HTB when you take a bounce.

[kickazz]

Inspired by Hind being tackled vs the Saints - and I remember a similar incident on Wojcinski in the 2009 Grand Final.

We all know the rule: if you take a bounce and are tackled, it is HTB. No two ways about it. Pretty simple, and makes sense. Most of us agree on it.

But in the congested game we have today, does this rule being so strict stifle creative attacking play? Going for a line-busting run when there is even a little bit of traffic is just too much of a risk. Indeed with the Wojo example, he was hardly even tackled - a slight grab of the jumper just as the ball was returning to his grasp. HTB.

Would it be worth adding a tweak: if you bounce the ball, and are tackled, but you successfully regain the ball; you are then allowed to IMMEDIATELY handpass or kick the ball away, and it is then play on? (Provided the tackle is still engaged, if not, you can keep running) All it means now for the tackler is that the tackle has to be good enough such that the ball doesn't return to their hands - not particularly hard if you do even a half decent tackle.

Thoughts?

Would we see more dashing runs?

Would players and coaches find a way to exploit the rule to the detriment of the game?

Would we still get enough chances to enjoy a good run down tackle and shouts of "ball!"?




*genuine opinions / constructive criticism only please. "Leavethegamealone crowd can GAGF"

 

[kickazz]

about 27 second mark is the Wojo example - I'm suggesting this could be play on under the change

 

[sdfc]

Inspired by Hind being tackled vs the Saints - and I remember a similar incident on Wojcinski in the 2009 Grand Final.

We all know the rule: if you take a bounce and are tackled, it is HTB. No two ways about it. Pretty simple, and makes sense. Most of us agree on it.

But in the congested game we have today, does this rule being so strict stifle creative attacking play? Going for a line-busting run when there is even a little bit of traffic is just too much of a risk. Indeed with the Wojo example, he was hardly even tackled - a slight grab of the jumper just as the ball was returning to his grasp. HTB.

Would it be worth adding a tweak: if you bounce the ball, and are tackled, but you successfully regain the ball; you are then allowed to IMMEDIATELY handpass or kick the ball away, and it is then play on? (Provided the tackle is still engaged, if not, you can keep running) All it means now for the tackler is that the tackle has to be good enough such that the ball doesn't return to their hands - not particularly hard if you do even a half decent tackle.

Thoughts?

Would we see more dashing runs?

Would players and coaches find a way to exploit the rule to the detriment of the game?

Would we still get enough chances to enjoy a good run down tackle and shouts of "ball!"?




*genuine opinions / constructive criticism only please. "Leavethegamealone crowd can GAGF"

A non-problem that doesn't need to be fixed. You should be on the rules committee.

 

[kickazz]

A non-problem that doesn't need to be fixed. You should be on the rules committee.

Leavethegamealone? ;-)

 

[ManInWhite]

Causes inconsistency and we already have enough of that. If a player is running and bouncing the ball, that is prior opportunity. What you're saying is that the player should be given latitude on this situation when he has prior opportunity - when it doesn't happen in other situations.

 

[kickazz]

Causes inconsistency and we already have enough of that. If a player is running and bouncing the ball, that is prior opportunity. What you're saying is that the player should be given latitude on this situation when he has prior opportunity - when it doesn't happen in other situations.

No I said that they need to immediately get rid of it once (if) they regain the ball from the bounce.

On inconsistency, it would potentially be less clear cut - what is immediately - but then again this occurs currently with prior op anyway.

I think seeing more attacking runs would outweigh any drawbacks on interpretation, which I think would still be few.

 

[Underarm]

If it's not holding the ball, then it's holding the man.

 

[sdfc]

If it's not holding the ball, then it's holding the man.

That's the old rule.

 

[hcd199]

Inspired by Hind being tackled vs the Saints - and I remember a similar incident on Wojcinski in the 2009 Grand Final.

We all know the rule: if you take a bounce and are tackled, it is HTB. No two ways about it. Pretty simple, and makes sense. Most of us agree on it.

