Rules Holding the ball

[hamohawk1]

As far as historic rules go and current interpretations, this one is up there for leader of the dogs breakfast.

The interpretation is seeming far to arbitrary, including within certain periods of any game.

Has the rule become too complex, are the umpires too shy in their judgement.

 

[Demon in Hell]

There is no such rule/law as holding the ball.

 

[tomcruise]

In an absolute horrendous state at the moment.

Umpiring has been horrendous during the bombers/tigers match. It's infuriating. Gotta reward the tackler.

 

[Astro35]

Saw this thread and I wondered "what's that about?" Holding the ball you say? Is that a men's health thing?

 

[BF Tiger]

Ignoring the actual wording here are the different interpretations of the tackling (which leads to holding the ball) that I can think of...

• Holding the ball / not disposing of the ball quick enough after being tackled
• No prior opportunity / ball locked in after being tackled
• Incorrect disposal (throw / drop) when tackled
• Made a genuine attempt to kick / handball when tackled, but didn’t execute properly with the ball spilling free
• Didn’t make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled
• Dragged the ball in prior to being tackled
• Ball knocked out in the tackle
• Correct disposal after being tackled

Have I forgotten any?

No wonder the rule is a mess.

 

[Sterge]

It was shithouse last night, the aarts non call was a joke.

I think the main issue though is that the rules change week to week and even in the same game, if they at least called the same things consistently no matter what the interpretation was then at least that would stop the main complaints

 

[MiguelM]

It was shithouse last night, the aarts non call was a joke.

I think the main issue though is that the rules change week to week and even in the same game, if they at least called the same things consistently no matter what the interpretation was then at least that would stop the main complaints

They need to call the "clear as day" ones, period. Never been worse.

 

[Grockadoc]

It was shithouse last night, the aarts non call was a joke.

I think the main issue though is that the rules change week to week and even in the same game, if they at least called the same things consistently no matter what the interpretation was then at least that would stop the main complaints

There were a few last night that were s**t. The Aarts and Dusty ones the worst. The Grimes one I could understand why they didn't pay it as he didn't have a whole lot of time to get rid of it and actually made an attempt to kick and missed due to the twisting of the tackle. Barely had prior, if any.

However, there were several HTB non calls that went Essendon's way too. The first was Laverde leading to Caddy's goal. If the Grimes one was considered ball for incorrect disposal and he had his hands free, this same ruling applies to Laverde who had teammates in the vicinity to handball to.

The second was Aaron Francis down back. Gets tackled after trying to bust through a tackle and does not get a handball away (fresh airs it.) Not pinged. Gets the ball again and the second attempt, Dusty knocks it out of his hand.

Overall the interpretation was s**t, but finally we had something many fans have wanted. They were consistently s**t with this all night. It wasn't called for both teams outside of a few instances.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

My issue isnt so much that they are being lenient with the holding the ball rule its more that its seems like a directive from above to give the attacking team an advantage.
The umps are so quick to call any free kick against the defender, such as holding, in the back, intentional out of bounds but they are ignoring blatant throws and holding the balls from attacking teams.

If an ump just let most calls go then Im fine with that, but this seems like another misguided attempt by the afl to open the game up and appease the broadcasters.

 

[nut]

The only reason why they don’t clean up the rule is because it can be used to influence a game... that’s the only logical reason why they don’t.

... and with the amount of Sportsbet sponsorship the AFL gets you’d have to ask why?

 

[astrowizzle]

How about this. If you take possession and don't dispose of the ball correctly you are penalized. It ******* worked when I played there was no confusion.

 

[BF Tiger]

How about this. If you take possession and don't dispose of the ball correctly you are penalized. It ******* worked when I played there was no confusion.

Agreed. If you’re not good enough to legally dispose of the ball then you’re penalised. If a tackle is so good and strong that it means it impacts you off your kick/handball then it’s “dropping the ball”. Likewise, if a tackle knocks the ball out of your hands then it’s dropping the ball. If you have taken clean possession of the ball and then wrapped in a tackle... reward the tackler.

What I don’t understand is the theory that by not paying a free kick they keep the game flowing, but usually ensures a scrum forms. Surely, by paying the free kick a player/team gets a free and clear possession to advance the ball downfield. Helped along this season by the “stand” rule.

 

[Pomsta]

The most stupid interpretation is the knocked out in the tackle call. If a player has got control, has prior then knocking the ball out in a tackle is incorrect disposal. How many times do players just drop the ball so as to make it look like it was knocked out? Would make it easier for umpires as there is no judgement call.

 

[owen87]

It was shithouse last night, the aarts non call was a joke.

I think the main issue though is that the rules change week to week and even in the same game, if they at least called the same things consistently no matter what the interpretation was then at least that would stop the main complaints

When the players from both sides come to a stop because everyone believes it was a free, it shows there's a massive disconnect between the players and officials.

Whatever the AFL is asking the umpires to umpire as holding the ball clearly doesn't fit with what the players think is holding the ball.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

There were a few last night that were sh*t. The Aarts and Dusty ones the worst. The Grimes one I could understand why they didn't pay it as he didn't have a whole lot of time to get rid of it and actually made an attempt to kick and missed due to the twisting of the tackle. Barely had prior, if any.

