Opinion Holding The Ball

[Anzacday]

It’s one of the great sounds of the game IMO - when we all yell out ball in unison.
Here’s a great article discussing the confusion around the rule.
Ironic they chose the footage of Steele being tackled, it was the right call.
He was tackled, which he then shrugged and dropped the ball while not being tackled.
Play on is the right call.

 

[mike123]

Shouldn’t it have then been incorrect disposal?

 

[DWil6]

Shouldn’t it have then been incorrect disposal?

There’s no free for incorrect disposal for fumbling. Unless you’re being tackled.

 

[kickitolachie]

This particular case was a correct decision. That game was full of incorrect ones. So many times, players were caught and dropped the ball cold with a play on call. So many others when the tackled player dragged the ball in on the ground were adjudged worthy of a ball up. About all you can say is that the same bad call was a consistent feature of the game.

Our game was much worse, with inconsistency in decisions the feature. I suppose it is fair enough that the worst teams get the worst umpires as has been the case as long as I have been watching football, but it is galling when my team is dealing with it.

A proper criterion for holding the ball free kicks, where the player must dispose of the ball legally when tackled, and must do it straight away, not when a good option opens up for him, would greatly reduce congestion, particularly allied to the standing the mark change, which has been very effective, against my expectations.

Only marginally related, but a change is overdue to the rules about tackling players on the ground. Too may are being injured, and the ball is being prevented from moving, because a third (or fourth or more) player is allowed to pile on to a pair on the ground from a tackle. The purpose is only to stop the ball getting out or to injure an opponent.
Extra tackler - free kick to the side with only one involved. Result - more ball in the open and fewer injuries. Bonus - players encouraged to keep their feet.

 

[mike123]

There’s no free for incorrect disposal for fumbling. Unless you’re being tackled.

Oh fair enough, him dropping the ball is an effect from the tackle prior though so I still think it should have been called.

 

[MagpieJoel]

What I hate worst is opposition players shoving a ball back in (causing play to stop) and then the person on top of the ball gets penalised. That needs to change.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The rule as it is written needs to be changed.

It should not read that a player who has had prior opportunity, when tackled must immediately dispose of the ball.

It should read that if a player who has had prior opportunity, when tackled, will have a free kick awarded against them unless they were tackled in the process of disposing of the ball, which resulted in a legal disposal.

Furthermore any player who has not had prior opportunity, when tackled, will be given a reasonable amount of time to dispose of the ball legally before a free kick is awarded to the tackler.

The rule gets messy because players are allowed to double dip. If you had prior opportunity, you shouldn’t then get an additional opportunity after the tackle to legally dispose of it. You’re gone. But that’s what umpires are allowing. Also, the ball being jarred free in the tackle doesn’t absolve the player of having to dispose of the ball legally. That opportunity came before the tackle. That’s what prior opportunity is.

If there’s no prior opportunity, then the player needs to be given time to dispose of it legally. If the ball is genuinely knocked out in this instance, play on. If the player is tackled with one arm pinned and they can only throw it, or drop it near their foot but miss the kick, incorrect disposal and you’re gone. If the player with no prior opportunity is tackled and ridden in to the ground, it’s a ball up as they were not given a reasonable amount of time.

If they can stop providing a prior and post-opportunity, and give one or the other, the rule is so much more straightforward. And as for the example given by the Age writers about fighting through a tackle, sure, but that’s for someone who didn’t have prior opportunity.

 

[jackcass]

It’s one of the great sounds of the game IMO - when we all yell out ball in unison.
Here’s a great article discussing the confusion around the rule.
Ironic they chose the footage of Steele being tackled, it was the right call.
He was tackled, which he then shrugged and dropped the ball while not being tackled.
Play on is the right call.

Really well written article. There's no right or wrong, but the "vibe" stinks at the moment.

Agree on Sidey. He broke the tackle, fell over and the footy fumbled out of his hands when he hit the deck. It only becomes incorrect disposal if the tackle is maintained otherwise every fumble would result in a free kick.

It's the lack of consistency in the interpretation of firstly "the tackle forced the ball to come free" and secondly the "made a genuine attempt" that most infuriate. You think you've got a handle on how they'll be interpreted in a game and then from out of nowhere an ump will pull a random free that completely counters that established norm.

 

[Black_White]

They had it almost correct at the start of the season.
Tackler was rewarded for a good tackle. The possessor of the ball was given time, but not enough time to be rotated 360, to legally dispose of the ball.
Now they have gone way to far to the other end of the spectrum. Players are given way to much time to dispose of the ball, and if it spills they call play on.
This generally results in many more ball ups and “scrums”.
Which makes the game unwatchable.

 

[kickitolachie]

A constant gripe of mine with this rule is the inconsistency when judging a player who gets the ball and in the action of kicking, misses the ball. Sometimes this is a free kick and sometimes it isn't. According to the rules, it is a free. Personally I would rather it wasn't, but the fact that it is a lottery drives me mad. It would be wonderful if the umpiring guru, whoever it is, would pronounce on this and have the umpires stick to the pronouncement.

 

[Countrypie]

They had it almost correct at the start of the season.
Tackler was rewarded for a good tackle. The possessor of the ball was given time, but not enough time to be rotated 360, to legally dispose of the ball.
Now they have gone way to far to the other end of the spectrum. Players are given way to much time to dispose of the ball, and if it spills they call play on.
This generally results in many more ball ups and “scrums”.
Which makes the game unwatchable.

I'll go further ... the interpretation has deteriorated to the extent that players are allowed to patently throw the ball. It happens too often to be considered anything else other than a deliberate interpretation. Some teams look like they've been coached to throw (Geelong in particular) . If a handball defies the laws of physics when "punched" it is an obvious throw.

