Do You know the rules?

[Visions]

Usually the umpires clamp down on infringements early on in the year, and then slowly let things pass until the end of the year, less things are paid.

This year, they got into the act very early, missing many throwing the ball, incorrect disposal, jumper holding events across the board.

The push in the back one is a tough one, I have no idea how they decide when to pay one. Sometimes pushes in the side are paid, sometimes nudges not using arms are paid, sometimes pushes in the back aren't paid. One the the other week where Cloke bumped a player with his hip as the ball was was coming to them. Umpire said to Cloke "You bumped him under the ball. You can't bump him." Didn't know this was the case?

Then there is the prior opportunity for holding the ball. Interpreted many different ways. Obviously a lot of fans don't know this one, because you have 20,000 people always yelling "BALL" at the G whenever someone gets tackled no matter whether it's legit or not.

 

[aussierulesrules]

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.

Apparently that is not actually a free kick any more. I've heard them say a few times on the TV commentary recently that it actually says in the rules now that you can in fact just drop the ball when you're tackled (as long as you haven't had prior op) and it will not be penalised.

I think this used to be "dropping the ball" and I and probably most thought this was still the case, but according to what I've heard in recent weeks, it either never was that way, or has recently been changed (on the quiet), so that if you're tackled (without prior op) and aren't able to get a proper disposal away, you can just drop it, (presumably because they want the ball to be coming loose and play to continue as much as possible).

Does make you wonder what "incorrect disposal" is, though, when you also have "throwing the ball". If you can now "legally" drop it, but throwing it is "throwing the ball", then what is "incorrect disposal"?

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.

That is also not correct and on the occasions when what you said happened, that would simply be considered an incorrect adjudication by the AFL. You see it all the time when someone is tackled as soon as they get the ball and if they are genuinely completely pinned and it's not reasonable for them to even get an attempt away, it is just called a ball up. On the occasions when that is pinged it is simply a mistake.

If you're able to at least make an attempt to get rid of it (like if you have one arm pinned, but one free), then you're expected to make that attempt, but if both arms are genuinely pinned and you are not reasonably able to even make an attempt, then ball up is the correct call, under the rules.

 

[Footypie32]

Saw another commonly missunderstood rule on the weekend-

Heath Shaw had the ball near the boundry. He was tackled and so handballed over the boundry line. It was called deliberate out of bounds. You could see him mouth to the umpire "what was I supposed to do?"
Well, he could have handball back into play. Yes, it probably would have gone to the opposition, but at least he wouldn't have given away a free kick. Just because it is not a desired option does not make it NOT an option. I see a lot of players that missunderstand this rule.

 

[mattah]

If you're able to at least make an attempt to get rid of it (like if you have one arm pinned, but one free), then you're expected to make that attempt,

However even if you make that attempt, if your attempt is unsuccessful (and even impossible) you will be called for holding the ball. Which by the letter of the law is incorrect (if you have had no prior opportunity).

but if both arms are genuinely pinned and you are not reasonably able to even make an attempt, then ball up is the correct call, under the rules.

Of course.

 

[Wallaby]

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

I believe this is the greatest post in BF history. Sir, I salute you!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

The rules are easy. The umpires' inconsistency in applying them is the problem.

Also, many people are stupid.

 

[Bigeasy]

When a player is getting chased and just gets his kick away before receiving a lunging push in the back from the chasing player. This is a free kick but hardly ever paid.

I feel in these instances the umpires cant be bothered calling the ball back as the game is geared to flow on.

A push in the back is a push in the back and unless the ball is to the teams advantage then a free kick should be paid to the man or down field if it is after disposal.

 

[McCrann]

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.

Mate - that would be a push in the back. That rule has been on the books for 100 years, has nothing, absolutely nothing (and never has)to do with the hands.

ie - It is not a marking contest.

 

[Mancey]

One the the other week where Cloke bumped a player with his hip as the ball was was coming to them. Umpire said to Cloke "You bumped him under the ball. You can't bump him." Didn't know this was the case?

If the ball is not within 5 meters, ump is absolutely correct

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;

Apparently that is not actually a free kick any more. I've heard them say a few times on the TV commentary recently that it actually says in the rules now that you can in fact just drop the ball when you're tackled (as long as you haven't had prior op) and it will not be penalised.

I think this used to be "dropping the ball" and I and probably most thought this was still the case, but according to what I've heard in recent weeks, it either never was that way, or has recently been changed (on the quiet), so that if you're tackled (without prior op) and aren't able to get a proper disposal away, you can just drop it, (presumably because they want the ball to be coming loose and play to continue as much as possible).

Also wrong, if you deliberately incorrectly dispose of the football, you will be pinged.

"Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession
of the football...has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so."

You have to make a legitimate attempt to dispose of the football, prior opp or not. It's up to the ump to decide whether you actually made a legitimate attempt before calling a free or ball up/play on

 

[Rob]

However even if you make that attempt, if your attempt is unsuccessful (and even impossible) you will be called for holding the ball. Which by the letter of the law is incorrect (if you have had no prior opportunity).

That happens very rarely, and if it does it is an incorrect call. You see it all the time when players attempt to kick or handball after immediately being tackled, miss, and the umpire calls play on. Especially where one arm is pinned - smart players will make some absurd attempt to kick the ball, and usually the umpire just calls play on as he can see an attempt has been made.

It's jokers that just throw their arms out and actually show the umpire how little attempt they are making to get rid of the ball are usually the ones that get pinged. And rightly so. Haven't quite worked out why players do that.

