Holding the ball for dummies

[bobby2]

I'm sick of hearing "BALLL!" after every single tackle and the constant whingeing at umpires over this rule. It's not the umpires being wrong (usually)- the crowd just have no idea how the rule is officiated. If you find yourself constantly asking "why wasn't that holding the ball?" after every tackle, read this:

For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. If the tackle is high/in the back, if the player breaks the tackle or if there is no tackle at all, it's not HTB.
2. No legal disposal. If the player kicks/handballs, it's not HTB.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. AKA "He dived on it!"/"He dragged it in!"
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Note that an intentional throw is not an attempt to legally dispose, but dropping the ball while trying to kick is an attempt to legally dispose.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Note that ducking is not necessarily driving the head.

 

[ziad]

I'm sick of hearing "BALLL!" after every single tackle and the constant whingeing at umpires over this rule. It's not the umpires being wrong (usually)- the crowd just have no idea how the rule is officiated. If you find yourself constantly asking "why wasn't that holding the ball?" after every tackle, read this:

For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. If the tackle is high/in the back, if the player breaks the tackle or if there is no tackle at all, it's not HTB.
2. No legal disposal. If the player kicks/handballs, it's not HTB.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. AKA "He dived on it!"/"He dragged it in!"
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Note that an intentional throw is not an attempt to legally dispose, but dropping the ball while trying to kick is an attempt to legally dispose.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Note that ducking is not necessarily driving the head.

you forgot or I didn't see, player takes possession and is tackled without prior opportunity and the ball is pinned. ball up. 80% of these are now paid as holding the ball.

 

[blue harvest]

The 'baaallll' that annoys me the most is when there is no actual tackled laid, player might briefly grab a jumper and/or bump, the ball is dropped and the crowd want HTB.

 

[bobby2]

you forgot or I didn't see, player takes possession and is tackled without prior opportunity and the ball is pinned. ball up. 80% of these are now paid as holding the ball.

In the situation you described:
For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. Yes.
2. No legal disposal. Yes, if the ball is pinned, there is no disposal.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. No.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. Possibly.
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Possibly.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Possibly.

You only need one of the three orange "possibly"s to apply for the HTB call to be made. Any of these could apply in the situation you described. If none of them applied, it should be a ball-up (and it usually is).

Your 80% is a gross overestimation. The situation you described precedes almost all ball-ups (excluding centre bounces). As there are way more ball-ups than HTB free-kicks, the number should be well under 50%.

 

[M Malice]

I'm sick of hearing "BALLL!" after every single tackle and the constant whingeing at umpires over this rule. It's not the umpires being wrong (usually)- the crowd just have no idea how the rule is officiated. If you find yourself constantly asking "why wasn't that holding the ball?" after every tackle, read this:

For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. If the tackle is high/in the back, if the player breaks the tackle or if there is no tackle at all, it's not HTB.
2. No legal disposal. If the player kicks/handballs, it's not HTB.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. AKA "He dived on it!"/"He dragged it in!"
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Note that an intentional throw is not an attempt to legally dispose, but dropping the ball while trying to kick is an attempt to legally dispose.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Note that ducking is not necessarily driving the head.

agree with all that but it's the interpretation that leaves a lot to be desired on occasion.

the main one that gives me the shits is when a tackle is affected, whether there is PO or not is a moot point. plenty of times it does happen with PO though. eg. when a player is tackled and the ball "spills out" to the advantage of the tackled players team, the swans are very good at disguising this tactic ie. they are tackled and it is up for conjecture whether they have had PO they spill the ball out to their team mate.

the other is the one arm grab tackle, (hawks very good at this one) a player has no PO and is grabbed with one arm pinned and the other free with the ball in it, the ball invariably spills out as he is being swung around while attempting to throw the ball on their boot and the umpire calls illegal disposal, surely it should be ball up no PO?

too much grey area IMO, i assume in my first scenario the umpire is adjudicating that the player has "attempted" a disposal which i see as a joke.

 

[Sirlemsip]

the other is the one arm grab tackle, (hawks very good at this one) a player has no PO and is grabbed with one arm pinned and the other free with the ball in it, the ball invariably spills out as he is being swung around while attempting to throw the ball on their boot and the umpire calls illegal disposal, surely it should be ball up no PO?