However, there were several HTB non calls that went Essendon's way too. The first was Laverde leading to Caddy's goal. If the Grimes one was considered ball for incorrect disposal and he had his hands free, this same ruling applies to Laverde who had teammates in the vicinity to handball to.

The second was Aaron Francis down back. Gets tackled after trying to bust through a tackle and does not get a handball away (fresh airs it.) Not pinged. Gets the ball again and the second attempt, Dusty knocks it out of his hand.

Overall the interpretation was sh*t, but finally we had something many fans have wanted. They were consistently sh*t with this all night. It wasn't called for both teams outside of a few instances.

I don't........He lifted the ball above his head than did not dispose of it correctly. You need to reward the tackler. That is the shear definition of holding the ball. Should have been a set shot in front of goal but it went it the other end of the ground for a Richmond Goal.

Kane Cornes is a total potato and even he could see it was HTB.

There were definitely s**t decisions all night for both teams but Richmond 100% came out of it better. overall. Maybe it resonates more with our fan base because in the past we have had players climb god damn goal posts during match winning set shots and umpires ignore it.

total cluster*.

 

[Stopher]

They give an age to allow a tackled player to dispose of the ball, yet in the next instance wonder why some players just think '* this' and forcibly bring a player to ground, resulting in injury.

 

[Shane Heard]

It’s almost got to a ridiculous stage where it’s comparable to say all
of a sudden Rugby league players are allowed to drop the ball onto the ground in a tackle and pick it up again and resume play.

Allowing players to constantly suffer no penalty for letting go of the ball while tackled is against the fundamental rules of our game.

“thou shall only dispose of ball with foot kick or clenched fist punch off an open palm hand “


They have got to fix it up.

it’s beyond a joke now

 

[Boston tiger]

It’s all about this prior business. From what I can gather if you are tackled with out prior then the umps don’t care how the ball comes out. I think they would rather players try to get rid of the ball without prior and keep the game going than the player just holding on to it and giving into the tackle and then having a ball up.
Makes for some crazy looking non calls that are so obvious that they must be up to something.
I think they are still pretty good on calling holding the ball if they think you had prior.

When did prior come into game ? Seems to been around awhile.

 

[sprockets]

It’s almost got to a ridiculous stage where it’s comparable to say all
of a sudden Rugby league players are allowed to drop the ball onto the ground in a tackle and pick it up again and resume play.

Allowing players to constantly suffer no penalty for letting go of the ball while tackled is against the fundamental rules of our game.

“thou shall only dispose of ball with foot kick or clenched fist punch off an open palm hand “


They have got to fix it up.

it’s beyond a joke now

Yep it's a fundamental and you'd think the 'custodians of the game' would try to preserve it.

 

[HairyO]

The AFL loved it when fans and media piled on to Clarkson as a whinger when he called out how bad HTB is now.

And here we are 3 years later and its just getting worse and worse.

Unless all the coaches line up and the media are behind them the AFL isnt going to do anything.

 

[Hoops]

It’s all about this prior business. From what I can gather if you are tackled with out prior then the umps don’t care how the ball comes out. I think they would rather players try to get rid of the ball without prior and keep the game going than the player just holding on to it and giving into the tackle and then having a ball up.
Makes for some crazy looking non calls that are so obvious that they must be up to something.
I think they are still pretty good on calling holding the ball if they think you had prior.

When did prior come into game ? Seems to been around awhile.

Holding the ball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[hawkman]

Used to be if you got spun once it was holding the ball, now you can get spun twice and drop the ball pretend to try an dispose it and it is still play on

The most annoying ones for me are when the ball drops out in a tackle and then someone holds on a fraction long they are quick to pay holding the man rather than the correct HTB decision first

 

[Spearman]

as a Geelong supporter, I admit bias, but I simply don't understand how in the Cats-Port game Henderson's HTB call; why wasn't that knocked out in the tackle? You'd think there were factors that trigger ID, OiT, HTB, PO... so on this particular call educate me. I'm not whinging it as such, I just want to understand, why this one was adjudicated as HTB? What action or nonaction on LH's part swung it?

 

[hawkman]

as a Geelong supporter, I admit bias, but I simply don't understand how in the Cats-Port game Henderson's HTB call; why wasn't that knocked out in the tackle? You'd think there were factors that trigger ID, OiT, HTB, PO... so on this particular call educate me. I'm not whinging it as such, I just want to understand, why this one was adjudicated as HTB? What action or nonaction on LH's part swung it?

That was more holding the ball than the one down the other end on Jonas i think

 

[Spearman]

That was more holding the ball than the one down the other end on Jonas i think

ok probably was, but what was the actual triggering actual to call it? I just want to understand WTF is going on. The replay had a a very clear view on it. The PA player clearly hits the arm and the ball spills; out in the the tackle.
Let me be clear, I'm in the camp of stringently calling a penalty whenever the ball is not legally disposed with opportunity; eff this dropping the ball nonsense. Human nature requires something compare against in order to make a decision. What is the AFL criteria of knocked out in the tackle Vs HTB?
I'm ranting because I was watching this game intently, and I struggle to understand WTF is going on sometimes. But I also genuinely want to know, what is their criterion on this adjudication?