Holding the ball? Does it exist?

[GOALden Hawk]

What has happened to the holding the ball rule over the past 5 or 6 weeks? I reckon I've seen it paid less than 5 times in the past 5 games...and it's not just Hawthorn matches where I've seen it occurring. I also noticed it was mentioned during the Collingwood-Geelong game and the Sydney-Carlton game.

Jason Dunstall made a good point when he said players are quite happy trying to ride a tackle now, becaues they no unless the ball gets trapped they won't be pinged. Last year anyone who tried to take a player on and was tackled was called for holding the ball REGARDLESS of whether it spilt free or not.

It just seems unfair to me that someone can try to run around someone, get caught, fails to get rid of the ball correctly as it spills out instead....and the tackler is rewarded with a 50/50 loose ball contest rather than a free kick.

Do people think the interpretation has changed over the past couple of years? I clearly remember Ray Jencke been pinged for holding the ball against North when he had taken about 1 step and the ball had fallen loose...there is no way that would be holding the footy at the moment.

And do people think the new interpretation (if there is one) is better or worse?

 

[David Mensch]

You're right Goalden hawk. I saw some terrible non-calls during the Essendon/WB game. It is appalling that the umpires don't reward the great tacklers like Libba and myself.

 

[Top Dog]

There was a real obvious one on FRI nite when Mark Johnson tried to run through half back and was caught by Granty he had prior opportunity and wasnt pinged but we got a free kick for something soft. so there ya go.

 

[Bob_vic]

There's no new interpretations, the general public just don't understand the rules. The holding the ball rule is designed to give the player 'making the play' in possession of the ball a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.

Prior Opp: Player has to dispose of the ball correctly as immediately as possible.

Making the play by taking one or two steps doesn't count as prior opp. Making the play should be encouraged, not penalised. If the player has had a reasonable timne with the ball, of course he's had prior opp.

No Prior Opp: Player has to attempt to dispose of the ball within a reasonable time, unless the player's arms and ball are pinned in the tackle - bounce. Arms pinned, ball drops- play on. (Of course, deliberate drops should be penalised.) Act of kicking/handballing no contact - play on. Swung/pulled by one arm and ball falls - play on.

Diving on the ball/Dragging ball in on ground: Player must immediately dispose or hit the ball clear of his possession. (Yes, maybe the umps have been too leniant on this the past few weeks.)

In all cases, it has to be a legal tackle to be holding the ball. Any bump or tackle that knocks the arms, causing the ball to be dispossesed, play on in all situations.

Usually the umps get it right. There were a couple of cases where the player got an eternity to get rid of the ball, and wasn't pinged. It should be pinged, but if the umps are being consistant for the whole match, there's nothing to complain about.

The most frustating ones are when the player has prior opp, the player disposes of the ball correctly (e.g. making contact with the boot) but still gets pinged, as the umpire anticipated what was going to happen instead of waiting 'til the action actually happened.

Bob

 

[Fat Red]

Bob, the problem isn't consistency over a match but over a season. There has been a clear change in the last couple of weeks.
Tim Lane and Stan Alves have a running campaign going on this rule and I don't know if someone's been listening but anyway it's very confusing for fans.

The umpiring department seems to be run on a weekly crackdown model rather than a consistency mode. EG running too far. Over a season 15m becomes 20 becomes 25 if you kick a goal at the end (is this basketball?). Then they have a crackdown and reset at 15 for a little while and the pattern happens again.

There's no wonder the GP doesn't understand teh HTB rule b/c the umpires also don't appear to understand it.

 

[Bob_vic]

Fair point. The interpretation of holding the ball that is instructed to umpires has not changed since they brought in the prior opp rule on tackles where the arms/ball aren't pinned to correctly dispose. (Unless they do something different up at Wayne's World, which I doubt.) Prior opp on arms/ball pinned has been a rule way before that rule was introduced. (I think it has always been the rule. Someone may correct me.)

If the umpires advisors see that a certain rule isn't being paid properly, of course they are going to talk about it the next week during training. The thing is, if these umpires are at AFL level, theoretically, there shouldn't be much need to go over rules, of else, replace them with people who do.

The fact is, most commentators and crowd cry out "ball" when it is no where near being paid holding the ball, and correctly so.

Bob

 

[GOALden Hawk]

I agree the crowd and commentators call out a lot, but I think the rule is not rewarding decent tackles enough.

Take this week...Glen Bowyer was tackled by a Richmond player, spun right around, and took about 3 seconds to get rid of the ball. When it did spill loose, a Hawthorn player swooped on it, it flew up the ground and we scored a goal.

That seems ridiculous when players get pinged for supposedly "sitting" on the ball, when in reality they have 5 players on top of them and have no way of getting it out.

If you get caught AFTER having a chance to get rid of it, and you don't get rid of the ball immediately with a kick or handpass, it should be holding the ball, or if it spills free, incorrect disposal.

By the way, who was the Sydney player reported yesterday, and was it for running into an umpire?

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
I agree the crowd and commentators call out a lot, but I think the rule is not rewarding decent tackles enough.

