I'm almost done with AFL

[Interceptor]

With the amount of criticism coming from fans (and importantly high profile media commentators), I'd be very surprised if those in charge don't make at least some kind of much needed change to the "pile on top" holding-the-ball interpretations.

It really has reach absurd levels that they can no longer ignore the situation.

Oh and they can look replacing that muppet Gieschen as well

 

[frednerk33]

worst thing about HTB - when the opposition pile on the back of the player who committed himself to win the ball. Make that a mandatory 'in the back' free and it begins to tidy up the rule a bit. The player going for the ball is rewarded and when players learn you can't just sit on someone's back with your hand in the air, the player in possession of ball has a rightful chance to dispose of the ball correctly.

I always wondered what the F' happened to in the back when the blind dumb umpies let them pile on top of a bloke's back like a bunch of gays.

What comes first ? In the back OR holding the ball ? When is in the back NOT in the back ?

 

[Drummond]

Drummond, I hope you're watching the Pies v Dees game. Robert Walls has just had a great rip at the rules committee for the way the HTB is being interpreted and implemented by the umpires. Let's hope the media get on this and drum up a bit of noise about it.

Don't penalise(unfairly) the bloke who is willing to go in hardest for the ball.

I did watch the game and I certainly did notice that. I don't normally like Wallsy but he was absolutely spot on, I was loving it as everything he said was completely on the money. Well done to him for having a crack and saying what everyone is thinking.

It's obvious that everyone from the media, supporters and most importantly, the players are infuriated with the way the HTB rule is being interpreted. Surely at seasons end they must address what is clearly becoming a major issue.

 

[Luvs2Slash]

They have the rule so it will keep the game moving so they reckon. When will they wake up and see it is causing more ballups because the 2nd player is the one dragging it back in. Worst part of watching AFL atm

This. It's having the opposite effect. Now whenever a player actually makes the effort to get in & under & find hard ball, the opposition deliberately hold it in - stopping the game, and making it impossible for the player who's going for the pill. The rule needs to be scrapped.

 

[Vader]

Didn't the AFL include this issue on their annual DVD highlighting things the umpires were supposed to be hot on this year? I'm fairly sure they were supposed to be paying HTB against the player who scoops it in and holds it to their opposition, in an attempt to make it look like their opponent had been caught HTB.

 

[Gary17]

Didn't the AFL include this issue on their annual DVD highlighting things the umpires were supposed to be hot on this year? I'm fairly sure they were supposed to be paying HTB against the player who scoops it in and holds it to their opposition, in an attempt to make it look like their opponent had been caught HTB.

That's what I thought. I have yet to see a single free paid for this. Why? I would guess because the umpires haven't seen it. Which of course doesn't stop them paying HTB against the guy who goes in first and in fact doesn't have the ball when the free is paid - in these situations the umpire is often unisghted as to the real situation but still pays HTB. This is the thing that annoys me the most - paying free kicks when they can't actually see whether one is there or not. This completely destroys the credibility of the rules and the game - more so than rules we don't agree with or even their inconsistent applciation.

 

[Stinger...]

Didn't the AFL include this issue on their annual DVD highlighting things the umpires were supposed to be hot on this year? I'm fairly sure they were supposed to be paying HTB against the player who scoops it in and holds it to their opposition, in an attempt to make it look like their opponent had been caught HTB.

That rule was trialled in the NAB Cup only. It wasn't brought into the season proper.

 

[magtrev]

I have to agree with Drummond on this one.
I used to watch most games each weekend but now i can barely bring myself to watch even just the Crows game because I get so massively pissed off at teh HTB rule. It even annoys me just as much on the odd occasion we actually get paid one.

The AFL seems to think people are happier watching blokes cheat off their opponents and get paid awefull free kicks that go against the spirit of the game than watch a couple of bounces.

Next time you see a game where there is 2 or 3 bounces in a row at the same spot, watch the umpire pay either the softest free kick in the history of the game or just a mysterious free kick that no one can really explain. Happens every time.

 

[Dragz]

The VanBerlo decision was a joke. People sitting near me were all wondering what the free kick was for.

Once the 3rd QTR started, it was obvious the Umpires had looked at the free kick count at half time, because everything possible went Adelaide's way early on.

HTB really needs to be looked at. One day we'll get to a stage where two players just look at the ball and wait for the other guy pick to pick it up.

