Do You know the rules?

[jatz14]

I have been reading a few threads and have been amazed by the number of posters who seem willing to confess to ignorance and confusion about the rules. Some of them seem to be proud of this, or see it as a mark of failure by the AFL and or the umpires.

As the rules and the interpretations to me seem simple, I would have thought it a mark of the posters stupidity rather than a failure of the AFL.

So, are the rules actually difficult to follow and inconsistently applied, or are many BF posters just biased and/or stupid. I go for the latter.

As a test, I will lay out my interpretation of 1 contentious rule, and the circumstances that lead to confusion, and invite others to follow on other rules.

The tackle without prior opportunity.

If a player picks up the ball and is tackled quickly, without having the time to pass the ball or evade the tackle, then the player will not be penalised provided he does not dispose of the ball illegally, and at least makes a genuine attempt to dispose of it legally.

Justification. In the past, players had started to dwell on the ball in heavy congestion, prefering to wait until the opposition picked it up and then tackling them. Made for ugly packs of players all hesitating to get the ball for fear of being tackled and conceding the free.

Problems for spectators. What is and is not No prior opportunity. What is and is not a genuine attempt.

Example, 2 identical situations, 2 players get the ball, get tackled immediately, and try to handpass. 1 is firmly punching a ball held hard to him, the other makes air swings at a ball that is mostly free. First is a ball up, and the second is a free.

Good rule, good interpretation, adds to the game. That many people get confused is because they either do not see or do not understand the significance of the small things in the tackles, and how it affects what the umpires decide.

 

[Spluff]

Interpretation is often different to the letter of the law in this case. Current favour is for players to let the ball spill out in the tackle (which is an illegal disposal), and not call a free kick. Free kicks are paid if the player holds on the ball and doesn't make a bunch of feeble attempts at punching the ball, even if there was no real opportunity to get rid of the ball. Holding the arms so the player can't make these feeble attempts (even if there wasn't prior opportunity) is a free as well.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Umpires often get sucked in when a player with no prior opportunity is tackled by the arm and has no chance of making a legal disposal.

 

[varcoetovardy]

Its the interpretations of the rules and the lack of consistency which annoys supporters. You could give the same umpires two identical situations in two different games and the free could literally go either way. That's what is annoying.
What particularly annoys me is when there is a boundary throw in and the umpire seemingly plucks a free from nowhere and penalises one of the two competing ruckman, who are both doing just as much grabbing and holding etc. Just call play on.

 

[jatz14]

I dont think chance comes into it. If you have evaded 3 players and got caught by the fourth, you have to dispose of the ball. If the tackle makes it impossible, then good tackle, and a free. That you could have passed the ball after the first or second tackle means you have no basis of complaint.

If you are talking about a no prior situation, you still have to make an ettempt, even if that is very difficult.

 

[Moonwatcher]

As above a player who has had no prior opportunity will be called holding the ball if his arms are pinned and unable to make an attempt. This has got to be the most frustrating interpretation currently. It is also against the spirit of the game.

Another "interpretation" I don't like is when a ball is kicked 20m sideways in the defensive 50 and the umpire calls not 15. If you don't want to pay 20m kicks in the defensive 50 change the rule.

and my final rant. Any player who has had prior opportunity is still allowed to get an immediate legal disposal away. However if a ruckman chooses to take the ball out of the ruck (ie considered to have had prior opportunity) the ruckman isn't afforded the opportunity to dispose of the football immediately.

 

[Rack Watts]

I used to, they change every week.

 

[Moonwatcher]

If you are talking about a no prior situation, you still have to make an ettempt, even if that is very difficult.

Even if it is impossible?

 

[LordJimmy]

Prior opportunity is simple. If he plays for the other team, it's holding the ball. If he doesn't, it isn't.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Prior opportunity is simple. If he plays for the other team, it's holding the ball. If he doesn't, it isn't.

That's the thrust of the main board West Coast conspiracy theory, yes.

 

[jatz14]

Its the interpretations of the rules and the lack of consistency which annoys supporters. You could give the same umpires two identical situations in two different games and the free could literally go either way. That's what is annoying.

That is the central issue though, was it really inconsistent. Did the crowd really see what the umpire saw. An umpire making a decision on wether there is prior opportunity is making that decision in a split second.

The crowd screaming at the ump because their player gave away a free for not making an attempt while the opposition player 2 minutes earlier got a ball up, and saying bias, cant know if the ump thought their player was punching the ball into his own arm to stop it coming out.

A large part of the issue with consistency is not that the ump is inconsistent, but that the crowd is both inconsistent (and biased), and doesnt see what the ump saw.

 

[jko'neal]

I don't know all of the rules, and I'm convinced the umpires don't either.

 

[jatz14]

Even if it is impossible?

Yes. Like the diving on the ball rule. It must come out, even if it cant. If you are not confident of your ability to do the impossible, do not dive on it.

 

[LeverPuller]

Explain incorrect disposal to me. For I shall then direct you to Eddie Betts v Melbourne.

Rule isn't paid at all right now.

 

[jatz14]

I cant explain an indirect disposal. Is it like a soccer indirect free kick?

 

[LeverPuller]

I cant explain an indirect disposal. Is it like a soccer indirect free kick?

****, how did I write indirect? Meant incorrect.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Yes. Like the diving on the ball rule. It must come out, even if it cant. If you are not confident of your ability to do the impossible, do not dive on it.

At least with diving on the ball, the infringing player has the choice to dive on it or not. A player who has his arms pinned immediately hasn't had an opportunity to do anything. To me this isn't football, not even sport.

