Grey Areas: Player Grabbed While Bouncing The Ball

[Chewy]

Everyone agrees that if you get tackled while in possession and bouncing the ball, it is an automatic holding the ball decision.
But two decisions over the weekend got me wondering.

Sydney vs Port Adelaide. Daniel Motlop was chased around the boundary line. He took a bounce. As the ball was bouncing back into his hands, a Swans player reached out and grabbed his jumper. Motlop immediately handballed it away, but he was pinged for holding the ball.

I can understand the quick whistle from the umpire if you get grabbed THEN decide to bounce the ball, but why so fast in this instance? Judd and others are allowed time to be swung 360' in the tackle before disposing of it. Motlop was given no time at all. Why are players given a certain degree of leniency, some time to dispose of the ball, but Motlop received no grace.

The second decision was from Friday's night game between Adelaide and Richmond.
Late in the game, Shane Edwards was haring around the outer wing. He had taken a couple of bounces. Went for another bounce, but the ball didn't bounce properly on the wet grass. He was grabbed, deemed "in possession" by the umpire and was duly pinged. But from where I was sitting, the moment the ball didn't return to him on the bounce, he was no longer in possession. Effectively, he threw the ball away, out in front of himself.

Should this be paid a throw?
It wasn't holding the ball, because he wasn't in possession.

 

[Corpuscles]

No swan bias, I agree Motlop was incorrectly penalised I thought it wasn't even a convincing tackle anyway!!- IMO S/be play on.

The second one, ever since Bartlett- bouncing the ball is deemed in possession, he clearly had time to dispose and was taking on the player. IMO Correct decision.

 

[- PC -]

I have actually argued the Richmond Adelaide decision on our board. I was surprised to say the least.

From what I saw, I saw the player run past Griffin and bounce, the ball skidded away, and the player was grabbed by Griffin and was deemed HTB.

To me the ball had skidded and Edwards was then held up in the pursuit of the ball, should have been HTM imo. If the ball had bounced back towards Edwards and he was tackled I would have no issue with it.

To me it seemed the umpire ''thought'' the ball was still in Edwards sphere of possession and paid the free accordingly.

I would like to see the Adelaide supporters thoughts if it was Edwards tackling Griffin

 

[dan warna]

the handballing away is difficult I've seen a player handball away correctly and then be paid the free kick for being dragged down or held while not in possession, I've seen the player tackling with the free for the tackle and i've seen play on.

I've seen a player tackled while attempting to handpass and have an arm pinned and the free kick given to the tackler for an incorrect disposal, free kick to the handpasser for being held while in possession and a play on call.

IMO the umpires are baffled by the rules and the speed of the game and make mistakes too often confusing the players.

now its pretty obvious if the player handpasses away correctly then its play on, some times the momentum of the tackler will make 'untangling' a slow process, also pinning the arm is a great tackling move and incorrect disposal should be paid to the tackler.

 

[JeffDunne]

I didn't see the Motlop one but the Edwards decision was correct.

 

[FR0GGY]

Everyone agrees that if you get tackled while in possession and bouncing the ball, it is an automatic holding the ball decision.
But two decisions over the weekend got me wondering.

Sydney vs Port Adelaide. Daniel Motlop was chased around the boundary line. He took a bounce. As the ball was bouncing back into his hands, a Swans player reached out and grabbed his jumper. Motlop immediately handballed it away, but he was pinged for holding the ball.

I can understand the quick whistle from the umpire if you get grabbed THEN decide to bounce the ball, but why so fast in this instance? Judd and others are allowed time to be swung 360' in the tackle before disposing of it. Motlop was given no time at all. Why are players given a certain degree of leniency, some time to dispose of the ball, but Motlop received no grace.

The second decision was from Friday's night game between Adelaide and Richmond.
Late in the game, Shane Edwards was haring around the outer wing. He had taken a couple of bounces. Went for another bounce, but the ball didn't bounce properly on the wet grass. He was grabbed, deemed "in possession" by the umpire and was duly pinged. But from where I was sitting, the moment the ball didn't return to him on the bounce, he was no longer in possession. Effectively, he threw the ball away, out in front of himself.

Should this be paid a throw?
It wasn't holding the ball, because he wasn't in possession.

If you had the ball for a bit ie running and bounced you dont get time to dispose once your tackled cos you have had prior opportuinty. However if you have just picked up the ball you could be swug 360' and if you are able to get the ball away but dont its holding the ball if the ball is wrapped up its a bounce.

The edwards decision was correct in my opinion (maybe could have been pinged for incorrect disposal) because he had the ball bounced, ball didnt comeback fully, and was tackled but he didnt dispose correctly

my 2c

 

[Chewy]

I'm not bagging the umpires, I'm wondering more about the rules and interpretations.

