dropping the ball in a tackle it happens 50 odd times a match, but once or twice the ump pays holding the ball.

its a raffle and they players know it, thats why they still dive on the ball

 

[WALL-e]

God help our players go for the ****ing ball and get molested when doing so. But this is the rule and we have to play to it. We must keep our feet when possible.

 

[Ozzie]

God help our players go for the ****ing ball and get molested when doing so. But this is the rule and we have to play to it. We must keep our feet when possible.

There is no protection for the player who actually takes possession of the ball now. The defenders just sit off and tackle over the head, around the neck, jump on them and then there is the ride them into the ground tackle. Suddenly all of these things have become"legal". Why would any sane player want to actually try and get a loose ball? They are expected to keep their footing so that results in an arm wrestle with the ball laying at their feet.

The game is truly f***ed with these stupid rule changes.

There are some on here that think the current rule is good because there are fewer ballups. BFD, that is the main reason ruckman are slowly disappearing from the game.

I hate the modern game as a spectacle especially when the knobs on TV try to talk it up. That is, when they are not telling us about mooning werewolves or screaming Kingggggggggggg endlessly. None of them actually call the game anymore.

 

[marvin]

There is no protection for the player who actually takes possession of the ball now. The defenders just sit off and tackle over the head, around the neck, jump on them and then there is the ride them into the ground tackle. Suddenly all of these things have become"legal". Why would any sane player want to actually try and get a loose ball? They are expected to keep their footing so that results in an arm wrestle with the ball laying at their feet.

Absolutely. I hate this about the "modern game". I also hate all the commentators (and I include the miked-up ones in green) who say "he dived on it, he dragged it in" without realising that the second part is that the tackle still has to be legitimate. Instead, the poor guy who's first to the ball becomes a human pinata and gets penalised.

 

[WALL-e]

On most of those HTB decisions, it was a high takcle.

 

[King Elvis]

Holding the Ball - Punishing the Playmaker.

It's been getting worse for a while now, with players sitting off of their opponent, waiting for them to take possession and then tackling them and holding the ball in, getting them pinged.

It was the worst I've seen it last night - how long will it be before some players start to simply not take possession in a contestant situation at all, and just sit on their guy completely?

What the **** is wrong with our game when the guy whose trying to get his hands on the footy can be absolutely stitched up by the Umpire time after time, yet the guy who scrags and tags and doesn't try and get the ball because he's just waiting to tackle his opponent?

 

[Coopers]

Re: Holding the Ball - Punishing the Playmaker.

Also, it's fairly random as to whether or not you will get pinged, there is basically no consistency in the interpretation of prior opportunity.

I think we should start paying the umps off like the saints clearly did.

 

[smoovy]

On most of those HTB decisions, it was a high takcle.

You can't be serious, one or two tops. Umpires don't seem to miss too many high contact decisions these days.

 

[WheresGroomgone]

On most of those HTB decisions, it was a high takcle.

Yes totally agree, where has the protection gone for the guy going in to win the ball????
Also how many times against St.Kilda did their guys dive in, often the second or third bloke, and drill our bloke trying to dig the ball out!! Gone is any protection for the guy on the ground, they did it time and time again most head high and were never "noticed" by the guys attempting to control the game?!

 

[WheresGroomgone]

You can't be serious, one or two tops. Umpires don't seem to miss too many high contact decisions these days.

Well they missed close to ten last night when the second or third guy dove in on the player on the bottom!!!

 

[Randyonekanobe]

Re: Holding the Ball - Punishing the Playmaker.

Without doubt the worst Umpiring Ive seen since the Crows, Essendon final many years ago... will the umpires be charged with bringing the game into disrepute? The problem now is that some umpires have an ego problem and watch the game back to see how well they controlled the players.. its all about themselves now..
I cant start a thread yet as Im new but I want to know if the guy who punched Maric in the face resulting in a free kick and goal to St Kilda has been reported yet? Has the match review panel met and charged him? The replay clearly showed he fully threw a deliberate clenched fist that landed on Marics face.... Maric then quite clearly mentioned to the umpire that he had been punched. The umpire then quite clearly ignored the free kick to Maric and awarded St Kilda a goal. I cant see how it can be overlooked by the match review panel and wonder why it hasnt been brought up a lot more loudly by our supporters. This guy threw a sneeky punch in the middle of a pack because he thought it would go undetected and a low act like that shouldnt be allowed to slide. Maric made sure it didnt go undetected. The replay showed Maric was clearly telling the truth... but Ive heard nothing of a report? From what I saw it was worth 3 games.. it was deliberate, to the head, while a player was going for the ball.. there was no way he was attempting to punch the ball because Maric had it down between his chest and stomach.

 

[Vader]

Re: Holding the Ball - Punishing the Playmaker.