The fact that the arm holding the ball/the ball itself are not pinned means that the player has the opportunity to dispose of the ball. In these tackles if the player can't get a legal kick away, then it is always holding the ball.

If the arm holding the ball/the ball are pinned/held in by the tackle, there is no opportunity to dispose of the ball in the tackle. Whether or not this would be called as holding the ball would depend on how long the player had possession before being tackled (i.e. prior opportunity). This is up to interpretation of the umpire.

 

[blue harvest]

The fact that the arm holding the ball/the ball itself are not pinned means that the player has the opportunity to dispose of the ball. In these tackles if the player can't get a legal kick away, then it is always holding the ball.

In this scenario if there is no prior and you are attempting to legally dispose of the ball then it is a ball up or play on. If the ump calls it HTB then he is wrong.

 

[bobby2]

agree with all that but it's the interpretation that leaves a lot to be desired on occasion.

the main one that gives me the shits is when a tackle is affected, whether there is PO or not is a moot point. plenty of times it does happen with PO though. eg. when a player is tackled and the ball "spills out" to the advantage of the tackled players team, the swans are very good at disguising this tactic ie. they are tackled and it is up for conjecture whether they have had PO they spill the ball out to their team mate.

the other is the one arm grab tackle, (hawks very good at this one) a player has no PO and is grabbed with one arm pinned and the other free with the ball in it, the ball invariably spills out as he is being swung around while attempting to throw the ball on their boot and the umpire calls illegal disposal, surely it should be ball up no PO?

too much grey area IMO, i assume in my first scenario the umpire is adjudicating that the player has "attempted" a disposal which i see as a joke.

Scenarios like this used to anger me a bit too. I started to feel a bit better about it when I started to think about how it affects the game as a whole though. The game needs a balance between rewarding the player getting the ball and opening the game up.

One of the most important aspects of the game is that the player attacking the ball should usually have a competitive advantage over the player tackling. If it becomes too beneficial for the tackler, players won't attack the ball and the game won't function (everyone will just wait for somebody else to grab it and then tackle them).

The game is also a better spectacle when the ball is out in space. Nobody wants to watch a 5-goal-apiece stoppage fest. Paying more HTB instead of ball-ups opens the game up, but paying too many skews the balance in favour of the tackler.

This balancing act makes the attempt rule (and the dragging it in rule) necessary. Not attempting to get rid of the ball creates more stoppages, so this should be discouraged (free kick against). Attempting to get rid of it legally and fumbling it to a teammate does not create more stoppages- this should be encouraged over no attempt (no free kick). Calling play-on here allows for competitive advantage to remain with the player attacking the ball whilst still discouraging stoppages. This is why your first scenario should be called play-on when there is no PO.

As for the situations where there was PO and they still disposed illegally, I'd say there is a fair chance that the umpire couldn't tell whether it was a handball or a throw/drop. It can be hard to judge (especially if you're blind-sided) and the umpire shouldn't pay a free kick if he's guessing.

In your second situation: if it spills while the player is trying to kick and he had no PO, it should be play-on (as with all calls, umpires might get it wrong sometimes though). If it spills without an attempt to kick or handball, then it should be HTB. Yes, it is more difficult to dispose when you have an arm pinned, but other teams (not just the hawks) are allowed to employ this tactic too.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I'm sick of hearing "BALLL!" after every single tackle and the constant whingeing at umpires over this rule. It's not the umpires being wrong (usually)- the crowd just have no idea how the rule is officiated. If you find yourself constantly asking "why wasn't that holding the ball?" after every tackle, read this:

For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. If the tackle is high/in the back, if the player breaks the tackle or if there is no tackle at all, it's not HTB.
2. No legal disposal. If the player kicks/handballs, it's not HTB.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. AKA "He dived on it!"/"He dragged it in!"
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Note that an intentional throw is not an attempt to legally dispose, but dropping the ball while trying to kick is an attempt to legally dispose.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Note that ducking is not necessarily driving the head.

Can we get this printed on Eagles membership tickets? Maybe a picture book for our Port/Pies/Tiger fans?

 

[Sirlemsip]

In this scenario if there is no prior and you are attempting to legally dispose of the ball then it is a ball up or play on. If the ump calls it HTB then he is wrong.