A player is deemed to be in possession if he is in the act of bouncing the ball. (Law 15.2.1 b)

Motlop was in possession. Sure. He was tackled while in possession. He immediately handballed it away.
Why do the umpires pay an instant free kick? Aren't they supposed to give him a chance?

Are the umpires applying to Laws Of The Game, as they are written?

It's similar to the new Holding The Ball interpretation they brought in for the ruckmen who grab the ball instead of hitting it out. They get tackled and the umpires pay an instant free against them. Why aren't they given the same length of time to dispose of the ball as any other player who gets tackled around the ground?

Rule 15.2.3 Holding The Football: Prior Opportunity / No Prior Opportunity
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:

a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a free kick against that Player, if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled; or

b) 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 Correctly Dispose, or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

c) Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw, a Player who takes possession of the football while contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in, shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.


I just wonder whether the rules cover both of the circumstances (Motlop and Edwards)
For a while now, I've had this theory is that the Laws Of The Game are poorly written and this is the reason for all of the confusion and angst which afflicts players, coaches, commentators, fans and also the umpires.

They've consciously tried to keep the Laws as simple as possible, but all of the grey areas in the game demand explicit rules for each circumstance.

Where in the rules does it specify an instant free kick against the player who is tackled while bouncing the ball?
We all take this as a given, but where is this rule?
According to the laws as they are written, he should be given a chance to dispose of the ball.

I would also be interested to hear Jeff Gieschen's interpretation of he Shane Edwards call.
How could Shane Edwards be in possession if the ball was on the ground, five metres in front of him?
He bounced the ball (was in possession) then lost possession due to a shoddy bounce.

Should this have been paid a throw?

I think it should.

But that would mean the Crow player would not have had to tackle Edwards to receive the free kick.
Automatic free kick for incorrect disposal (throwing the ball)

We have laws - some quite clear, some not so clear.
Then we have our own adopted interpretation of how we think they should read.

I reckon they need to identify single grey area and make a specific rule for each circumstance, even if it means the Laws Of The Game run over 1000 pages. At least then we'd have a definite answer, rather than an argument every 5 minutes

 

[Eddie Dingle]

I thought Motlop was unlucky, but I still think it was holding the ball and the correct decision was made. If I was a swans fan I would have been disappointed if it hadn't been given.

Didn't see the 2nd one.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

The Motlop one is correct......if you choose to bounce the split second before a tackle is laid, you are certainly in possession and have had prior opportunity.

The other one is interesting and yes the rules really don't cover it. i didn't see the incident, but sounds like a tough one.

If the ball went away from him, and he was tackled, should have probably been penalised for a throw.............

 

[Chewy]

I thought Motlop was unlucky, but I still think it was holding the ball and the correct decision was made. If I was a swans fan I would have been disappointed if it hadn't been given.
Didn't see the 2nd one.

If Motlop had NOT bounced the ball, but instead ran an extra five metres, then got tackled and handballed it away, he would not have been pinged.
Why is it an automatic holding the ball, just because he was tackled in the act of bouncing?
I've re-read the rules and there is nothing there about an automatic free kick.

Rule 15.2.3 Holding The Football: Prior Opportunity
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a free kick against that Player, if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled; or...


Motlop was in possession, bounced the ball, was tackled, then IMMEDIATELY handballed it away.

Therefore, as the laws are written, this was an incorrect decision.

 

[lazy]

The Motlop one is correct......if you choose to bounce the split second before a tackle is laid, you are certainly in possession and have had prior opportunity.

The other one is interesting and yes the rules really don't cover it. i didn't see the incident, but sounds like a tough one.

If the ball went away from him, and he was tackled, should have probably been penalised for a throw.............

Disagree here... The tackle was not good enough and didnt impede Motlop.. Motlop regained his bounce and broke the tackle... Play on.

 

[Bollox]

I thought Motlop was unlucky, but I still think it was holding the ball and the correct decision was made. If I was a swans fan I would have been disappointed if it hadn't been given.

Didn't see the 2nd one.

Same here...and yeah its a grey area as the thread starter said.

When i saw it i thought it was a bit harsh...i guess the ump saw jumper grabbed before he bounced it ??..which has always been what i thought was the rule....but for christsake give them a break.

If it WASNT paid it wouldnt have worried me in the least...in my opinion bordeline free's should be just let go for the benefit of the game....but there are so many damn rules with grey areas now that the umps should be paid a fortune...its not possible to get them right all the time.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

If Motlop had NOT bounced the ball, but instead ran an extra five metres, then got tackled and handballed it away, he would not have been pinged.
Why is it an automatic holding the ball, just because he was tackled in the act of bouncing?
I've re-read the rules and there is nothing there about an automatic free kick.

Rule 15.2.3 Holding The Football: Prior Opportunity
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a free kick against that Player, if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled; or...


Motlop was in possession, bounced the ball, was tackled, then IMMEDIATELY handballed it away.