Without doubt the worst Umpiring Ive seen since the Crows, Essendon final many years ago... will the umpires be charged with bringing the game into disrepute? The problem now is that some umpires have an ego problem and watch the game back to see how well they controlled the players.. its all about themselves now..
I cant start a thread yet as Im new but I want to know if the guy who punched Maric in the face resulting in a free kick and goal to St Kilda has been reported yet? Has the match review panel met and charged him? The replay clearly showed he fully threw a deliberate clenched fist that landed on Marics face.... Maric then quite clearly mentioned to the umpire that he had been punched. The umpire then quite clearly ignored the free kick to Maric and awarded St Kilda a goal. I cant see how it can be overlooked by the match review panel and wonder why it hasnt been brought up a lot more loudly by our supporters. This guy threw a sneeky punch in the middle of a pack because he thought it would go undetected and a low act like that shouldnt be allowed to slide. Maric made sure it didnt go undetected. The replay showed Maric was clearly telling the truth... but Ive heard nothing of a report? From what I saw it was worth 3 games.. it was deliberate, to the head, while a player was going for the ball.. there was no way he was attempting to punch the ball because Maric had it down between his chest and stomach.

It wasn't reported at the time because the umpire's didn't see anything. To be fair to them, it did happen on the bottom of a pack. They can't book a player on the field based on nothing more than a player's say-so. They need to see it with their own eyes.

However, the vision picked up by the TV cameras was somewhat damning and did support Maric's claims.

The Match Review Panel meets on Monday and I would be disappointed if this incident were not examined closely.

 

[cmndstab]

Re: Holding the Ball - Punishing the Playmaker.

The most disappointing aspect of the umpiring this season so far has been that the concept of prior oppurtunity has been placed below "pulling the ball in".

Prior oppurtunity has always sat above the HTB rule. You're not allowed to just drop the ball - but if you had no prior oppurtunity, it was play on. You're not allowed to not dispose of the ball, but if you had no prior oppurtunity, it was play on. The only thing you couldn't do even without prior oppurtunity was throw the ball.


Now we seem to have the interpretation (I'm not sure if it's written this way in the rulebook or not, it's just how I'm reading it) that if you "tuck the ball in" then prior oppurtunity doesn't come into account. The problem being of course that you can meet a ball at full pace, or dive in low to scoop up the ball, be tackled in the motion of doing so or instantly afterwards, and the very nature of the tackle means your arms are pinned to your body, giving the effect of the ball being pulled in. You then have had no oppurtunity to dispose of the ball, no way to avoid tucking the ball in, and in the end the decision goes against you.


I understand why they want to remove tucking the ball in from the games, in a certain context it's no different than deliberately putting the ball out of bounds to create a throw-in, or rushing a behind to create a kick-in. It's about removing the option for a team under pressure to relieve it by simply jumping on the ball and not letting anyone touch it. However, the spirit of the law has been eroded by turning it into a blanket ban. You have to allow people to dive over the footy as some stages because the footy is on the ground. Not everyone can run at pace and scoop it up with one hand. The concept of you having pulled the ball in with pinned arms is also stupid and needs to be looked at.


It's frustrating knowing that the odds of anything being done about it are next to none. I wish all the coaches would get together and put pressure on the AFL to fix it up.

 

[smoovy]

The rule is really quite clear. Reasonable time is not even allowed, you must knock or dispose of the ball immediately. I think the umpires do actually give a slacker interpretation of this by giving a little time.

15.2.5 Diving on Top of the Football
Where a Player is in possession of the football by reason of diving
on top of or dragging the football underneath his or her body, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if he or she
does not immediately knock the football clear or Correctly Dispose
of the football when Correctly Tackled.

15.2.6 Football Held to the Body of a Player
The field Umpire shall bounce the football when a Player, in the act
of applying a Correct Tackle, holds the football to the body of the
Player being Tackled or the football is otherwise pinned to the
ground, unless the Player being Tackled has had a prior opportunity
to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a)
shall apply.

 

[jenny61_99]

The rule is really quite clear. Reasonable time is not even allowed, you must knock or dispose of the ball immediately. I think the umpires do actually give a slacker interpretation of this by giving a little time.

15.2.5 Diving on Top of the Football
Where a Player is in possession of the football by reason of diving
on top of or dragging the football underneath his or her body, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if he or she
does not immediately knock the football clear or Correctly Dispose
of the football when Correctly Tackled.

15.2.6 Football Held to the Body of a Player
The field Umpire shall bounce the football when a Player, in the act
of applying a Correct Tackle, holds the football to the body of the
Player being Tackled or the football is otherwise pinned to the
ground, unless the Player being Tackled has had a prior opportunity
to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a)
shall apply.

I notice there's nowhere in that rule that says you'll be pinged if your lying on your back and the ball falls into your arms which are then held by your opponent.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

shows you where the game is heading - having a go at guys who throw themselves at the contest. The ball player doesn't receive enough protection these days. The AFL in their normal stupidity are supposedly trying to make the game safer so the potential soccer mums reconsider and allow little Johnny to play Aussie rules. IMO it is had the opposite affect where cheap shots seem to be the order of the day.

Its a disgrace the sh*t genuine ball players have to put up with these days. The crap G Ablett has to put up with week in week out isn't Aussie rules. Nothing tough or couragous about that.

The only way to stop it is to start giving more free kicks and 50 meter penalties or worse case scenraio, send it to the tribunal - who, themselves have become a laughing stock. Apparently, 2 weeks is okay for a player who drills his knee into the face of a ball player half his size. Pre-Demetriou/Anderson that would have been a 6 week offense.

The AFL and the tribunal in their normal incompetent way have sent a message to the competition - its open season on ball players.

Their obssession with expansion ( when there so many other issues )has a smell of ABC Learning Centre about it.