Again, it is up to the umpire's discretion. Is the player dropping the ball in an attempt to kick it? If yes and it is a 'genuine attempt' then i agree with you.

Just dropping the ball and hoping it lands on your foot isn't really a genuine attempt.

 

[Oxirane]

In the situation you described:
For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. Yes.
2. No legal disposal. Yes, if the ball is pinned, there is no disposal.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. No.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. Possibly.
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Possibly.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Possibly.

You only need one of the three orange "possibly"s to apply for the HTB call to be made. Any of these could apply in the situation you described. If none of them applied, it should be a ball-up (and it usually is).

Your 80% is a gross overestimation. The situation you described precedes almost all ball-ups (excluding centre bounces). As there are way more ball-ups than HTB free-kicks, the number should be well under 50%.

But how can the umpire know if a player has made no attempt to legally dispose of the ball if the whistle is blown immediately after the possession and tackle?
It seem like sometimes they blow the whistle straight away and say "Ball pinned" or "Held to him" and sometimes in the same situation, (tackled immediately after taking possession, ball pinned) the umpire will wait around while the player writhes around trying to handball, then call HTB.

 

[bobby2]

Can we get this printed on Eagles membership tickets? Maybe a picture book for our Port/Pies/Tiger fans?

I'm sure there's fans doing it at most clubs. Maybe half-time educational videos?

 

[bobby2]

But how can the umpire know if a player has made no attempt to legally dispose of the ball if the whistle is blown immediately after the possession and tackle?
It seem like sometimes they blow the whistle straight away and say "Ball pinned" or "Held to him" and sometimes in the same situation, (tackled immediately after taking possession, ball pinned) the umpire will wait around while the player writhes around trying to handball, then call HTB.

In general, I think you'll find that if a player dives on the ball/drags it in, the umpire will give him a while to get it out (because it's HTB if he doesn't get it out). On the other hand, if the bloke doesn't dive on it and he gets wrapped up immediately, the umpire is more likely to call for the ball-up quicker. It does seem like a bit of a grey area in the rule though, given there is no specific time. Having to count a specific amount of time would probably just add difficulty to the umpires job when he should be looking for other more important things though.

 

[ziad]

Can we get this printed on Eagles membership tickets? Maybe a picture book for our Port/Pies/Tiger fans?

perhaps on a tissue for hawks fans

 

[Hoops]

I'm sick of hearing "BALLL!" after every single tackle and the constant whingeing at umpires over this rule. It's not the umpires being wrong (usually)- the crowd just have no idea how the rule is officiated. If you find yourself constantly asking "why wasn't that holding the ball?" after every tackle, read this:

For holding the ball to be paid, you need both of the following:

1. A legal unbroken tackle. If the tackle is high/in the back, if the player breaks the tackle or if there is no tackle at all, it's not HTB.
2. No legal disposal. If the player kicks/handballs, it's not HTB.

You also need at least one of the following four things:

1. Prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
2. Player takes possession when they're on the ground. AKA "He dived on it!"/"He dragged it in!"
3. Player makes no attempt to legally dispose of the ball. Note that an intentional throw is not an attempt to legally dispose, but dropping the ball while trying to kick is an attempt to legally dispose.
4. Player drives his head into the tackler. Note that ducking is not necessarily driving the head.

based on that, then the umpires get about 50% of HTB decisions wrong

 

[The Dodger]

Its not that simple. It looks good written down but it doesn't make it any clearer. Umps pay different interpretation in any game and you will find (I find at Subi) that if the ump pays a harsh holding the ball against the Eagles early on they can definitely expect a "ball" overtime anything remotely happens like what they paid.

We could go through at least a dozen from the weekend and see many different results to similar situations that are umpired differently due to proximity to goal and time in the match.

 

[Jukesy85]

Can we get this printed on Eagles membership tickets? Maybe a picture book for our Port/Pies/Tiger fans?

Good call haha - I was at the game Friday with a mate who's an Eagles supporters and we both made fun of the crowd crying for frees at every opportunity - every single tackle or something that resembled a tackle was met with a cry for ball and a widespread boo when the correct decision was made. If they umpires a game the free kick count would be about 2000-0 in favour of the Eagles

 

[bkozican]

Hate to break it to half of you but once upon a time...If you picked the ball up and didnt dispose of it via handball or kick...it was ball. There was no "he tried"...I understand that its hard to imagine.