 

[DJ75]

I'm afraid I have to agree with most on this. The direction the umpires are being given is a disgrace.
Two points to offer for this.
Our game against Hawthorn was disgusting. Just utter crap. The HTB rule is beyond a joke now. You can run 25 metres have had two bounces, get tackled and throw the ball out and that is ok. BUT if you stick your head over it, win the hard ball and 5 blokes jump on your back it is HTB! In what F'ing world is this the game we grew up with?

I still suspect the tools at the top are slowly trying to turn our game more into an hybrid irish version and I hate it. The sooner these idiots go the better.

The second point was the last 5 minutes of the Collingwood melbourne game. Brilliant umpiring then. They let the two teams try and sort it out rather than paying every technically correct free and the game was the better for it. It was brilliant stuff. All umpires should be shown this and told that this is how they umpire the game without making themselves the centre point of the game. Do that and they will get a million times more respect than they do now.

 

[Allefgib]

So in a perfect world what do we want the rule to do;
1. Stop continual stoppages where a player drags the ball in and kills the contest
2. Still allow all players to compete for the ball on the ground fairly and given a chance to dispose of it and also a chance for the opposition to dispossess (via a tackle)

To do this I think it would be worth experimenting with a rule that encourages players to compete their feet. I would probably do it something like this.
1. If possession is gained whilst on the ground the player must a) attempt to dispose of it immediately b) attempt to gain his feet immediately
2. If the ball is in dispute on the ground both the ball winner and any other player must attempt to gain their feet immediately
3. Any second, third etc man in attempting to tackle a player with possession on the ground must do so on their feet.

What about a simple change to the 'diving on the ball HTB' rules that require the tackling player(s) to be on their feet?

I.e. if you jump on a guy who has jumped on the ball first you can't get a HTB decision. If however you stay on your feet and tackle him legally he obviously has a far easier chance to get the ball out - if he fails to do this - BALL.

 

[Interceptor]

I.e. if you jump on a guy who has jumped on the ball first you can't get a HTB decision. If however you stay on your feet and tackle him legally he obviously has a far easier chance to get the ball out - if he fails to do this - BALL.

I heard this idea mentioned by Anthony Hudson during the game yesterday. It would take the players a while to get used to yet another change, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

[feenix67]

A contributing factor is that players are coached to hold the ball in these days rather than dispose of it indiscriminately and risk a turnover against the run of play. Coaches would rather give away a HTB allowing zones to be re-set. So players are very hesitant to dispose when tackled.

Im sure what we want to see is a player compelled to dispose of the ball legally when tackled fairly, given that he has had a "prior opportunity to dispose of it. It should be fairly simple if the umpires consider the elements of that sentence - dispose legally, tackled fairly, prior opportunity.

Surely to God it's not unreasonable that an umpire can assess a situation based on those 3 elements. If a guy is on the ground and gets jumped on, he's not getting tackled fairly. If he gets tackled and drops the ball, he hasnt disposed of it legally. If he takes possession and is immediately tackled, he hasnt had prior opportunity. If a guy is over the ball on the ground and a teammate comes in as well, and then the guy is tackled legally, it's HTB even if the teammate is blocking the ball in. If its an opponent thats blocking the ball in, it's not HTB, its a ball up.

It's simple isnt it? We just need the umpires to understand the rule, its pplace in the context of the game, and to apply it consistently.

 

[smoovy]

What about a simple change to the 'diving on the ball HTB' rules that require the tackling player(s) to be on their feet?

I.e. if you jump on a guy who has jumped on the ball first you can't get a HTB decision. If however you stay on your feet and tackle him legally he obviously has a far easier chance to get the ball out - if he fails to do this - BALL.

My only problem with that is when the ball is in dispute it is sometimes it is hard to tell who has possession. And therefore there might be some grey area over who is the tackling player. That is why I said the ball winner and any other play must attempt to gain their feet immediately

 

[macca23]

What about a simple change to the 'diving on the ball HTB' rules that require the tackling player(s) to be on their feet?

I.e. if you jump on a guy who has jumped on the ball first you can't get a HTB decision. If however you stay on your feet and tackle him legally he obviously has a far easier chance to get the ball out - if he fails to do this - BALL.

That'll never happen - it makes too much sense for the boffins in charge to implement that.

Excellent suggestion.

 

[cmndstab]

I have horrible flash visions of a player (hell, let's assume it's Van Berlo) on the ground with several opposition players crouched down but on their feet over the top of him in a particular formation that prevents him from disposing of the ball.


Every time a rule is created to fix a particular problem, a new way of abusing the rule is discovered. What really needs to happen is that this "scooped it in" rule simply needs to be abolished.

 

[jackster83]

It would help if the team mates of the guy with the ball actually tried to help out rather than standing there watching him.