Holding the ball - did I miss something?

[Ulahoopski]

Has there been a rule change that I'm not aware of? The number of holding the ball frees that have been paid against players with ZERO prior opportunity and who are given ZERO time to attempt to get rid of it is staggering. I'm happy with the increase in htb frees for illegal disposal but even that seems to be a random decision as there are more players dropping the ball and getting away with it than those getting penalised.

Have the AFL said anything about changes to prior opportunity or are umps just morons?

 

[Unity-28]

it also seems to be favouring the teams with momentum....
last time you checked, getting the ball from a ruck contest, and staight away geing tackled, isnt prior opportunity, but i have noticed heaps of htb frees...

 

[Tedeski]

Has there been a rule change that I'm not aware of? The number of holding the ball frees that have been paid against players with ZERO prior opportunity and who are given ZERO time to attempt to get rid of it is staggering. I'm happy with the increase in htb frees for illegal disposal but even that seems to be a random decision as there are more players dropping the ball and getting away with it than those getting penalised.

Have the AFL said anything about changes to prior opportunity or are umps just morons?

Has not been applied to the Bulldogs yet so don't jump tbe gun!

 

[Olian]

Holding the ball rule interpretation has changed because the AFL has become obsessed with the game being fast paced. As long you can move the ball on in any matter. No prior opportunity is given.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I think some people might be a little confused.

Prior opportunity is still a consideration, but what I have seen is that players continue to try and move the ball on immediately, thus doing so illegally, and that's when they are penalised.

Supporters are screaming that there was no prior, but that is not even a consideration if the player in question disposes of the ball illegally.


For example, in one instance a player was tackled to the ground, one arm pinned, he lets go of the ball with his other free arm from above his head....the free was given for holding the ball. Yet opposition supporters screamed that he had no prior.

Once you lose the ball or dispose of it incorrectly 'prior opportunity' is void.

 

[D-N-R]

Holding the ball also accounts for 'incorrect disposal', as Abasi points out. They call HTB and then sometimes add 'incorrect disposal'.

Fans on this forum have been screaming for more incorrect disposals to be paid, and the minute it happens, the AFL have suddenly gone mad.

Also, prior opportunity is essentially taking possession and then being balances (upright and steady). I think the umpires are just erring to the side of paying the free.

 

[Obeanie1]

Alot more incorrect disposal frees getting paid which is a good thing. Reward good tacles more and penalise illegal disposal.....the crowd loves it and it helps stop congestion.

 

[BF Tiger]

Incorrect disposal I'm all for... but then the ump calls play on, knocked out in the tackle.

 

[SellarStardom]

Incorrect disposal being more strictly interpreted is great
Getting tougher on ducking and dropping also great
Huge being tackled with no prior and no ability to dispose of it being called HTB, not great
Poppy free kick.......

 

[Tedeski]

I think some people might be a little confused.

Prior opportunity is still a consideration, but what I have seen is that players continue to try and move the ball on immediately, thus doing so illegally, and that's when they are penalised.

Supporters are screaming that there was no prior, but that is not even a consideration if the player in question disposes of the ball illegally.


For example, in one instance a player was tackled to the ground, one arm pinned, he lets go of the ball with his other free arm from above his head....the free was given for holding the ball. Yet opposition supporters screamed that he had no prior.

Once you lose the ball or dispose of it incorrectly 'prior opportunity' is void.

You need to watch Bulldogs games.

 

[HairyO]

Has there been a rule change that I'm not aware of? The number of holding the ball frees that have been paid against players with ZERO prior opportunity and who are given ZERO time to attempt to get rid of it is staggering. I'm happy with the increase in htb frees for illegal disposal but even that seems to be a random decision as there are more players dropping the ball and getting away with it than those getting penalised.

Have the AFL said anything about changes to prior opportunity or are umps just morons?

It is now at the point where your best option when tackled is to just throw it away immediately.

If you hang on to it you will be pinged. Even with no prior and 2 tacklers pinning you.

If you try and break the tackle then dispose of it incorrectly (or in the case of Kade Stewart actually kick it) you will be pinged.

So do what the Doggies do and drop it and reset the contest and have your ball magnets get in and clear it.

What a pathetic game the AFL are turning this in to.

 

[Raleigh98]

There is almost a team prior opportunity happening here. I think the umpires have been told to ping a person who received possession of the footy from a teammate, so that 'prior' opportunity happening is actually the teammate handballing it to him.

However, if the player with possession received the ball from winning it off the floor, then there is no prior opportunity, and I think the umpires are tending to give the benefit of the doubt to players who are putting their body in to the contests, and attempting to win the ball for the team. This is the opposite for players that were sold into trouble by their teammates, effectively rewarding the team pressure that was applied.

That doesn't mean I like this 'new rule', there is all sorts of cloudiness about the illegal disposal and such, but I think I can see what the AFL was trying to do with this interpretation.