But in the congested game we have today, does this rule being so strict stifle creative attacking play? Going for a line-busting run when there is even a little bit of traffic is just too much of a risk. Indeed with the Wojo example, he was hardly even tackled - a slight grab of the jumper just as the ball was returning to his grasp. HTB.

Would it be worth adding a tweak: if you bounce the ball, and are tackled, but you successfully regain the ball; you are then allowed to IMMEDIATELY handpass or kick the ball away, and it is then play on? (Provided the tackle is still engaged, if not, you can keep running) All it means now for the tackler is that the tackle has to be good enough such that the ball doesn't return to their hands - not particularly hard if you do even a half decent tackle.

Thoughts?

Would we see more dashing runs?

Would players and coaches find a way to exploit the rule to the detriment of the game?

Would we still get enough chances to enjoy a good run down tackle and shouts of "ball!"?




*genuine opinions / constructive criticism only please. "Leavethegamealone crowd can GAGF"

If anything, the problem is actually that prior opportunity, and its requirement to dispose of the ball 'immediately', isn't applied as strictly as it should be elsewhere in the game - players tackled are given too much latitude to survey their options before getting rid of it without penalty. The logic behind both that application and this proposal seems to be the same as for most AFL rule changes in the last decade, a wrongheaded fixation on the notion that making attacking plays easier is what's desirable (when often, the end effect is merely to cheapen the excitement value of such plays; the fact that it involves successfully navigating those challenges and risks is a large part of what makes those running plays so beloved).

As with other such changes, I expect most sides wouldn't gain much (if any) advantage from this change, and if there was any sense that bursting loose from congestion had now become much more potent, teams would (quite correctly) adapt in contested situations to make sure that option was curbed - so even if I did accept that tweaking the rule to make that play easier was a good idea in theory, I doubt it would be worthwhile in practice anyway. So the primary impact of the rule change would be in the more open plays anyway - that's where you're most likely to have the tackler only just able to get hold of the jumper/not prevent the runner regaining the bounced ball - and that's not really what the tweak is for... or if it is, I don't see the merit of it, in a sport where the whole design of having to bounce the ball is, again quite correctly, to make it possible for defending sides to curtail running plays.

 

[Willo_]

I don't think it's an issue at all, if you are bursting through traffic that's your prior opportunity so if you get tackled you should be pinged regardless of if you have bounced it.

My bigger issue, and it isn't a rule issue just a personal bugbear is the way players take 2 steps then bounce it... Saad is my far the worst current culprit in this regard

 

[kickazz]

I don't think it's an issue at all, if you are bursting through traffic that's your prior opportunity so if you get tackled you should be pinged regardless of if you have bounced it.

My bigger issue, and it isn't a rule issue just a personal bugbear is the way players take 2 steps then bounce it... Saad is my far the worst current culprit in this regard

It sometimes makes sense to take an early bounce. Maybe not THAT early, but if you know you will run 20m then bouncing it after 5 or 7 makes sense.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Silly old rule. You bounce and are tackled and regain the ball and break the tackle -play on.
You don’t do either then holding the ball.

See it paid for the softest of tackles. Shouldn’t be rewarded

 

[Willo_]

It sometimes makes sense to take an early bounce. Maybe not THAT early, but if you know you will run 20m then bouncing it after 5 or 7 makes sense.

Yeah my issue is when a player takes 2 steps and bounces it.. Saad the other night took the ball from edge of the goal square to 40m from goal and had 5 bounces and it absolutely infuriated me

I also am well aware that it really didn't impact me in any way shape or form but still drove me nuts

 

[HTPunter]

In the interests of creating attacking play, if a player is running with the ball you are no longer allowed to tackle them.

 

[BF Tiger]

I don't think it's an issue at all, if you are bursting through traffic that's your prior opportunity so if you get tackled you should be pinged regardless of if you have bounced it.

My bigger issue, and it isn't a rule issue just a personal bugbear is the way players take 2 steps then bounce it... Saad is my far the worst current culprit in this regard

It sometimes makes sense to take an early bounce. Maybe not THAT early, but if you know you will run 20m then bouncing it after 5 or 7 makes sense.

I understand the frustration but I think take the easy bounce while you can because that helps keep you balanced, and it resets when you next have to take a bounce.