Solution to tackling / HTB issues

[Deeluded]

We seem to be in an endless cycle of trying to tweak the interpretation of holding the ball decisions - usually it is about reducing congestion and increasing the flow of the game. It is perhaps always going to be contentious / controversial as each scenario is different and there's always cases that don't neatly fit the rule. Plus umpires have to have split second decisions that are highlighted and over analysed following the game.


As a result this suggestion probably has it's own limitations but thought I'd throw it in there to see what other people think:

What if there was a rule that only one person can tackle a player at a time (or at least when they're on the ground)? Why? Because once a player goes to ground there is a pile on. One side is usually trying to lock the ball in to force a ball up (but are pretending to try and get it out) and the other team is locking the ball in but try to show the other team is not making an attempt to get rid of the ball. It results in so many unfair free kicks (both ways) as the umpire is unable to see what is actually going on.

If there are only two players on the ground then it is obvious the tackler is locking the ball in and it is obvious if the player with the ball is not making an effort to get rid of it.

I think (someone else will know better) Hockey has this kind of rule regarding the number of people that can go after a ball in dispute?

There would obviously be some unintended consequences of this type of change: Initially free kicks will be given when there is more than one player from one team tackling / in a scrummage on the ground. Maybe this creates new confusion but I don't think it would. If anything, there will be clearer holding the ball decisions and the ball will also spill out more often which will reward the teams that are spreading from the contest which will help the flow of the game.

Thoughts?

 

[M Malice]

It's about time we had something new to discuss on the main board.

 

[Deeluded]

I can only try

 

[Sherrinator]

I liked the Dees method on Sunday of just dropping the ball at the first sign of a tackle.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

There really needs to be a moratorium on 'ideas' for AFL. All ideas from the last 20 years banned and revoked.

 

[Deeluded]

I liked the Dees method on Sunday of just dropping the ball at the first sign of a tackle.

Fair. Though maybe as he were always getting to the ball first thanks to Gawn in slippery conditions and were being tackled before taking possession?

But this isn't so much about that - it's about the pile ons you get to try and force a ball up or holding the ball

 

[Deeluded]

There really needs to be a moratorium on 'ideas' for AFL. All ideas from the last 20 years banned and revoked.

Do you believe the game was "perfect" in 2000? I don't like a lot of the changes but as coaching strategies evolve surely there has to be some changes to incentivise teams to play an attractive brand of football.

What I miss most about footy in the 90s and before is the one on one battles. Especially the key forwards v key backs but also with the best midfielders going head to head. Whether it was Carey v Jakovich, Voss v Buckley, Ablett v Silvangi - but I can't see coaches abandoning a team defence approach and I don't think there's a way to change the rules to get that back without destroying the game completely.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

Do you believe the game was "perfect" in 2000? I don't like a lot of the changes but as coaching strategies evolve surely there has to be some changes to incentivise teams to play an attractive brand of football.

What I miss most about footy in the 90s and before is the one on one battles. Especially the key forwards v key backs but also with the best midfielders going head to head. Whether it was Carey v Jakovich, Voss v Buckley, Ablett v Silvangi - but I can't see coaches abandoning a team defence approach and I don't think there's a way to change the rules to get that back without destroying the game completely.

I agree that we can never unlearn team defence and go back to the 1 v 1 battles of old, but I've rarely seen a rule change actually have a positive effect on the game, usually they just have unintended consequences that make the game worse. The HTB situation is ridiculous, when I was kid in the 90s there was none of this confusion. If you got tackled with the ball and you could have gotten rid of it, if it wasn't a high tackle or a tackle 'in the back' it was HTB every time. There was no just throwing the ball away 'knocked free in the tackle' it was holding the ball and everyone tom dick and harry knew it was.

The game used to have simpler rules that were OBVIOUS to all and sundry, now they have made it so complicated that noone including players umpires and coaches actually know what the hell is going on.

 

[Yojimbo]

Ask Alistair.

 

[SavDog23]

If you don't kick it or handball it, regardless of prior opportunity, it should be a free kick.
The only decision the ump then needs to make is if the player disposed it correctly.
No more just dropping the ball as soon as someones tackled.

 

[scottyt2]

The HTB rule is fine - the umpires/rules committee are just not adjudicating it properly. Players with prior opportunity are dropping the ball and not getting pinged...everyone at home can see it, why cant the umpires?

 

[Alesana]

Only employ Umpires who actually have experience playing the game. Would you hire a driving instructor who has no actual driving experience?

 

[Demontim275]

Half the issue is when the ball is at ground level and a player grabs it and is tackled, the umpire waits 10 seconds, while watching that the ball was never going to come out (both players holding it in), and then pays holding the ball

It’s dumb. The balls at the bottom of a scrum. It was never coming loose. And it wasn’t because one team held it in, both teams do it. The umpire creates a free kick to avoid a ball up.

there’s really no incentive to go for a ground ball in congestion. You’re better off waiting for an opponent To grab it then laying a tackle.

 

[Coops93]

Half the issue is when the ball is at ground level and a player grabs it and is tackled, the umpire waits 10 seconds, while watching that the ball was never going to come out (both players holding it in), and then pays holding the ball

And other times they blow the whistle almost instantly. It's bizarre that one moment they're blowing right away and balling up then the next incident they decide they'll wait a while and ping you.

Either wait every time or blow it quickly every time. Changing between the 2 makes it unfair for everyone.

 

[Demontim275]

And other times they blow the whistle almost instantly. It's bizarre that one moment they're blowing right away and balling up then the next incident they decide they'll wait a while and ping you.

Either wait every time or blow it quickly every time. Changing between the 2 makes it unfair for everyone.

