Grey Areas: Player Grabbed While Bouncing The Ball

[BK Eaglesfan]

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.

Incorrect on both counts....sorry.

A) totally different, the act of kicking requires you to drop the ball to your foot.

B) The bouncing has abolute relevance. a player doesn't have to have his hands 'on the ball' to be in possession of it. He was in possession even though his hands weren't on it, because he chose to bounce it. His time to dispose of it elapsed before the ball got back in his hands.

As I said in my previous post, I'm not saying we have to like it, but thanks to KB, that's the way the rule is interpreted.

 

[Chewy]

In some ways, this is reminiscent of the Shane Edwards decision. He went for a bounce, but it didn't come back to him. Effectively, he just threw the ball down to the ground - incorrect disposal - it was not a handball and it was not a kick, nor was the ball jarred loose in the tackle. He threw the ball away - he was not in possession - Then he was tackled and pinged for holding the ball.

I don't understand this. Either the interpretation, or the laws, must be incorrect.

It seems a but trivial, I know. But it's just one area, where i think the rules need a re-write.
Not "new" rules, mind you. Just black and white clarification of existing rules.

The rules need to state either:
You are still in possession of the ball if you bounce it, but muff the bounce, or fumble it and then get tackled. Holding The Ball laws apply.
Or that if you attempt bounce the ball, but muff it, then it is Incorrect Disposal (Throw)

Under the current wording of the rules, Edwards should've been penalised for throwing the ball.
Would the umpire have paid this free had the Crow player not reached out and grabbed his jumper?
I think not...

 

[Dean3]

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.

But you don't get penalised just for poor execution of a skill. For example, if a player, running alone on the wing with the footy, goes to kick the ball but fresh airs it, the umpire is hardly going to ping him for incorrect disposal.

In Edwards' case, if you lose control of the ball when legitimately attempting a bounce, at some point the ball is no longer in your possession. eg, if you try to bounce and it rolls 15 metres away, are you still in possession? 10m?, 5m? 2m? Where is the line?

 

[Nardz]

But you don't get penalised just for poor execution of a skill. For example, if a player, running alone on the wing with the footy, goes to kick the ball but fresh airs it, the umpire is hardly going to ping him for incorrect disposal.

In Edwards' case, if you lose control of the ball when legitimately attempting a bounce, at some point the ball is no longer in your possession. eg, if you try to bounce and it rolls 15 metres away, are you still in possession? 10m?, 5m? 2m? Where is the line?

i think if the tackle was the reason the player was unable to retain posession from the bounce (ie he was dragged away from it), then he has taken on the tackler and lost.

But that situation (edwards) i think he had no chance of gettin the ball regardless of being tackled or not, he had basically lost it before the tackle was laid...

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

In some ways, this is reminiscent of the Shane Edwards decision. He went for a bounce, but it didn't come back to him. Effectively, he just threw the ball down to the ground - incorrect disposal - it was not a handball and it was not a kick, nor was the ball jarred loose in the tackle. He threw the ball away - he was not in possession - Then he was tackled and pinged for holding the ball.

I don't understand this. Either the interpretation, or the laws, must be incorrect.

It seems a but trivial, I know. But it's just one area, where i think the rules need a re-write.
Not "new" rules, mind you. Just black and white clarification of existing rules.

The rules need to state either:
You are still in possession of the ball if you bounce it, but muff the bounce, or fumble it and then get tackled. Holding The Ball laws apply.
Or that if you attempt bounce the ball, but muff it, then it is Incorrect Disposal (Throw)

Under the current wording of the rules, Edwards should've been penalised for throwing the ball.
Would the umpire have paid this free had the Crow player not reached out and grabbed his jumper?
I think not...

Wish I'd seen the Edwards one now Chewy......sounds like an interesting one. I was talking tongue in cheek when I suggested the Richmond player been done for throwing, I would hope an umpire would have enough feel for the game to understand it was the ball not bouncing back and therefore stripping him of possession 'responsibility, without having actually disposed of it illegally either. You are right though, it's a funny one for the rule book.

 

[Chewy]

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.

Yes, I understand all of that.
Motlop had prior opportunity, then he was tackled.
He then immediately disposed of the ball (as he was required to do so under the Laws)

Just because a Player had Prior Opportunity and they were then tackled, it doesn't mean they are instantly guilty of holding the ball.
This is a misconception some people have - it's a big source of confusion for a lot of people, judging by the booing heard most weekends.
Our game is not Touch Football (the form of rugby where you get pinged the second that someone "tags" you while you're in possession)

Holding the ball is a penalty awarded against the player who does not dispose of the ball while in possession.
The reason for the Prior Opportunity rule is to differentiate between someone who gets tackled immediately as he gains possession (and therefore has no prior opportunity) and the person who attempts to "take on" the tackler, or look around for a few seconds before he gets tackled (prior opportunity)

If Motlop was running along, had taken a bounce, then had his jumper grabbed, he would be given a certain amount of time to dispose of the ball (the length of time allowed is a judgement call left at the discretion of the umpire)

If he had his jumper grabbed, then elected to take a bounce, then it would be Holding The Ball, all day long..
But he'd already bounced the ball, then was grabbed, then handballed it.

You say, "bad luck"
But where is this explained in the Laws Of The Game?

According to the Laws Of The Game, Motlop did everything right, yet he was still pinged.
And I'm not having a go at the umpire. Most people who know the game would agree that the ump made the correct call.
But is it the correct call? The rules would indicate otherwise.