This is not about a guy bending over to pick up the ball getting high contact...that's still a free kick. This is about a guy who already has the ball and is in an upright position ducking or dropping the knees to get high contact..they're going to get pinged now and its long overdue. They need to keep their feet.
News Holding the Ball rule change for 2022 Announced
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
SBYM
Fish, chips, cup o' tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!
3 Mississippis
The game is in trouble when the bloke with the ball has to stand upright so the weak as piss tacklers can tackle him correctly. Fancy trying to shrug a tackle?
The game has lost its way completely in my opinion.
With respect, you first argued that the stand rule increased the value of marking, and said due to this increased value of marking that more marks would be encouraged.
Then when I showed that there were less marks under the stand rule and the 5 teams taking the most marks did worse than predicted, you seem to be switching the goalposts to imagining that less marks has somehow equalled better marks.
The stand rule did not increase marking. It did not increase scoring. It clearly shifted congestion rather than decreasing it.
You suggest I am reactionary about it and haven’t thought it through. You ask what is so stupid about the stand rule exactly. When a mark is taken, there are literally 35 players on the field allowed to run and move where they choose, providing they don’t illegally block or otherwise infringe or run into the protected area. There is one single player who has to stand and not participate. The benefit of a free kick or mark has gone from getting free possession, to getting free possession and the opposition are effectively penalised a player. The obvious effect of this is that instead of the man on the mark forming part of the active defensive structure of the defending team, an extra player or players are coming from in front of the ball to form part of the defensive structure. And they are often doing it prior to free kicks and marks even being paid. This was entirely predictable. The net effect of this is teams have even less forward structures in place than before, which is why scoring has reduced. The knock on effect is the team with the best ruck and stoppage players and structures are the same teams who dominated the competition.
The rule is stupid because it arbitrarily shuffles deck chairs on the sinking Titanic rather than having any effect on stopping the ship from sinking - ie increasing the overall motivation for teams to leave forward structures in place more often. My money is on that the marks you want to see, big contested marks, did not increase to any significant extent, because they are defended even more rigorously than before the rule was introduced. Forwards are now outnumbered in the air more than ever before.
Is what I am saying correct? Well, let’s look at some numbers about the highest average marks per game players in 2019 v 2021.
The above is the 2019 list. Below is the 2021 list.
In 2019 the number one marker in the game on a marks per match average was….Dockers Full Forward Matt Taberner with 8 per match.
In 2021 the number one guy was Tom Stewart an intercept defender averaging 8.9 per game.
Who was the top nominal forward in 2021? Tim Membrey in 16th position on 7.19 per match. Where was Tim Membrey often stationed at strategic times? Last line of defence, certainly at the end of most 1/4s that is where he was.
Where did the other highest marking nominal forwards fare in 2021?
Membrey 16h 7.19 per match played significant time behind ball.
Jesse Hogan 37th position 6.36.
Aaron Naughton, 46th 6.12.
Harry McKay 53rd 5.95.
Mihocek 58th 5.86.
Lobb 70th 5.69 - significant time in ruck.
Heeney 72nd 5.67
Darling 78th 5.59
Taberner 79th 5.56
Jack Martin 81st 5.55
Cameron(Collingwood) 86th 5.5 - significant time in ruck.
Now let’s look at nominal forwards in 2019:
Taberner 1st position 8 marks per match
Tom Lynch(Crows) 10th 7.25
Jaiden Stephenson 22nd 6.64
Jeremy Cameron 23rd 6.54
Harry McKay 28th 6.25
Bailey Fritsch =41st 6.0
Mitch Brown(Ess) =41st 6.0
Jesse Hogan =41st 6.0
Mihocek 48th 5.88
Westhoff 51st 5.85
Naughton 58th 5.74
Heeney 59th 5.73
Casboult 61st 5.7 - significant ruck time
Membrey 67th 5.64
Jamie Elliott 70th 5.56
Gunston 71st 5.55
Melksham =73rd 5.5
Franklin =73rd 5.5
Toby Greene 78th 5.47
Hawkins 93rd 5.25
Sam Lloyd 9th 5.17
What this shows is there is a significant shift in who is taking marks and where they are being taken under the stand rule. We have gone from roughly 21 nominal forwards in the top 100 mark takers in 2019 to just 11 in 2021. Note here I have left out a couple of guys in both years like Hoskin-Elliott and Waterman of Eagles due to doubts as to the actual position they played, but it won’t effect the comparisons between years.
So overall under the stand rule, perversely according to your expectation that it should create more marks, overall marks have reduced, and at the same time forwards are taking less marks relative to backs and mids. Scoring has reduced. These are the exact opposite effects to what the rule was supposed to have.
It is seems from the above that undefended marks and intercept marks are becoming more prominent. But the teams taking these marks are doing no good, relative to expectations.
So am I reactionary, or are you imagining things that are not real, and not supported by available evidence?
Last edited:
agree with your sentiment. The issue for the administrators is the head.The guy with the ball deserves the benefit, not the player he beat to the ball.
The guy with the ball deserves the benefit, not the player he beat to the ball.
I have no issue if you duck your head that you dont get looked after, but every other scenario it should be a free kick for high contact.
You say the issue for the administration is the head, yet they now under these new rules actually allow head high contact without penalty. Just dumb, dumb, dumb.
players having been shrugging, weaving and manoeuvearring out the way for 100 years plus and the onus was on the tackler to not get them high. Now high contact is rife in the sport and it goes without penalty. Bloke with the ball fault apparently.
18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
Is that not what the rule has always been?
I can see the umpires completely overcooking this and paying HTB as soon as a tackle is applied without giving the ball carrier any chance, then after 6 weeks it will be relaxed when they realise they've gone too far.