 

[Seadog]

It is now at the point where your best option when tackled is to just throw it away immediately.

If you hang on to it you will be pinged. Even with no prior and 2 tacklers pinning you.

If you try and break the tackle then dispose of it incorrectly (or in the case of Kade Stewart actually kick it) you will be pinged.

So do what the Doggies do and drop it and reset the contest and have your ball magnets get in and clear it.

What a pathetic game the AFL are turning this in to.

This. You are better off dropping the ball than trying to dispose of it and not doing it correctly. Just pay both of them, like rugby, unless it is stripped or knocked directly out of your hand it"s incorrect disposal.

 

[HairyO]

This. You are better off dropping the ball than trying to dispose of it and not doing it correctly. Just pay both of them, like rugby, unless it is stripped or knocked directly out of your hand it"s incorrect disposal.

In other words enforce the actual rules

 

[Sedat!]

Has there been a rule change that I'm not aware of? The number of holding the ball frees that have been paid against players with ZERO prior opportunity and who are given ZERO time to attempt to get rid of it is staggering. I'm happy with the increase in htb frees for illegal disposal but even that seems to be a random decision as there are more players dropping the ball and getting away with it than those getting penalised.

Thanks to Horse, this trend came to a screaming halt tonight and the game was poorer for it IMO. The quicker interpretations on HTB and illegal disposal from the first 2 rounds made the game flow and greatly reduced congestion and repeat stoppages, resulting in much higher scoring. But tonight the umps clearly put the whistle away in this area which resulted in countless illegal disposals and a stoppage heavy mess. I don't know anybody who loves to see stoppage after stoppage, except for Paul Roos.

It is a skill to take possession of the ball and dispose of it correctly under extreme pressure - why should players be given an out by hatching it without trying to move it on? We had 13 frees to 11 tonight - people will say that's better but it's actually not. Anything to reduce congestion and stoppages should be embraced, including stricter interpretation on HTB and illegal disposal.

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

After 2 weeks umpires boss thought they were umpiring this new interpretation too strictly, so just thought they'd allow Sydney players to throw and drop the ball all game.

 

[Dacksaredown]

I found it interesting they pinged that Sydney player last night for taking one step of the line while the opposition player was one step away. Does prior oppurtunity exist in this case. You've played on and been tackled at the same time. Shouldn't it be ballup?

The game has become amusing to me. The way the players, especially the newest generation, get the ball and drop it, one after another after another. They made the game faster but more s**t to watch all the same.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You need to watch Bulldogs games.

You need to post on the conspiracy board.

 

[Tedeski]

You need to post on the conspiracy board.

I repeat!
You need to watch Bulldogs games! It's no conspiracy. It's being discussed regularly as fact in the media!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I repeat!
You need to watch Bulldogs games! It's no conspiracy. It's being discussed regularly as fact in the media!

By *******s.

 

[Tedeski]

By *******s.

Derm & Dunstall?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Derm & Dunstall?

If they are saying one particular team get umpired differently, then yes, they too are *******s.

 

[Tedeski]

If they are saying one particular team get umpired differently, then yes, they too are *******s.

No, not because of the different umpiring!
Just that they both are & always have been *******s!

 

[Sedat!]

I repeat!
You need to watch Bulldogs games! It's no conspiracy. It's being discussed regularly as fact in the media!

Horse got what he wanted with his little outburst last week - your players were allowed to hatch the ball in the tackle without being required to dispose of it and you got away with hardly any HTB being paid all night. Then again all the extra stoppages played into Grundy and Collingwood's hands, so it was ultimately a rather foolish strategy by Horse. With your ruck division struggling, no 3rd man up available and lack of mid depth the last thing you blokes need is more stoppages.

As I type the lack of whistle for holding the ball in the Geelong defensive 50 has cost Melbourne 2 goals with 1 goal directly going the other way. How can a so called professional competition completely alter the course of a game from week to week with 180 degree change in a fundamental rule interpretation?

 

[Tedeski]

Horse got what he wanted with his little outburst last week - your players were allowed to hatch the ball in the tackle without being required to dispose of it and you got away with hardly any HTB being paid all night. Then again all the extra stoppages played into Grundy and Collingwood's hands, so it was ultimately a rather foolish strategy by Horse. With your ruck division struggling, no 3rd man up available and lack of mid depth the last thing you blokes need is more stoppages.

As I type the lack of whistle for holding the ball in the Geelong defensive 50 has cost Melbourne 2 goals with 1 goal directly going the other way. How can a so called professional competition completely alter the course of a game from week to week with 180 degree change in a fundamental rule interpretation?

Mmmm!
An even free kick count, 14 each, and last year's premiers couldn't get the job done against last year's bottom dwellers who have decided to do a rebuild!