Moved Thread Incorrect Disposal Interpretation

[Phone]

If they tightened up the interpretation, the likely result would be players too scared to take possession of the ball in close. Which would lead to more scrums (and kicking the ball off the ground out of packs, which we're already seeing a lot of this season; reckon I've seen more 'kicking in danger' calls this year than any other).

The rule as it stands rewards the player going for the ball and trying to create the play by clearing it from congestion by largely giving him the benefit of the doubt. Most rules favour the bloke in front/ with the ball/ making the play.

If they bring in a 'spin the player and its ball' rule, then you'll see an increase in dangerous tackles as well. With players naturally already looking to pin arms in tackles, if there is then incentive to also sling the guy 360, a lot of blokes are gonna get hurt bad.

If they were going to tidy it up at all, a rule where if the ball is dislodged in the tackle, its HTB. As it stands at the moment (officially) if the ball is knocked clear in the tackle, its not HTB (as there was no 'incorrect disposal'). This rule is not applied consistently however, with some being paid and some not (due to the difficulty in adjudicating it).

I could get with a new interpretation of 'If the ball gets knocked out in a tackle, it's Holding the Ball, even though there was no incorrect disposal of the ball by the ball carrier.'

great post

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'm one to reward those who go after the ball, rather than those who hold back and sweat on the tackle. Ball knocked out in the tackle with no prior - play on for mine. One arm pinned with no prior - ball up for mine. The key to everything is prior opportunity.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

When I was a kid, if you got tackled with the ball you were gone, if you were hot and knew you would be tackled immediately you didn't take possession, you knocked it forward and kept moving. In 'AFL' now players grab the ball knowing they will get tackled and then they let themselves be tackled on purpose, then everyone resets for another ball up and they repeat the process. Somewhere along the way the whole interpretation of holding the ball and prior opportunity was lost and it really makes me sad.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

When I was a kid, if you got tackled with the ball you were gone, if you were hot and knew you would be tackled immediately you didn't take possession, you knocked it forward and kept moving. In 'AFL' now players grab the ball knowing they will get tackled and then they let themselves be tackled on purpose, then everyone resets for another ball up and they repeat the process. Somewhere along the way the whole interpretation of holding the ball and prior opportunity was lost and it really makes me sad.

It changed when players short stepped when going after the ball and sweated on the tackle instead. Smart? Yes. Ugly? Yes.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

It changed when players short stepped when going after the ball and sweated on the tackle instead. Smart? Yes. Ugly? Yes.

Change it back. Rewind the rules about 20 years and put a moratorium on 'ideas' and rules committees.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This Gerard Healy idea of team holding the ball is different. If a player has the ball and disposes to a teammate who is immediately tackled, it is holding the ball against the team, not the player. The original player has the prior and after that every one of his teammates can't get caught, prior opportunity or not.

To me that feels like we'd see teams going up and down the field and giving away free kicks before scoring, especially if teams flood back to defend.

 

[Moonrat]

This Gerard Healy idea of team holding the ball is different. If a player has the ball and disposes to a teammate who is immediately tackled, it is holding the ball against the team, not the player. The original player has the prior and after that every one of his teammates can't get caught, prior opportunity or not.

To me that feels like we'd see teams going up and down the field and giving away free kicks before scoring, especially if teams flood back to defend.

Number 1! - Healey is a floppy flog

Number 2! - STOP CHANGING THE GOD DAMN FREAKING RULES! ALL OF YOU!!!!! STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP! JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH! STOP ALREADY!

 

[bluespooner]

I'm one to reward those who go after the ball, rather than those who hold back and sweat on the tackle. Ball knocked out in the tackle with no prior - play on for mine. One arm pinned with no prior - ball up for mine. The key to everything is prior opportunity.

That was the point Clarkson was making, if you have had prior opportunity been caught and illegally disposed of the ball then the umpire should be awarding a free kick, not calling it play on.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That was the point Clarkson was making, if you have had prior opportunity been caught and illegally disposed of the ball then the umpire should be awarding a free kick, not calling it play on.

For sure. I'm more commenting on those who want it to be holding the ball without prior opportunity. No excuse for the umpires to falter on the existing rule. It feels like my team gets penalised appropriately for holding the ball. I didn't watch the first 3 quarters of the Hawks today so didn't really see what Clarko was up in arms about.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

For sure. I'm more commenting on those who want it to be holding the ball without prior opportunity.

The ball up scenarios are so obvious, grab ball and purposely run straight into opponent, usually leading with the head. Prior opportunity is fine but then it became 'did he have enough prior?'. There's too much leeway, prior is prior, not 'enough prior to run 5 metres and do a 720 degree pirouette'.

