holding the man after handballing

[CQTiger]

Can one of our umpire members explain their thought processes/interpretations of a player who handballs (correctly) the ball towards the ground or out in front of him just prior to being tackled who is then subsequently tackled without the ball but is never awarded the free kick.
I realize it is deliberate ploy to draw a free and perhaps this is why it is not paid (a la Bartlett in the 70's) but it seems within the rules and he should get a free for holding the man.

 

[borgsta2006]

Sounds like he should but it doesn't happen.

Question right back at you...

Does the "hold" * the player's progress??

 

[DamianBis]

The thing is. if someone already has forward momentum becuase they're running 18kph and going to crash into a player. and then the player handballs away. there is no way physically possible for them to avoid the collision. so it shouldn't be paid as holding the man.

 

[TimmehJC"]

The thing is. if someone already has forward momentum becuase they're running 18kph and going to crash into a player. and then the player handballs away. there is no way physically possible for them to avoid the collision. so it shouldn't be paid as holding the man.

Don't think his talking about crashing into, but more actually holding the player. Either way, no free as we don't want a tactic like that coming into our game. Happy to see that stay, unless the player gets taken right out of the play.

 

[warney7]

Players handball into free space a lot and on most occasions they get tackled without the ball.

You have to ask yourself, how a player coming from the side can all of a sudden be running forward alongside the player who handpassed the ball.

In other words, the umpires are very, very soft on this and under the interpretation of the law, it should be a free.

We're not talking incidental contact, we're talking jumper tugging to halt a player's progress.

 

[Bob_vic]

If the handball is only a split second before the tackle, then the tackler lets go as soon as possible, a free kick shouldn't be paid. It's a subjective call. It's only if the player keeps hanging on, that a free kick (and now, an additional 50m penalty) should be paid.

As for handballing to the feet, the umpire can deem that the player is still in control/possession. That's the umpire's call as to whether the player is "in control" of the football or not.

In some cases, where there are plausible arguments both ways, ie. the player was still in control, or the tackler was holding; it normally should be a "play on" call, because there's no obvious free kick either way.

 

[Donakebab]

As Bob said, the player is usually still considered in control of the ball, since the way they disposed of the ball puts them in the drivers seat to gain next possesion again. If you're going to bring something up, what about players blatantly dropping the ball druing a tackle, which is much more rampant in the game and almost never goes punished.

 

[carlton09]

Does anyone know why umpires sometimes tap there side of there ass normally after giving a free kick??

 

[Bob_vic]

Does anyone know why umpires sometimes tap there side of there ass normally after giving a free kick??

It tells the umpire in the mid-zone to run into the forward line to adjudicate the next contest. The umpire who taps will stay at the mark.

 

[Gizza]

The way I've seen it interpreted is often dependant on the severity of the tackle. The if player 'handballs it to himself' and it grabbed/scraggled/harrassed without really being fully tackled it is often let go. If he is taken to the ground/out of play it is quite often paid as holding the man.

It also though brings up the interpretation of possession. As Bob said above, a player handpassing it to himself is still relatively in control of the ball, and I think this is often how the umpire interpret it depending on the nature of the handpass.

 

[Pessimistic]

Using Ling as an example - he often handballs onto the ground and then blocks/tackles the potential tackler.

Are we saying it is OK for ling to do that but the opponent (who hasnt just disposed) can do as he wishes.

Whats so special about the person who has just disposed ?