Moved Thread Incorrect Disposal Interpretation

[D-N-R]

Taking possession of the ball so it can be balled up is a tactic.

A strict interpretation on htb will mean players who can't take possession of the ball need to knock it clear to someone who can.

Plenty of teams play like this now as it keeps the ball moving. It encourages players to move away from their teammates rather than towards them.

If you're quick enough with your hands then you'll still be able to take possession and dish off.

Imagine explaining the rule to someone new to the game:
"If you're caught with the ball and don't handball or kick it, it's htb."

No prior opportunity rule, no trying to explain that even though the player didn't dispose of the ball correctly, he was trying to do it, except that time because he had a fraction more time.

 

[hk89]

What he's saying is that if you ping incorrect disposal, the pack clears instantly.

Yes, and the way you do that without a rule change, is to simply stop giving so much leeway on prior opportunity. This is an umpire interpretation (hand down by the AFL), not an actual rule issue, which Clarko was very clearly saying. The reason they are not getting pinged for incorrect disposal is because dropping it or having it knocked out isn't incorrect disposal if you are deemed not to have had prior opportunity. So really the core issue is prior opportunity here, not incorrect disposal. Players are still getting done for incorrect disposal, they are just given WAY too much leeway on prior so they are not getting pinged often enough for it.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Players are still getting done for incorrect disposal...

You don't watch many Bulldogs and Richmond games huh?

 

[hk89]

You don't watch many Bulldogs and Richmond games huh?

Not as much as Clarko, and yeah those two - especially Bulldogs - have perfected the exploitation of the current situation. The rule is still there and being used, just nowhere near often enough for Clarko's liking (because of the prior opportunity interpretation), and I daresay he's right, and most supporters seem to agree (apparently, as does Gil based on AFL comments today).

 

[OnTheRocks]

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

BF gonna BF
This is definitely one of the dumbest things I've ever read on BF

 

[PowerForGood]

I do find it insightful that, in trying to promote attacking football, the rationale is to further encourage and reward defensive actions.
Seems counter intuitive to me. But others know better.

 

[Scotland]

Not sure it has been touched on yet, Clarkson is right about HTB - but coaches don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to free flowing footy.

I only saw some of Hawthorn vs North yesterday but North did what we did vs Port and kicked around in circles in the back half and struggled to get the ball forward of centre. Hard to gauge from the TV camera angle but that generally happens when the opposition sets up an 18 man zone, footy's version of parking the bus. When Hawthorn were good it was 'Clarko's cluster'. When we were good it was 'Weagles' web'. Every team does it.

Even if you change the interpretation of HTB, you are still going to have congested footy with 20-30 players within a kick of the play a lot of the time. If Clarkson coached his team to play that way teams played in the 80s and 90s then North probably would've won by a couple of goals with the burst of momentum they had in the 4th quarter. Coaches coach so their teams win, not to necessarily play attractive footy.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

What i would like to see is one man one tackler.
Sick of seen a player brought to the ground and players pile on.
If a secondary player joins the tackle free kick against.
Any high contact on the ball carrier even if they are on the ground, free kick for the ball carrier.
If you lay on the back of the ball carrier, free kick against.

Players and coaches have no integrity in regards to the rules of the game, they are the problem.
The rules are there and always have been, the AFL decided to interpret them differently for what ever reason.
This isn't a 2020 problem, this has been happening for over 10 years.

 

[The mighty Hawks]

if you grab the ball when you know you will be tackled and just absorb the tackle it's holding the ball, you must make an attempt to tap or somehow move the ball on or be penalised.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If a secondary player joins the tackle free kick against.

There's a bit of logic that in most cases where what you've described happens - there's actually an infringement.

Quite often the 3rd man jumps on top - then a 4th dudes jumps on him. There's no logical option really, other than to ping that 4th dude for Holding The Man.

 

[jabba5114]

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

This. Thought of been me bieng biased but found myself getting angry at it watching a game of two teams i dont support. Rakes me out of the game so much

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Obeanie1]

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.'

Disagree. Totally.

Players wont be scared to get the ball they will simply be forced to quickly move the ball on. Its as plain as day how quickly players can move the ball on when they want to. Less than a second. And if they do get instantly tackled they simply need to genuinely try and get rid of it.

It is common knowledge players are coached to not move the ball on. Just take the tackle and the umps wont penalise you. Create a stoppage and we set up defensively again. THIS is what is killing the game. Not rewarding tackles and rewarding negative tactics.

Just dont go stupid with the whistle like they have with 'dangersous tackles' especially near goal.

 

[Obeanie1]

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.

Stop sensationising things.

Cripps would still go in just as hard and be just as effective. He's 195cm and if he gets tackled like you say he would stand up and handball away. He actually tries to move the ball on and he does.

AFL players are fast enough and skillful enough to move the ball on it is just riskier. Take more risks opens up play and helps attacking football. The other result is turnovers and counter attack......more goals.

Inside mids who jump on the ball to just lock it in and create a stoppage will be penalised and thats a bloody good thing.

Get ball. Move ball on. Or get pinged. Whats the problem?

 

[Obeanie1]

I'm no senior coach, so grain of salt and all that.

Need to encourage getting the ball, not tackling.
Attacking football requires having the ball, unless you're wedded to a defensive / counter attacking game.

The reward for tackling should be that you've halted the opposition momentum, and created a potential turnover, not an automatic free kick.

The number of illegal tackles / off the ball scragging and holding / "anything goes" tackles in packs / tacklers holding the ball in to get a free kick / etc is bad enough as it is. Umpire that better and watch how much more attacking the game is.

Unpopular opinion I'm sure.

Correct, it is an unpopular opinion.


Need to encourage players to move the ball on and take more risks.