 

[Nardz]

I'll admit - I'm stumped with a lot of interpretations.

Lets be real. a lot of the rules are almost unwritten. Umpires "wing" it a lot, and this has evolved over time for things to be interpreted in a certain way.

I guarantee you if you started a competition in another country, gave them nothing but a rule book and said "here, play, and umpire it yourselves", within a couple of years the officiating would be completely different to what we have here.

If a player does not have prior opportunity, and he gets tackled, and he loses it in the tackle.. why is it sometimes paid dropping the ball/incorrect disposal? what happened to the fact that he did not have prior opportunity? on the flip side, the player can't just throw it.. but where do you draw the line?

the prior opportunity rule was the day they started ruining the game IMO.


even deliberate out of bounds.

how often do you konw that a player is deliberately rushing the ball over the line. but there's this unwritten rule that says he has to "disguise it". deliberate is deliberate.

hands in the back? i have no idea when this gets paid and when it doesnt. there is very often contact that gets ignored.

Ruck infringments. I have NFI where to start. I don't think the ruckmen themselves know. Darren Jolly certainly doesn't.

Marking contests. Two players holding eachother. One of them gets a free kick. which one is beyond me.

Players having to "kick over the mark". wtf is the point, when they're in defence. let them kick it where ever the **** they want to kick it.


and it absolutely amazes me that the afl makes a rule change 6 rounds into a season. the commission should be sacked for this single event.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Hands in the back was paid all the time reasonably consistantly. This year I don't think I have seen it paid once. I'm not against the AFL cracking down on a problem for a few years then relaxing when once the infringments are no longer so numerous.

 

[LeverPuller]

Hands in the back was paid all the time reasonably consistantly. This year I don't think I have seen it paid once. I'm not against the AFL cracking down on a problem for a few years then relaxing when once the infringments are no longer so numerous.

I've seen it paid, though not for 'hands in the back', more those full tackles from the back of the player which drives them into the ground.

 

[jatz14]

At least with diving on the ball, the infringing player has the choice to dive on it or not. A player who has his arms pinned immediately hasn't had an opportunity to do anything. To me this isn't football, not even sport.

In that situation, a player just has to make a convincing attempt, he doesnt have to make a good attempt. Trying to throw your body about, and shrugging the shoulders, flexing arms etc is enough. It is when the player accepts the tackle and waits for the ball up that he will get pinned.

Again, the ump may see one player straining against the tackle, even if he cant move much, and another just be passive. Giving one a ball up, and one a holding the ball isnt inconsistent, even if the crowd is convinced it is.

 

[tigs2010]

Not a ****ing clue. Doesn't stop me yelling 'BALLLLLL!!!!' any time a Richmond player goes near an opposition player.

UMAD?

 

[jko'neal]

I'll admit - I'm stumped with a lot of interpretations.

Lets be real. a lot of the rules are almost unwritten. Umpires "wing" it a lot, and this has evolved over time for things to be interpreted in a certain way.

I guarantee you if you started a competition in another country, gave them nothing but a rule book and said "here, play, and umpire it yourselves", within a couple of years the officiating would be completely different to what we have here.

If a player does not have prior opportunity, and he gets tackled, and he loses it in the tackle.. why is it sometimes paid dropping the ball/incorrect disposal? what happened to the fact that he did not have prior opportunity? on the flip side, the player can't just throw it.. but where do you draw the line?

the prior opportunity rule was the day they started ruining the game IMO.


even deliberate out of bounds.

how often do you konw that a player is deliberately rushing the ball over the line. but there's this unwritten rule that says he has to "disguise it". deliberate is deliberate.

hands in the back? i have no idea when this gets paid and when it doesnt. there is very often contact that gets ignored.

Ruck infringments. I have NFI where to start. I don't think the ruckmen themselves know. Darren Jolly certainly doesn't.

Marking contests. Two players holding eachother. One of them gets a free kick. which one is beyond me.

Players having to "kick over the mark". wtf is the point, when they're in defence. let them kick it where ever the **** they want to kick it.


and it absolutely amazes me that the afl makes a rule change 6 rounds into a season. the commission should be sacked for this single event.

Rucking frees at throw ins very easy, whistle blows big name ruck man at the contest puts his hand up and run backwards to take the kick. Umpire agrees and pays him the free

 

[Mancey]

Hands in the back was paid all the time reasonably consistantly. This year I don't think I have seen it paid once. I'm not against the AFL cracking down on a problem for a few years then relaxing when once the infringments are no longer so numerous.

See it paid fairly often tbh. Recall at least one in the derby this week

 

[doppleganger]

That is the central issue though, was it really inconsistent.

There is one important contributor to increased inconsistency in umpiring, more umpires on the field.

The crowd screaming at the ump because their player gave away a free for not making an attempt while the opposition player 2 minutes earlier got a ball up, and saying bias, cant know if the ump thought their player was punching the ball into his own arm to stop it coming out.

Are the crowd screaming at the same ump??

2 min ago, umpire number 6 may have given a ball-up....but then umpire number 14 pays it holding the ball.

Both umpires can be consistent in their own interpretation throughout the game, but slight differences between the individual umpires causes the inconsistency.

When their was 1 umpire this wasn't a problem, now with 3 there is.

As people say, three people can have slight variations in interpretation and this is what causes problems....less umpires is the answer.

A large part of the issue with consistency is not that the ump is inconsistent, but that the crowd is both inconsistent (and biased), and doesnt see what the ump saw.

This aint changed, differing angles will always mean things are missed.