Therefore, as the laws are written, this was an incorrect decision.

The interpretation is that in the act of bouncing you are still deemed to be in possession. He had had prior opportunity, as he had obviously run several metres to warrant a bounce.

If the timing of your bounce is such that the ball is between your hand and the deck (either on the way up or down) that is your bad luck. Bad awareness or talk from his team mates.

 

[giantsully]

The umps are red hot on this on the moment. I thought the Motlop decision was harsh but consistent with how it's been paid all year. The rule was intended to avoid the situation where the player threw the ball away as he was being tackled - I don't think either of the Motlop or Edwards situations involved this but as I say this is how the umps have been paying it all year.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Disagree here... The tackle was not good enough and didnt impede Motlop.. Motlop regained his bounce and broke the tackle... Play on.

Tackle doesn't have to be 'good' or impede. If the ball is somewhere between his hands and the deck and a player grabs his jumper, holding the ball. Unlucky, very much so (though some talk from his team mates might have helped)....but holding the ball all day long.

 

[lazy]

Tackle doesn't have to be 'good' or impede. If the ball is somewhere between his hands and the deck and a player grabs his jumper, holding the ball. Unlucky, very much so (though some talk from his team mates might have helped)....but holding the ball all day long.

And that my friend is why this game is soft... Borderline decisions should always be play on... If malceski not good enough to actually stop Motlop then play on... When umpires pay only blatant free kicks then we will have our game back...

 

[Scotland]

What is to stop players from deliberately bouncing the ball every time they are about to be run down, if it won't be paid holding the ball?

 

[PowerForGood]

The Motlop one is correct......if you choose to bounce the split second before a tackle is laid, you are certainly in possession and have had prior opportunity.

The other one is interesting and yes the rules really don't cover it. i didn't see the incident, but sounds like a tough one.

If the ball went away from him, and he was tackled, should have probably been penalised for a throw.............

But if Motlop was deemed "in possession" when tackled, he still had some short amount of time before disposing of the ball correctly, which he did by handball.

Must be play on.

If he bounced after being tackled, then it is incorrect disposal (throwing).

 

[PowerForGood]

Tackle doesn't have to be 'good' or impede. If the ball is somewhere between his hands and the deck and a player grabs his jumper, holding the ball. Unlucky, very much so (though some talk from his team mates might have helped)....but holding the ball all day long.

How about when a player is tackled as he kicks the ball? By your interpretation, he is holding the ball regardless of whether he kicks it successfully.

What should be remembered here is that the bouncing of the ball has no relevance in this discussion, as bouncing the ball is the same as if he had it in his hands the whole time. Therefore, he was tackled, and handpassed immediately. Play on.

 

[PowerForGood]

What is to stop players from deliberately bouncing the ball every time they are about to be run down, if it won't be paid holding the ball?

This is the "Kevin Bartlett" rule... the fact that he still has to dispose of the ball correctly. If he bounces the ball as he is about to be run down, then he hasn't disposed of the ball correctly as he is still "in possession". He still needs to kick or handpass when the ball returns to him.. if he doesn't then it is deemed a throw.

 

[Scotland]

This is the "Kevin Bartlett" rule... the fact that he still has to dispose of the ball correctly. If he bounces the ball as he is about to be run down, then he hasn't disposed of the ball correctly as he is still "in possession". He still needs to kick or handpass when the ball returns to him.. if he doesn't then it is deemed a throw.

Yep. Exactly why it should be paid holding the ball. Otherwise bouncing the ball prior to being tackled would be exactly the same as throwing it out in front of yourself.

 

[Dean3]

I thought Edwards was stiff. If the ball rolls away from you when bounced, at some point you have to say that the ball is no longer in your possession.

 

[Shay Boy]

If you have had the ball for a couple of seconds, and while an opponent is approaching, you have enough time to think about bouncing the ball, then you have had the same time to think about disposing of the ball.

In regards to Edwards, the umpire can't pay HTM because it wasn't disposed of correctly, if anything other than HTB was to be paid, it would have been a throw. IMO HTB is the MOST CORRECT (not so much the perfect) free kick to be paid.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

But if Motlop was deemed "in possession" when tackled, he still had some short amount of time before disposing of the ball correctly, which he did by handball.

Must be play on.

If he bounced after being tackled, then it is incorrect disposal (throwing).

It is a definite quirk, and I'm not saying it's 'just', but someone asked, and that is the way the rule stands and is interpreted.

In his short amount of time to dispose of the ball (which I agree he was entitled to), he didn't dispose of it...unfortunately that was because the ball wasn't actually in his hands at the time (even though it was in his possession).

 

[Nardz]

I was wondering the same thing. I thought that richmond player was unlucky on friday night, because i think he pretty much lost the ball with that bounce before the tackle was even laid....