 

[kingswood71]

I have often wondered about the interpretation of the situation when a player is laying on his back with the ball in hand, then throws it up and swings his leg to contact the ball. Have seen it creeping in a bit.
How is that actually "legal disposal"?? The first disposal was a throw!...The fact that you then swung and connected with your foot (IMHO) should not constitute a kick!

 

[base615]

The 'baaallll' that annoys me the most is when there is no actual tackled laid, player might briefly grab a jumper and/or bump, the ball is dropped and the crowd want HTB.

How is that any different from bouncing the ball at the same time as someone touches you? Both are illegal disposal.

 

[blue harvest]

How is that any different from bouncing the ball at the same time as someone touches you? Both are illegal disposal.

No they're not, an illegal disposal is a throw or handing the ball to a team mate.

 

[base615]

No they're not, an illegal disposal is a throw or handing the ball to a team mate.

That's just plain wrong. If you are running with the ball and bounce at the moment someone touches you it is deemed a tackle in possession and it is called as illegal disposal.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_the_ball

"A player that is tackled while he is bouncing the ball is deemed to be in possession of the ball and will be penalised if there is no legal disposal. A bounce is not a correct disposal of the ball. If a player bounces the ball upon, or immediately prior to being tackled (in instances where the ball does not bounce back to the player - the player is still deemed to be in possession), a free kick for holding the ball will result."

Now that we've established that as HTB, how is that any different from dropping the ball in a bump? No legal disposal has taken place and, assuming there was prior opportunity, that scenario should also result in a free kick.

 

[blue harvest]

That's just plain wrong. If you are running with the ball and bounce at the moment someone touches you it is called as illegal disposal.

Edit:

"A player that is tackled while he is bouncing the ball is deemed to be in possession of the ball and will be penalised if there is no legal disposal. A bounce is not a correct disposal of the ball. If a player bounces the ball upon, or immediately prior to being tackled (in instances where the ball does not bounce back to the player - the player is still deemed to be in possession), a free kick for holding the ball will result."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_the_ball

No it's not. Look up the rules, an illegal/incorrect disposal is throwing or handing the ball to someone.
It's best to get the rules from the AFL website, wikipedia is often a mish mash of sources and anyone can write stuff on it, although that page of wiki is actually pretty good.
http://www.afl.com.au/laws
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/2016 Laws of Australian Football.pdf

You're getting a little mixed up with the wording. If you touch someone that is not a tackle. So if you are running with the ball and bounce at the moment someone touches or bumps you then it is play on. It is only a free kick if they lay a legal tackle on you, as it says in that wiki quote. Touching or bumping is not a tackle. This is what my original post was about, you have to lay and hold an actual tackle to get a free, if there is no tackle and the ball spills/drops/knocks out then it is play on. If you are tackled correctly and you have had prior then you have to legally dispose of the ball, a bounce is counted as prior and is not a correct disposal, so if you were tackled whilst bouncing then it would be holding the ball as it says in the wiki quote.

 

[bobby2]

I have often wondered about the interpretation of the situation when a player is laying on his back with the ball in hand, then throws it up and swings his leg to contact the ball. Have seen it creeping in a bit.
How is that actually "legal disposal"?? The first disposal was a throw!...The fact that you then swung and connected with your foot (IMHO) should not constitute a kick!

Nobody kicks the ball straight out of their hand- they drop/throw the ball onto their foot.

 

[bobby2]

Its not that simple. It looks good written down but it doesn't make it any clearer. Umps pay different interpretation in any game and you will find (I find at Subi) that if the ump pays a harsh holding the ball against the Eagles early on they can definitely expect a "ball" overtime anything remotely happens like what they paid.

Ok, so the umpires make a bad call against the eagles at the start of the game, and then the eagles fans get angry at a series of correct decisions afterwards for contradicting the bad call. When you make an error, do you continue to repeat the same error over and over to avoid inconsistency or do you try to avoid the error in future?

We could go through at least a dozen from the weekend and see many different results to similar situations that are umpired differently due to proximity to goal and time in the match.

This is hardly specific to holding the ball. If anything, it's more common with infringements like a push in the back. Personally, I'm not a fan of the "put the whistle away" stuff. If you see a free kick, pay it. If you don't, play on.