I feel they blow it quickly if it’s the first stoppage, but once there’s been a few in a few minutes they decide they need to clear it.

 

[gafgggr]

Do you believe the game was "perfect" in 2000? I don't like a lot of the changes but as coaching strategies evolve surely there has to be some changes to incentivise teams to play an attractive brand of football.

What I miss most about footy in the 90s and before is the one on one battles. Especially the key forwards v key backs but also with the best midfielders going head to head. Whether it was Carey v Jakovich, Voss v Buckley, Ablett v Silvangi - but I can't see coaches abandoning a team defence approach and I don't think there's a way to change the rules to get that back without destroying the game completely.

Im afraid those magnificent battles of great players playing on each other are way gone, and such a shame too, what we have now is embarrasing, the rolling scrum is so hard to watch. On a previous post a suggestion was made (penalizing the third tackler), great idea, eliminate the time wasted waiting for the rucks to get to the throw up, allow the third man up again, (this usually resulted in a big punch away from the contest and opened up the game.

 

[Deeluded]

So would limiting it to one tackler once they go to ground work then (what I suggested in the original post). I reckon it wouldn't (as surely they would have tried it) but yet to hear why it wouldn't work.

 

[Shaunbkk]

We seem to be in an endless cycle of trying to tweak the interpretation of holding the ball decisions - usually it is about reducing congestion and increasing the flow of the game. It is perhaps always going to be contentious / controversial as each scenario is different and there's always cases that don't neatly fit the rule. Plus umpires have to have split second decisions that are highlighted and over analysed following the game.


As a result this suggestion probably has it's own limitations but thought I'd throw it in there to see what other people think:

What if there was a rule that only one person can tackle a player at a time (or at least when they're on the ground)? Why? Because once a player goes to ground there is a pile on. One side is usually trying to lock the ball in to force a ball up (but are pretending to try and get it out) and the other team is locking the ball in but try to show the other team is not making an attempt to get rid of the ball. It results in so many unfair free kicks (both ways) as the umpire is unable to see what is actually going on.

If there are only two players on the ground then it is obvious the tackler is locking the ball in and it is obvious if the player with the ball is not making an effort to get rid of it.

I think (someone else will know better) Hockey has this kind of rule regarding the number of people that can go after a ball in dispute?

There would obviously be some unintended consequences of this type of change: Initially free kicks will be given when there is more than one player from one team tackling / in a scrummage on the ground. Maybe this creates new confusion but I don't think it would. If anything, there will be clearer holding the ball decisions and the ball will also spill out more often which will reward the teams that are spreading from the contest which will help the flow of the game.

Thoughts?

Wow. Was watching the Dogs Richmond game 3 min to go 3rd quarter. That's what happened. 2nd player jumped on..to me ..i'n the back' as he has pushed the Richmond tackler hard into the player with possession. To me, it has always been obvious coming from playing in the 70s 89s and watching the footy of the 90s 2000s..before the decline. should be maximum two tacklers standing, one on the ground or free to the ball holder. Also, why should a player stand back, wait for the opposition to gain possession so he (and his gang) can tackle. That's NOT Australian Rules Football sorry younger people. The reward for the man attacking the ball was the THING. Now it's get him holding the ball at any cost. If the Media were as clever as they think they are, they would see this too. Who agrees?

 

[Obeanie1]

Well the sample size of games is increasing and we should start seeing players adjust what they do in games. I have seen some really clever plays from players getting tackled, mid tackle they drop the ball onto a boot for a little 3 or 4 meter kick to a team mate and off the ball goes.

One player who I have noticed has improved is Nelson at the Eagles. Under the old rule it was clear Nelson had beencoached to take the tackle and create a stoppage. Sometimes (more often than fans liked) he would get pinged.

Now with the new rule Nelson IMO looks like a different player. He is attacking the ball and moves it on, when he is tackles he somehow gets and handball or kickout. His confidence has sky rocketed and is now rebounding and drilling some very nice kicks.

People may debate the rule change but here I can see a benefit to the game.

Has anyone noticed changes in players performances / style benefiting?

Feel this change has taken some control away from the coaches and players can play a more natural creative game.

 

[Sherrinator]

Good rule but too many players just clean drop the ball and get away with it. Was rife v Melbourne and they were clearly coached to do so. Milking the “holding on” free.

 

[Atomboy]

Seb Ross.

Rather than going in to get the ball and instantly turning it over, he no longer gets the ball so has no chance in turning it over.

He and the team have improved as a result.

 

[M Malice]

Good rule but too many players just clean drop the ball and get away with it. Was rife v Melbourne and they were clearly coached to do so. Milking the “holding on” free.

Yer the continual dropping of the ball should be called incorrect disposal, the genuine attempt call by umpires is shite as well.

 

[WilloTree]

The umpires are just as confused as the general public. Except the umpires will tell you they are clear on what is htb and when it should be paid a free kick.

Listening to Margetts on SportFM confirmed he has no idea what the rule is.

 

[damochandler]

When you allow a player to get rid of the footy after running 30 meters and get tackled to the ground. There is something wrong with the rule. There 3 parts to the rule, the afl have made the rule complicated

 

[Duskfire]

Maybe I don’t pay enough attention, but was there a problem with the rule to begin with? Why was it tweaked? It seemed fine ten years ago? I understand the need to make up congestion but I don’t know if holding the ball rule is the answer.

There have been times when a player gets tackled immediately and has his arms pinned and can’t do anything and it’s called. Or the ball will be in the ground and the player will fall over it trying to pick it up and get pinged. That isn’t the spirit of the rule.