 

[Roby]

Also wrong, if you deliberately incorrectly dispose of the football, you will be pinged.

"Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession
of the football...has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so."

You have to make a legitimate attempt to dispose of the football, prior opp or not. It's up to the ump to decide whether you actually made a legitimate attempt before calling a free or ball up/play on

This seldom gets paid correctly.

Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled,

Even in their reviews they get it wrong. This is too much of a grey area. What is a correct tackle? Umpires will at times see somebody who tackles and holds an arm and the player holding the ball dropping the ball, because they believe that it was knocked out in the tackle therefore it's according to them not a legit tackle. Of course this is interpreted exactly the same all the time. The umpires get the benefit of the doubt when they are unsure in the reviews.

So before they even adjudicate prior opportunity, they adjudiacate the massive grey area of what is a legitmate tackle. If a player holds the opponent with the ball, and the player drops the ball, it should be an immediate free-kick, simple.

For example, when a player is running and a player merely grabs a jumper and then the player holding the ball bounces the ball, they immediately pay holding the ball, even though the player shrugs the tackles and has regained possession by bouncing. So why is it paid consistently only in this instance?

the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so

Many times players are given seconds, I've seen even 2-3 seconds and the player drops the ball but not paid.

Other times players will be held on to before even receiving the ball, have another player ping an arm, another player ride their back, and then another player actually push the ball and hold the ball in the opposition player and the player that does not have the ball at the end, get's called holding the ball because it doesn't appear he is making a legitimate attempt. Umpires just guesses, and this happens often.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

I cannot STAND this "making a genuine attempt" horse shit.

If a player doesn't have prior opportunity, he doesn't have prior opportunity. I don't need to see him flailing his entire body around and "acting" like he's trying to get rid of the ball just to make sure he isn't pinged.

The rule is there to actively encourage players to act. There's nothing else to it. Everyone can tell he can't get the ball out. It's obvious he didn't have prior opportunity. But if he doesn't flail his body around, he gets pinged.

Ridiculous and awful to watch.

It's basically saying "our umpires hate doing their job, so you as a player, have to expend energy making it LOOK like you're attempting to do something that is impossible".

Probably just another subtle rule to bring "fatigue" back into the game.

 

[telsor]

My interpretation of the rules change depending on if Richmond is involved



More seriously.

The rules are pretty basic, it's the interpretations that are at issue (the rules committee rarely actually changes rules, just how they're viewed).

The interpretations have to be rigid to ensure all the umpires on the ground make (as near as possible to) the same calls. This is the cause of most peoples issues and exists because consistancy is (quite reasonably) considered more important than making a fair or 'right' call. Look at the hands in the back rule...It got dumbed down to the point that you can elbow someone in the back to get them out of the way, but rest a hand gently on their shoulder and you're gone...A bit dumb, and probably against the spirit/idea of the rule, but all umpires call it exactly the same way.

 

[Roby]

I cannot STAND this "making a genuine attempt" horse shit.

If a player doesn't have prior opportunity, he doesn't have prior opportunity. I don't need to see him flailing his entire body around and "acting" like he's trying to get rid of the ball just to make sure he isn't pinged.

The rule is there to actively encourage players to act. There's nothing else to it. Everyone can tell he can't get the ball out. It's obvious he didn't have prior opportunity. But if he doesn't flail his body around, he gets pinged.

Ridiculous and awful to watch.

It's basically saying "our umpires hate doing their job, so you as a player, have to expend energy making it LOOK like you're attempting to do something that is impossible".

Probably just another subtle rule to bring "fatigue" back into the game.

This is their get-out-card when they need to justify that they need to meet their daily quota of 7 holding the ball free-kicks per game. When they pay them or who is the transgressor matters not.

Just as an exercise for your own amusement, next time you watch a game, count how many holding the ball decisions they pay and see how often they get seven.

 

[Mancey]

It's jokers that just throw their arms out and actually show the umpire how little attempt they are making to get rid of the ball are usually the ones that get pinged. And rightly so. Haven't quite worked out why players do that.

Scotty Selwood has one like this almost every week. Gets a lot of ball in tight and is often tackled immediately, but for some reason often stands there looking at the ump with a pleading look on his face rather than just do what he has to and pretend to try and dispose of it.

It's frustrating

 

[Pie eyed]

I cannot STAND this "making a genuine attempt" horse shit.

If a player doesn't have prior opportunity, he doesn't have prior opportunity. I don't need to see him flailing his entire body around and "acting" like he's trying to get rid of the ball just to make sure he isn't pinged.

The rule is there to actively encourage players to act. There's nothing else to it. Everyone can tell he can't get the ball out. It's obvious he didn't have prior opportunity. But if he doesn't flail his body around, he gets pinged.

Ridiculous and awful to watch.

It's basically saying "our umpires hate doing their job, so you as a player, have to expend energy making it LOOK like you're attempting to do something that is impossible".

Probably just another subtle rule to bring "fatigue" back into the game.

Great post.

 

[Cronos]

It's basically saying "our umpires hate doing their job, so you as a player, have to expend energy making it LOOK like you're attempting to do something that is impossible".

How do you know it's impossible without making a genuine attempt? How is the umpire supposed to know it's impossible if you don't show that you tried, and it was in fact, impossible.

Would you rather everyone just went jelly legs at a tackle, or held it in? I bet you enjoy watching a long clinch in the boxing too.