Not the rule, maybe the umpire, though.

Take this week...Glen Bowyer was tackled by a Richmond player, spun right around, and took about 3 seconds to get rid of the ball. When it did spill loose, a Hawthorn player swooped on it, it flew up the ground and we scored a goal.

Agreed, should have been holding the ball. I would have paid it.

That seems ridiculous when players get pinged for supposedly "sitting" on the ball, when in reality they have 5 players on top of them and have no way of getting it out.

Well, if you dive on the ball, you face the consequences. It's always been the rule as far as I can remember. It's to stop players from forcing ball ups.

If you get caught AFTER having a chance to get rid of it, and you don't get rid of the ball immediately with a kick or handpass, it should be holding the ball, or if it spills free, incorrect disposal.

Correct. For clarification though, an "opportunity" is probably longer than a "chance" in time. The tackle has to cause the incorrect disposal, not any bumping or knocking of the arms before it causing dispossession.

By the way, who was the Sydney player reported yesterday, and was it for running into an umpire?

Jason Ball, by the AFL website. I didn't see it.

Bob

 

[Mr Ripper]

I think everyone would agree the bloke who gets the footy deserves a fair chance to get rid of the thing, but at the moment, they're getting all the time in the world. Anyone see the Aaron Hamill one at the Gabba on Saturday; must have been given 3 or 4 seconds to get rid of it...same story with Richo against Essendon a few weeks back.

'Prior opportunity' is there to give the playmaker a chance to dispose of the pill, not to make him immune to penalty as is seemingly the case atm.

If they got fair dinkum and started paying holding the ball again (amongst other neglected rules), the game would flow considerably better because players would have to move the pill on rather than forcing the ball ups as they do now.

 

[Voice of Reason]

I reckon there's a few incorrect disposals going unpunished atm too, although the umps have been penalising a few throws in recent games.

Generally I'm a big fan of "protect the man going for the footy" so. whilst I understand the need to keep the game flowing, I'd rather umpires didn't pay too much holding the ball. And the crowd shout "ball!!" the moment one of their players touches an opponent.


...but what's too much?

 

[Fat Red]

I agree re the throws, and this surely isn't an interpretation thing but rather umpires failing to see them?

 

[Grendel]

Good thread, while im not going to discuss the merits or otherwise of holding to long or incorrect disposal id like to point out another reason why the umpiring standard has dropped.

Joel Bowden today was booked for striking Mark Graham to the face after a marking contest. This was seen by (i think Mcburney from memory) from about 4/5 metres from the incident. The umpire came over towards Graham (intially i thought to pay the obvious 50) saw that he was bleeding from the nose, and......duly sent him off. No 50, no report, no bloody idea at all.

Now, that last bit, no bloody idea at all, i feel just about perfectly encapsulates the complete lack of any fundamental understanding of what they are doing at any time during any game.

In short, they are stupid!

Cheers.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bob_vic
Well, if you dive on the ball, you face the consequences. It's always been the rule as far as I can remember. It's to stop players from forcing ball ups.

Players who end up with the footy under them haven't always dived on it Bob.

 

[Arch]

Originally posted by Top Dog
There was a real obvious one on FRI nite when Mark Johnson tried to run through half back and was caught by Granty he had prior opportunity and wasnt pinged but we got a free kick for something soft. so there ya go.

And im sure you'll agree that when Scotty West tried to take on (i think) Wellman in the back-pocket, before he got tackled and lost the ball without disposing of it by either hand or foot, it was another pathetic display of umpiring as we didnt get a free (again).
To be dead honest Top Dog you're guys were getting "free kicks for something soft" all night, and I really cant understand how a team that was getting flogged in the fashion that the Dogs were, somehow managed to get almost twice as many free kicks.
Perhaps playing from behind is now what the umps will start rewarding.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Bob_vic
Usually the umps get it right. There were a couple of cases where the player got an eternity to get rid of the ball, and wasn't pinged. It should be pinged, but if the umps are being consistant for the whole match, there's nothing to complain about.

What!!!! we can't complain if the umpiring is consistently bad all game... how much do these fools get paid??? bloody oath we can complain..

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by Dave


Players who end up with the footy under them haven't always dived on it Bob.

I didn't say they always did, but they still have to show the umpire they are making an attempt because they are still in possession if they are laying on top of the ball. If there's no chance of attempting, of course it's a bounce.

Bob

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96


What!!!! we can't complain if the umpiring is consistently bad all game... how much do these fools get paid??? bloody oath we can complain..

C'mon Rooboy, you took a comment about time allowed for holding the ball and turned it into a general comment about bad umpiring. I said there was nothing to complain about if the umpires consistantly gave both teams in a game a longer than expected (eternity) reasonable time for holding the ball. This has nothing to do with bad umpiring.

Bad umpiring is inconsistant interpretations, missing of blatant free kicks, losing control, etc. I wouldn't regard consistant holding the ball interpretations as bad umpiring. (Unless it was blantant like bouncing while tackled, definite prior opp - incorrect disposal, etc.)

Bob