 

[barrackers]

What I hate worst is opposition players shoving a ball back in (causing play to stop) and then the person on top of the ball gets penalised. That needs to change.

A close second for mine is players dropping the footy the moment they're tackled. Often it's ignored under the guise of being knocked out in the tackle, but there's no doubt that on occasion players with possession deliberately drop it. It can be hard to distinguish, so I'd simplify the rules.

Prior opportunity (including fend offs)
- no correct disposal = free kick

No prior opportunity
- footy comes free with no correct disposal = free kick
- footy retained = no free kick

 

[Billys Back]

Maybe they should review the tackling below the knees. I for one don't understand why it isn't allowed.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

B

Maybe they should review the tackling below the knees. I for one don't understand why it isn't allowed.

Because it would lead to players getting even more leg injuries than they do now..
It's a 360 degree game not like rugby.

 

[Billys Back]

B

Because it would lead to players getting even more leg injuries than they do now..
It's a 360 degree game not like rugby.

But in rugby you can be tackled from behind and even to the side. Maybe not as often from the side.
You may be right. I don't know. I wasn't sure whether it was simply an old rule they have stuck with or whether any research has been done to determine whether it causes increased injuries.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

You

But in rugby you can be tackled from behind and even to the side. Maybe not as often from the side.
You may be right. I don't know. I wasn't sure whether it was simply an old rule they have stuck with or whether any research has been done to determine whether it causes increased injuries.

Can't be tackled from behind in rugby. You see players holding onto the from behind but the tackle started from front or side and the player with the ball has struggled forward through the tackle.. leaving tackler clinging from behind.
In our game.. if you were sprinting at full pace and someone tackled your legs from behind there'd be tendons and bones popping everywhere.

 

[Billys Back]

You

Can't be tackled from behind in rugby. You see players holding onto the from behind but the tackle started from front or side and the player with the ball has struggled forward through the tackle.. leaving tackler clinging from behind.
In our game.. if you were sprinting at full pace and someone tackled your legs from behind there'd be tendons and bones popping everywhere.

When someone breaks the line and is running towards the try line, players can run them down and tackle from behind.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

When someone breaks the line and is running towards the try line, players can run them down and tackle from behind.

True actually. But a legal tackle has to start at the waist. It can slip down to the legs with momentum... Which I kinda agree with you now probable shouldn't be a free in our game either.
I wouldn't want to see run down from behind leg tackles in our game though. At the end of the day tackling someone's legs is dangerous for the tackler as well. Knees, heels, feet moving at speed and you'd have your head right there as you tried to tackle. Not something I'd be keen on trying.

 

[ZEV]

It might just be me, but I would actually like to see less holding the ball free kicks paid.

It seems unfair and against the spirit of the game to penalise the player trying to win the ball.

 

[Moore of the Same]

It might just be me, but I would actually like to see less holding the ball free kicks paid.

It seems unfair and against the spirit of the game to penalise the player trying to win the ball.

Sure, but it reduces stoppages and congestion which is all the AFL really cares about.

 

[Finn Jim]

Incorrect disposal is one I don't like, or it is problematic in that a player with no prior gets tackled and can either thrash his free arm in a fist into his chest keeping the ball locked in for a ball-up, or actually try to dispose of it, which may result in failure for a free kick.

I think they'd go further in eliminating congestion by simply throwing the ball up the second the umpire has it/boundary umpire gets it. (Or go back to bouncing it every time). Waiting for rucks to nominate and everyone to set up makes it too easy to structure up and lock it in.

 

[magpie_marty]

It's a confusing rule,
Why not make it if your caught with the ball when tackled it's a free.

 

[loki04]

There’s no free for incorrect disposal for fumbling. Unless you’re being tackled.

If you have taken clean possession prior there is, surely? well that's how I have always seen it and played it.

 

[60 Yards Out]

I think most of the problems stem from the 'prior opportunity' basis of the rule. Get rid of that and you simplify it substantially -- the rule becomes easier to umpire and therefore (in all likelihood) more consistently applied.
The 'prior opportunity' thing seems philosophically wrong to me -- why do we insist on the player with the ball getting rid of it asap? Every time a player makes a decision to retain the ball it's because he thinks he sees, or is going to see, an opportunity for a better disposal. Why shouldn't he do that, and how does it benefit the game when we prevent him from doing that?
Also, why reward the tackle at the expense of punishing the player who looks for a better disposal? Tackling is, surely, a secondary skill. The game is about ball use and allowing the player/team with the ball to move it to advantage. The 'prior opportunity' thing forces the player to focus on getting rid of the ball as objective number 1, when the team (and the game) would be better served by letting him sum up his options, choose the best one and then go for it.
So... get rid of the 'prior opportunity' thing and you have a simpler game, in which a free kick is awarded for incorrect disposal 'when the player is tackled fairly and fails to dispose of the ball correctly.' if the ball spills in the tackle, no free kick. if the player breaks the tackle in a reasonable time and keeps moving, no free kick. If the player and the ball are held in the tackle, ball up. If the player goes to ground and pulls the ball in, free kick for holding the ball.

 

[Markfs]

i heard a coach this week refer to "team holding the ball" ...which i assume to be that the first guy gets a chance of priority opportunity etc because he is making the play but once the handball chains start, it's sudden death. The players need to get rid of it properly. If that's the case, then I've been thinking that for over a decade. Also change the kick out of bounds to all untouched kicks that go out..... clean up hands in the back, to stop the player at the back pushing his opponent. Any sort of push forward needs to be push in the back...