Rules Today's Pathetic Kneejerk Reaction To The "Holding The Ball" Backlash
- Thread starter LordLucifer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 17, 2009
- 6,332
- 7,433
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I'm not sure I agree with that. My take is there was no directive, but dangerous tackles have been eliminated. A tackle has no defined endpoint any more; the players don't have a way to "complete" them, and the umpires are conditioned into there being some sort of end point for them to adjudicate.
Having said that, it was obvious from round 1, the AFL likely ran with it for 3 months before addressing it, in some misguided belief that spectators prefer completely open games without stoppages.
- Aug 17, 2009
- 6,332
- 7,433
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Hmm. What gets counted as a tackle? There were 135 tackles last night and only 54 clearances from general play stoppages. If Carlton only got one HTB, I'm pretty sure Port didn't get 80.
Even allowing for tackles credited to two or more players that seems a big discrepancy. Do the statisticians count multiple tacklers for a single player being tackled? Only one can win a free kick.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,610
- 43,732
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I remember GAJ laid 17 or 18 tackles one game. A couple of times he was 2nd man in and once the ball was over the boundary line. I dont lend too much weight to some of the stats.
- Aug 17, 2009
- 6,332
- 7,433
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I can only assume it is one or both of two things:
- tackles are counted that do not end in a stoppage or free kick, ie the tackled player correctly disposes of the ball
- tackles are credited to multiple tacklers
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,610
- 43,732
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
True, but if you lay 100 tackles youd assume youd get more than one free kick for HTB.
My point of reference is previous seasons. Just from a spectator and eyeball test I do not recall the rules on htb being so terribly adjudicated. When you read the rules on prior opportunity common sense should prevail. The time given for players to dispose is well and truly night and day ahead of anything rational at the moment. Some players have even been tackled once, broken free from the first tackle, then tackled again… more time allowed… then play on when the ball falls out.
The directive to me looks clear, do not pay it and let the ball come out because we believe the game will become faster with less ball ups or htb paid.
What I would prefer the AFL to crack down on is time wasting when htb is paid… the amount of times players slowly get up, fumble for a minute, professionally refuse to give it back to help their defensive structures set up… this has been a pet peeve of mine for years and could be cracked down on for mine. The players know exactly what they are doing with this, and would adjust quickly if frees are paid against.
"let's all just stand around and tackle the first loser who goes for the ball"
- Aug 17, 2009
- 6,332
- 7,433
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Why? If 30 tacklers are second/third man in and 30 times the tackled player gets rid of the ball, you could have 39 stoppages and 1 free kick.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,610
- 43,732
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
When you watch games does it appear that way to you?
Maybe for a Dogs fan where they have been dropping or throwing the ball since 2016, but most other clubs dont do this. There are dozens of tackles every game where it should have been HTB based on the rules, but the umpires let it go because their priority was to keep the ball moving.
That's an AFL thing, not an umpire thing. And again as we saw last night, in the 1st quarter they started paying HTB too much (a player gets tackled as soon as he gets the ball, and still managed to get a kick away, but gets pinged HTB) and then walked it back later in the game.
They dont know what they are doing. If all they did was look at prior opportunity and ignored the rest they could blow the whistle quickly and either ball it up or pay a free. This was the case in the game until the 1990s when the AFL Execs felt the need to meddle with everything.
A tackle is (i think) defined as something like making intentional legal contact with an opponent in possession of the ball that leads to an ineffective disposal or stoppage.
So if you bump and they turn it over that is a tackle. If you wrap them up but they get a handball to a team mate = no tackle.
I thought last night the players responded by quickly kicking when in possession which opened the game up, and no doubt also inflated the tackle stats (i don't think Sam Walsh had 13 legit tackles, i think he was grabbing at an opponent who shanked a quick kick 13 times).
The new interpretation was still really inconsistent and went the way of the home team - but that is inevitable, i guess.
The really stupid thing seems to be that is now feels really dependent on how the tackle is executed (assuming no prior). Based on last night:
- if you pin both arms = ball up, no matter what
- if you pin one arm only = holding the ball, despite there being no legal way to dispose of it and no prior
I guess swinging people around in chicken wing tackles is what the AFL is hoping for, though?
- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,328
- 12,353
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Looked like they were only trialling the new rules on Carlton last night.
Port players could do no wrong. Holding the ball. Dropping the ball. Illegal disposals. Throws. Anything goes at Adelaide Oval..
Port players could do no wrong. Holding the ball. Dropping the ball. Illegal disposals. Throws. Anything goes at Adelaide Oval..
