Solution to tackling / HTB issues

[Obeanie1]

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.

All the umps need to do is back off on 5% of the calls. Get rid of those ify line ball decisions and it would be great.

This has opened the game up. Far less stoppages and more run and spread.

Ive been calling for this for years. Very happy with the change. A little bit of a tweak to stop those super tough calls and we are there.

 

[The Speaker]

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.

Wasn't fine 10 years ago:

Why the holding the ball rule is against the spirit of the game

It's great to have football back, but the current adjudication of the holding the ball rule needs some serious work, writes Jude Bolton.

www.espn.com.au

Bolton specifically identifies that problems emerged in the mid 2000s, due to his own team not having as many decisions against them as they should've!

 

[kranky al]

Imagine all of these stupid f#%} rules to stop congestion were revoked and we just had a minimum of 6 players on each side of the field

the absolute simplest thing in the world - job done

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Is the issue only in the incorrect disposal not being penalised, or is it also in identifying what constitutes prior opportunity? I might be talking out of my rear end here, but if identifying prior opportunity is an issue, could it be changed to maintaining possession for 2 seconds or more? (including bounces and fumbles)

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

Is the issue only in the incorrect disposal not being penalised, or is it also in identifying what constitutes prior opportunity? I might be talking out of my rear end here, but if identifying prior opportunity is an issue, could it be changed to maintaining possession for 2 seconds or more? (including bounces and fumbles)

If you have had time to handball it, then you have had prior.

 

[WodgerWabbit]

For the last couple of games the HTB interpretation has changed. It was for a few games, in some cases it was in some cases hub even if there was no prior opportunity. Now there are times where there is prior opportunity and people are deliberately holding the ball in and a bounce results. Also, incorrect disposal is rarely paid. I don't like the look of many games.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[eastfreo75]

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.

Yes he does, free kick West Coast.

 

[gawndog37]

I think the biggest problems with the umpiring is how subjective the types of decision they have to make (holding the ball, deliberate out of bounds). There is no absolute clear definition for them what is holding the ball and what is not, they have to make a judgement call every time which will lead to many poor decisions and constant backlash. If you look at other sports there is hardly any subjective decision the umpires have to make (e.g. fouls in basketball, soccer); there is specified rules on what is allowed and what is not allowed. The biggest problem with holding the ball is that there is no clear cut, specific, measurable rule on what is prior opportunity and what is not.

The AFL needs to bring a simple, measurable rule for prior opportunity interpretation. I think something like a 2 step rule would work. If you get the ball and are tackled within taking 2 steps there is no prior opportunity, thus cannot be holding the ball. If you get the ball, take 3 or more steps, and are then tackled and don't get a kick or handball off, you have had prior opportunity, and it is holding the ball. Maybe 2 steps is too much, maybe it could be reduced to 1, i'm not too sure what would be most effective but it would give the umpires a clear, measurable rule to follow which means they won't have to make subjective decisions. The umpires are meant to be watching for steps/metres taken anyway for the run too far rule so it shouldn't be too hard for them to adapt to.