 

[hk89]

The rule as it stands rewards the player going for the ball and trying to create the play by clearing it from congestion by largely giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, that seems to be the intention, but Clarko's contention is that it simply isn't working, and the reason is that players have worked out that they'll get a fairly generous interpretation on prior opportunity, let the ball drop on the ground (or actually place it their themselves, which some times have become expert at), and not get pinged, and likely result in a stoppage when everyone dives on it, or if you're really good at it, picked up off the deck by a teammate, although the former seems to be more the more common outcome. So basically the opposite of the intention of the current interpretation is what is happening. More congestion, and more stoppages. If instead they got less generous on prior, and so started saying those balls hitting the ground after the tackle applied are in fact incorrect disposal, a free kick would be paid, and the congestion would be cleared immediately. This interpretation would also lead the ball player to make more of an effort to get rid of it to advantage, rather than letting it spill out, and probably further reducing the tendency for tackles to lead to congestion at the moment.

If they were going to tidy it up at all, a rule where if the ball is dislodged in the tackle, its HTB. As it stands at the moment (officially) if the ball is knocked clear in the tackle, its not HTB (as there was no 'incorrect disposal'). This rule is not applied consistently however, with some being paid and some not (due to the difficulty in adjudicating it).

I don't think this is about being knocked out as such, it is because the umpire decided he didn't have prior so had no onus to make a correct disposal. If you hold on to it forever and it gets knocked out, the umpire will still ping you for HTB, it is just that 'forever' is now almost becoming literally forever, so we are not seeing it done very often.

I could get with a new interpretation of 'If the ball gets knocked out in a tackle, it's Holding the Ball, even though there was no incorrect disposal of the ball by the ball carrier.'

Which is exactly what Clarko is saying, basically stop giving the ball carrier so much leeway on prior opportunity and the problem goes away is what Clarko is saying (because knocking the ball out after you have prior will be HTB). He has been saying this for 5 years now. The rules committee should just let Clarko decide the interpretations, he was right 5 years ago when he said it, and he was right again tonight. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Topkent]

So... literally every inside midfielder in the AFL becomes obsolete overnight?

Blokes like Cripps are regularly standing up in congestion, holding the ball, with one or two blokes hanging off them. If you implement a rule whereby if you're grabbed with the ball (no need for incorrect disposal)its HTB, taggers are going to have a field day (wrap up the play maker the instant he gets the ball, and its your kick unless he gets rid of it), and the game will devolve into a game of soccer, where players will be too scared to take possession in congestion lest they get done for HTB.

Or players will get bigger and stronger as inside mids so that they can't be tackle easily?

 

[mehow2g]

Its been gone for years, I particularly question when they pay holding the ball in front of goals in a tight game.

 

[M Malice]

Yep, one of my pet peeves is when a tackle is laid and the ball spills out and the umpire calls play on when it drops to the advantage of the tackled team, the decision should be one of.... incorrect disposal > holding the ball > free kick.... incorrect disposal > play on if ball drops to the advantage of the tackling team... or ball up > no prior.

Never should the ball drop out and be called play on if it is to the advantage of the team that drops the ball, teams bloody "spill" the ball on purpose, they have it down to a fine art.

 

[btdg]

Imo this is definitely the case, and it is compounded by the ‘prior opportunity’ rule. It’s too subjective and inconsistent.

just clarify the rule so it is simple: if a player takes possession of the ball, they must dispose of it legally. Ball knocked out in the tackle? Free kick. Ball locked in? Free kick. Spun around 4x but got a handball away? Play on.

This is how it is applied for the ‘dragged it under’ situation in packs, and it works well. And every free kick paid in this case prevents a stoppage, which prevents congestion forming

 

[stmookeyj]

This comes from an umpiring perspective, players these days are so good at positioning their body in the tackle so that it's going to be virtually impossible for umpires to detect whether they disposed of the ball legally, as well as being so good as getting a legal handball away if the arms are pinned. If the umpire can't see for certain that the ball was disposed of illegally, then we get into a dangerous situation where we guess if someone is disposing properly or not, which is the last thing from a game and safety standpoint that everyone wants to see.



The concern I also have with tighter interpretation is that players are also so good at pinning the ball or the tackler after the free is given, allowing the defence who know how long it generally takes from tackle time to the awarding of a free to flood back, leading to slow safe play. Of anything awarding more frees in open play would exacerbate the congestion issues by shifting them from around the pill to the defensive half. And it happens in all grades instinctively rather than being taught.

 

[The 747]

Current interpretation is shocking. Players have been dropping the ball in tackles for about 5 years and getting away with it.

Agree Clarko is correct here, it is a blight on the game. Pay incorrect disposal, yes it will lead to a lot of free kicks for a few rounds and then players will adjust and stop doing it. They only do it now because they are allowed to drop the ball without being pinged.