- Aug 17, 2009
- 6,332
- 7,433
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I think it's difficult to compare with previous seasons since tackling technique has progressively become more limited over the last four or five years.
There has been the "star subsidy" for a while where elite players are allowed forever to get rid of the ball. Judd being the most well known, but Martin, Cripps, Dangerfield and others have all benefited from it as well. This season far more players have been allowed this extra time, I would argue because fewer tacklers take the ball carrier to ground now.
Interestingly, without the "spirit of the law" clause, there should be no broken tackles. When you are tackled - which is merely grabbing the body or uniform of a player - you must immediately dispose of the ball. You should not be able to take 15 steps and a bounce before disposing of the ball just because you broke free of the tackler's grasp. But is that really something we want to eliminate from the game? It is doubtful that even that the interpretive clause allows it, as it is principally about recognising that "immediately" does not mean "instantaneous".
Lol, ha ha that Daicos tackle in the forward line was HTB every day of the week!
- Aug 17, 2009
- 6,332
- 7,433
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I largely agree with you, I just don't think the tackle count is a reliable indicator of how many HTB frees should be paid. A Carlton supporter said they only got 1 last night, I would think that Port got no more than 5 at most (wasn't counting, didn't see the first quarter). There were 135 tackles laid. Around 60 led to stoppages, if the definition given by btdg is right (and secondary tacklers don't get counted) another 70 or so led to an ineffective disposal.
The statistic doesn't tell me anything, but watching games I do agree with you that it needs to be paid more often, and more quickly. The rule says if you're tackled you have to get rid of it. If you are not trying to dispose of the ball, prior opportunity doesn't matter. And if you did have prior, you don't have another 3 seconds to find the best option.
The laws of the game have been constantly changing for over 150 years, and AFL execs and other custodians of the game have been interfering the whole time. It's all cyclical, I remember a period in the 80s with many turgid games because the umps never paid HTB, just stoppage after stoppage.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 42,124
- 91,979
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Our game was designed to move continually
That’s what makes it so much better than the world’s most god-awful game, rugby (union).
No grappling
No wrestling
No jumping on the ball
No holding up the play
No HOLDING THE BALL.
It’s bloody simple. If you have the ball and you are tackled (legally), you have to kick or handball it immediately.
Keep. The. Game. Moving.
If you don’t, it’s holding the ball and a feee against you.
Holding the ball. The clue is in the phrase. You’re not allowed to hold the ball.
It has been made worse by idiot after idiot making error after error in trying to change it.
That’s what makes it so much better than the world’s most god-awful game, rugby (union).
No grappling
No wrestling
No jumping on the ball
No holding up the play
No HOLDING THE BALL.
It’s bloody simple. If you have the ball and you are tackled (legally), you have to kick or handball it immediately.
Keep. The. Game. Moving.
If you don’t, it’s holding the ball and a feee against you.
Holding the ball. The clue is in the phrase. You’re not allowed to hold the ball.
It has been made worse by idiot after idiot making error after error in trying to change it.
Carlton supporters complaining about umpiring is laughable when their two key forwards get looked after more than anyone else.
Rules have been crap ever since Hocking came in. Kick out, ruck nominations, 666, stand - piss off those changes and see things improve.
Rules have been crap ever since Hocking came in. Kick out, ruck nominations, 666, stand - piss off those changes and see things improve.
- Thread starter
- #42
SSSSSS
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 18, 2011
- 22,198
- 51,186
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Six decades of domination
Apart from a few howlers in the Hawks Crows game where they were very hot on the whistle, I thought it was interpreted rather well.
It's a refreshing change to see the tackler rewarded and helped reduce the amount of stoppages.
It's a refreshing change to see the tackler rewarded and helped reduce the amount of stoppages.
Feel sorry for the umpires. The AFL has cooked this one. The inconsistency is staggering.
- Jun 9, 2008
- 12,328
- 12,353
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Same outcome as every other AFL rule change - it was better before.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,682
- 23,066
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
People seemed to be fairly happy with the new interpretation after the Port vs Blues game.
I wonder how everyone feels after a full round and now that most teams have had a game under the new rule?
I wonder how everyone feels after a full round and now that most teams have had a game under the new rule?
I hated it. Seeing blokes getting pinged with no prior opportunity at all didn't seem right to me. You need to give the ball winner a chance not the other way around.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 35,039
- 34,591
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #50
I can’t remember a time when the standards of the game have been in as much disrepute when it comes to enforcement of the rules.
The game has been over tweaked , over umpired and over ruled to the point it’s become unwatchable.
Rather that simplifying the rules to be clear in their meaning they’ve added more stupid rules which do nothing but make umpiring more complicated than it needs to be
Similar threads