How do you do that when you let players take tackles and and get what they are instucted to do, create another defensive stoppage?

Stop rewarding defensive, stoppage tactics.

Encourage faster and riskier ball movement. Thats what crowds want and thats what football used to be played like.

 

[PowerForGood]

Correct, it is an unpopular opinion.


Need to encourage players to move the ball on and take more risks.

How do you do that when you let players take tackles and and get what they are instucted to do, create another defensive stoppage?

Stop rewarding defensive, stoppage tactics.

Encourage faster and riskier ball movement. Thats what crowds want and thats what football used to be played like.

Football 'used to be' a low tackling game. It's not anymore because players are far fitter, better organised defensively, and importantly are rewarded for defensive play.
Why reward it even more?

 

[Scotland]

Players shouldn't be rewarded for tackling, they should be rewarded for good tackling. Look at rugby, any 120kg no-neck can tackle someone and bring them to ground, but gun flankers like McCaw and Pocock know how to win turnovers at the breakdown.

People get excited about players getting 10 tackles a game but it's like getting excited about players getting 30 disposals when there are 100+ more disposals per game than there were in the 90s. Stoppage, tackle. Stoppage, tackle. Repeat.

 

[hk89]

Football 'used to be' a low tackling game. It's not anymore because players are far fitter, better organised defensively, and importantly are rewarded for defensive play.
Why reward it even more?

It is not just about rewarding the tackler, it is about punishing the guy with the ball if he choses to be risk averse, and hold on to it instead of moving it on. People go on about looking after the guy who is actually playing the ball, but the issue is that often the guy with the ball is just playing for a stoppage, and I see no reason why rewarding that is good for the game.

From what I've seen so far this weekend , the interpretation is leading to more free flowing play. Wonder what the actual stoppage number stats say, if someone can be bothered adding it up, would be interested to see average stoppages this week compared to last week, although a 1 week sample probably isn't enough to say anything conclusive.

 

[PowerForGood]

It is not just about rewarding the tackler, it is about punishing the guy with the ball if he choses to be risk averse, and hold on to it instead of moving it on. People go on about looking after the guy who is actually playing the ball, but the issue is that often the guy with the ball is just playing for a stoppage, and I see no reason why rewarding that is good for the game.

From what I've seen so far this weekend , the interpretation is leading to more free flowing play. Wonder what the actual stoppage number stats say, if someone can be bothered adding it up, would be interested to see average stoppages this week compared to last week, although a 1 week sample probably isn't enough to say anything conclusive.

And that's where we get to differ.
Paying holding the ball is absolutely correct, that's what it's for.
All the s**t congestion dragging scragging gang tackling holding scrums that we've introduced because of the fitness aspects and defensive coach mindsets means that the average ball player gets literally zero time to do anything.
Want the ball? Hunt the ball.
Want free flowing? Stop rewarding the scrum.
But that's just my opinion as a very very amateur coach, not the experts.

 

[hk89]

Want free flowing? Stop rewarding the scrum.

Not pinging the ball carrier when he decides to absorb the contact and create a stoppage instead of trying to get rid of it IS rewarding the scrum.

 

[billybloggs]

I would have thought that the third person up at ruck contests would go a long way to freeing up congestion but was canned by the AFL powers to be in order to save a position from extinction. Maybe a rethink?

 

[PowerForGood]

Not pinging the ball carrier when he decides to absorb the contact and create a stoppage instead of trying to get rid of it IS rewarding the scrum.

Rewarding the tackle, yes.

The scrum is all the other crap you're allowed to do on a field that is not the tackle. All designed to make it as hard as possible for the player who gets the ball.
Get rid of that, and I believe you then can pay HTB even without prior opp if you wanted.

The football you'll get by enhancing and encouraging tackling will be another step down in quality because ball disposal will be way too rushed.

Think of how the ball moves in sports where you don't actually get a free kick for tackling, or can't tackle. That's the kind of ball movement we should aspire to as a sport, because the unique scoring and the option to mark the ball means you very very rarely win by "parking the bus".

I'm enjoying this topic btw.

 

[HawkMongrel]

I love it.

Clarko points it out.

We’re pretty clearly being punished for it as a club for daring to speak ill of the AFL.

Most people will laugh, mock Clarko, have a good time about it all.

And the fact that the AFL is as corrupt as FIFA will be completely overlooked.

But hey, * da Horks and all that.

 

[damochandler]

It’s the one where a player runs 30 meters and then gets tackled to the ground and is still given time to get rid of the ball. When they do everyone stops

 

[Obeanie1]

Football 'used to be' a low tackling game. It's not anymore because players are far fitter, better organised defensively, and importantly are rewarded for defensive play.
Why reward it even more?

Because illigal disposal is a rule that has been diluted too far.

Because conceeding in a tackle and rewarding the player is not good for any game.

Encouraging fast ball movement improves the game and increases scoring.

The players arent going to get less fit or tackle less unless major changes are made.

Dont reward negative defensive tactics. Tackling is not negative btw, its a form of offence, lay a great tackle and get the decision, kick the goal. Much beter than encouraging rucks and mauls.

 

[PowerForGood]

Because illigal disposal is a rule that has been diluted too far.

Because conceeding in a tackle and rewarding the player is not good for any game.

Encouraging fast ball movement improves the game and increases scoring.

The players arent going to get less fit or tackle less unless major changes are made.

Dont reward negative defensive tactics. Tackling is not negative btw, its a form of offence, lay a great tackle and get the decision, kick the goal. Much beter than encouraging rucks and mauls.

Yeah, well you'll get your wish soon enough, and we'll see which direction the quality of the game goes.
I have my views. And they are pretty much in alignment with the direction most other rules changes have taken us in the last 20 years.