 

[Wallaby]

There's a difference between 'disposing' of the ball and dropping it.
Disposal is a deliberate action by the player - he gets tackled he must handpass or kick it away.
However, if the ball is knocked out of his hands in the tackle, that is not incorrect disposal since the player did not mean to dispose of the ball.

If he is tackled legally and has both arms pinned and cannot kick or handpass the ball away, that is holding the ball (he needs some opportunity to dispose of it - ie a brief moment - prior if you will). If he is tackled by one arm and is therefore unable to kick it or handpass it legally away, that is either holding the ball, or incorrect disposal if he does an illegal handpass or misses his kick. If he drops it at a result of the tackle - ie, the tackling player has not knocked the ball out of his hands - that is incorrect disposal.
I don't agree with paying holding the ball immediately a player gets tackled after having prior - he still has to have some chance to dispose of it after being tackled - but he must do it legally. If he has prior, and the ball gets pinned to him and he cannot dispose of it - that's holding the ball. If he has prior, gets tackled and the ball gets knocked out of his hands - that is not 'incorrect disposal'.

That's how I would like to see it paid.

 

[FRUMPY]

Play on....

That video is the only part of the game ive seen and ive got questions:

1. Why the hell are the umpires wearing white? How hard is it to put them in a colour neither team has in their uniform (for example: Green or Red)?

 

[FRUMPY]

Changing the holding the ball rule will have little to no effect on how the game is played - how many ****ing rule changes have we had to 'improve' the game and we are almost at an all time low for quality of games

Coaches coach teams to play boring/negative football - no rule change will fix this. Clarko was just annoyed he got no free kicks for 70 odd tackles

 

[Kanga Commando]

I'm one to reward those who go after the ball, rather than those who hold back and sweat on the tackle. Ball knocked out in the tackle with no prior - play on for mine. One arm pinned with no prior - ball up for mine. The key to everything is prior opportunity.

You make a very important point....Players are taught to tackle by pinning the arms. Players like Selwood and Puopolo ( and others ) get around this by shrugging the tackle and drawing a free.

If you are tackled, with arms free, and dont dispose of it legally straight away, you are gone..

Oh - and if you try "dont argue" and are caught, you are done... Very obvious example was Jed Anderson in the last quarter

 

[TheDoor]

I agree with Clarko. I've been getting more disillusioned with the direction of the game over the last few years.

There is also another thing I find frustrating is to do with one of the aspects that I thought was a fundamental to the game. That is, rewarding those that actually make the ball their focus, particularly when the ball is on the ground. The holding the ball given to a player that got first to the ball, has 3 guys on their back, doesn't even end up having the ball, has another players arm around his neck, and he's the one in the wrong? Ridiculous. If I was to formulate the rule it would be this:

1. If the ball is in dispute, the player that gets to the ball first is protected.
2. If that player is on the ground an opposition player comes in lands on their back, grabs them around the neck, or touches their head, free kick. The tackler must make the ball their objective, or if they want to tackle the player, they need to be make sure they don't infringe.
3. Once a player is in possession of the ball, that player is deemed to have had time to correctly dispose of the ball if, before they are tackled, three seconds has passed. If they are tackled correctly before that and the ball is locked in, call for a ball up straight away. Umpires wait far too long when calling for a ball up. Watching games from the 80's and 90's, umpires made much quicker decisions.
4. If a player has had time, then unless the player in possession does not kick or handpass the ball, then that player is deemed to be holding the ball. If the ball is knocked out, bad luck, you had time. Free kick.
5. One the player has disposed of the ball correctly, then the next player who is in possession of the ball is given the same latitude. That is, no team holding the ball.


I'm sure there are problems with this, but I just want the ball getter to be protected, but if they have had time, tackler rewarded. So what if there are more free kicks or ball ups, players will adjust. Anyway, my two cents.

 

[FRUMPY]

I agree with Clarko. I've been getting more disillusioned with the direction of the game over the last few years.

THe game has been diplorable for a very long time - there are barely any highlights in a game, watch the 'mark of the week' highlights - they are just boring marks. Its a game of keepings off and no-one wants to score.

THe issue is - no rule change will imporve it, infact just about every rule change has had the opposite effect of what it was brought in for, then they make another rule change to offset the new rule.

Coaches coach to not-lose and that is the issue and wont change.

 

[Superstar swan]

Incorrect disposal has been atrocious for years, the swans played an nrl team in the 2016 gf

 

[Maylandsman]

Current interpretation is shocking. Players have been dropping the ball in tackles for about 5 years and getting away with it.

Cotchin got away with a ripper last year 9finals I think). Absolutely dropped the ball and you expect the whistle but play on. Happens all the time. The way I interpret it in juniors and believe how it should be, no hand or foot...dropping the ball.