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
Is that not what the rule has always been?
I can see the umpires completely overcooking this and paying HTB as soon as a tackle is applied without giving the ball carrier any chance, then after 6 weeks it will be relaxed when they realise they've gone too far.
I can see your point. Particularly regarding cause.
Perhaps they need to look at the cause of the high contact as to how best to protect the head?
eg - if you cause the tackle to make high contact by ducking/flopping, that could be a free kick against for causing the contact to the head. I'm pretty sure players would stop ducking into tackles (and endangering themselves) if they knew it would be a free kick against. The only reason they do it now is to milk a free kick anyway, so if you take away that incentive, we could get fewer high tackles.
Just an idea, but I agree, we need to be doing more to protect the head.
- Jun 14, 2015
- 17,746
- 38,724
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Power
100%
It's a really excessive penalty as well. 50 meters for taking a side-step is ridiculous.
Agree
Also it was quite dangerous because someone would get tackled and just hold the ball meaning a the tackler had to continue with the tackle often ending in a sling to the ground.
Blokes being tackled just held the ball until they found someone to give it to or hoped for a ball up. Bloody annoying.
Once U are tackled U need to get rid of it immediately. Plain and simple.
Hate how players just try and ride out a tackle for 7 or 8 seconds.
Last edited:
Certain players deliberately seek head high contact. That's dangerous and needs to be regulated out of the game.
Isn't that what they are doing here?
Does anyone have stats for the top 5 players who received "too high" free kicks?
- Oct 19, 2020
- 22,154
- 31,993
- AFL Club
- Richmond
No but if I was to guess I would say Selwood, Caleb Daniel, Oliver, Wines, Cripps
If the initial contact when tackling was legal and not slipping up, then any dropping of knees from the player being tackled should be holding the ball.
No. The player causing the head contact should be penalised.
The guy with the ball deserves the benefit, not the player he beat to the ball.
‘P***es me off’: Ex-Port gun Hamish Hartlett backs clamp down of action that ‘cost us 2017 Elimination Final’
‘P***es me off beyond anything’: Ex-AFL star unloads on action that ‘cost us a final’
www.foxsports.com.au
Would never be penalised in Aussie Rules Football. But in this new sport called AFL whatever helps the weak out.
The game revolves.
Players who lower their bodies and play for a free kick is actually pretty weak.
They should be attempting to get rid of the ball which is in the spirit of the game and not doing gymnastics to milk a high tackle call.
New tactics that break the spirit of the game should have a new rule.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,825
- 48,053
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Bring back Cyril now. Miss him and he was robbed on countless occasions with his great tackling.
In all seriousness, how good is it seeing a devastating tackle at the right time. Such a great part of the game. Need to reward more
In all seriousness, how good is it seeing a devastating tackle at the right time. Such a great part of the game. Need to reward more
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,944
- 43,368
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Well, someone’s been down the rabbit hole. Unfortunately you've posted a whole lot of stats there that really say nothing particularly meaningful. I mean, comparisons between forwards in 2019 & 2021?
You saying I'm moving goalposts, that you set up, is ridiculous. A nice strawman for you to try.
The rule as they brought it in I’d say was more framed around reducing marks being corralled (as stoppages) by the non-possession team. Increasing the value of a mark was possibly not even thought of and so exists more as a potential by-product
All up the number of marks in a game is not the stat to use really. That’s too shallow.
The idea of increasing the value of a mark, is really to give more tools to coaches to emphasise attacking marking as a way to open up a game. That may lead to more marks per game, but it may well lead to less and still work.
There's no doubt the game opened up early in the season. As so often happens, you get the reactive voices against change (aka things not being the way they’re used to) in the media and public and umpires soften and revert.
So there's likely a combination of coaches going back to the well, players pushing it and less stringent policing to water it down.
Providing a clear and specific message about what the rule is there for (increase the reward for taking a mark) would help guard against backsliding and help the umpires police it within the spirit of the law.
Penalising delaying the play is so, so overdue!
The amount of times I've seen 50's awarded for "running too close", "protected area", "not standing still" or some other inconsequential reason but definite goals are intentionally prevented and not penalised when a player concedes a free kick but continues to hold his opponent/or the ball to prevent them from moving the ball on quickly to loose players - waiting for team mates to flood back.
It's obviously intentional, slows the game right down and prevents clear opportunities at goal without ever being penalised. So frustrating to watch and very glad this is being introduced.
The trick, of course - like with any rule, is getting the interpretation correct and umpires not 'overreacting' in its introduction only to then have to scale it right back.
The amount of times I've seen 50's awarded for "running too close", "protected area", "not standing still" or some other inconsequential reason but definite goals are intentionally prevented and not penalised when a player concedes a free kick but continues to hold his opponent/or the ball to prevent them from moving the ball on quickly to loose players - waiting for team mates to flood back.
It's obviously intentional, slows the game right down and prevents clear opportunities at goal without ever being penalised. So frustrating to watch and very glad this is being introduced.
The trick, of course - like with any rule, is getting the interpretation correct and umpires not 'overreacting' in its introduction only to then have to scale it right back.
A 25m penalty would probably be better, but at the end of the day it's not too complicated to just stand there, is it? The players seemed to take to it pretty quickly. Another season in and it'll be even easier to do.
Luke Shuey led the average "frees for" list for 2021. My guess would be Shuey or Selwood.
Luke Shuey admits he ducks. He actually sounds quite proud of it.
Many observers, and particularly Port fans, believed Shuey ducked at the time in order to be caught high, and the 2018 Norm Smith medallist now admits he did. “I was thinking ‘I can’t believe I’ve gotten away with ducking again’,” he said on the Dyl and Friends podcast. - Fox Sports - 2020
Similar threads
