What happened to PRIOR OPPORTUNITY?

[Strawbs]

Anyone seen it? It seems to have disappeared from the rules. I watched the Geelong/Hawthorn game last week, the Richmond/Geelong game today and the Swans/Hawthorn game tonight. Boy, are they brutal on the bloke trying to make the play! Now, more than ever, you're far better off letting your opponent take possession and then just locking the ball in. Prior opportunity is dead. You could see a few blokes ask the umpire after they were pinged - the look on Malceski's face tonight was priceless. Same for Matthew White today.

 

[Riggy1]

Anyone seen it? It seems to have disappeared from the rules. I watched the Geelong/Hawthorn game last week, the Richmond/Geelong game today and the Swans/Hawthorn game tonight. Boy, are they brutal on the bloke trying to make the play! Now, more than ever, you're far better off letting your opponent take possession and then just locking the ball in. Prior opportunity is dead. You could see a few blokes ask the umpire after they were pinged - the look on Malceski's face tonight was priceless. Same for Matthew White today.

I think the umpires saw Porplyzia's handball from last year, and figured out that if you have it for 0.07 seconds you have prior oportunity.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Anyone seen it? It seems to have disappeared from the rules. I watched the Geelong/Hawthorn game last week, the Richmond/Geelong game today and the Swans/Hawthorn game tonight. Boy, are they brutal on the bloke trying to make the play! Now, more than ever, you're far better off letting your opponent take possession and then just locking the ball in. Prior opportunity is dead. You could see a few blokes ask the umpire after they were pinged - the look on Malceski's face tonight was priceless. Same for Matthew White today.

This year the AFL made it clear, if you take on a tackler, you've had PO. Could this be the cause of some of the confusion?

 

[Strawbs]

This year the AFL made it clear, if you take on a tackler, you've had PO. Could this be the cause of some of the confusion?

Taking on the tackler is definitely Prior Opportunity. But in several games in the first two rounds, blokes are getting pinged without ANY Prior Op. One bloke on the weekend was tackled before he even had clean possession and was still penalised.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Taking on the tackler is definitely Prior Opportunity. But in several games in the first two rounds, blokes are getting pinged without ANY Prior Op. One bloke on the weekend was tackled before he even had clean possession and was still penalised.

I'd really have to see the incidents before I could comment. Do you have any youtube links to some of these?

 

[borgsta2006]

Taking on the tackler is definitely Prior Opportunity. But in several games in the first two rounds, blokes are getting pinged without ANY Prior Op. One bloke on the weekend was tackled before he even had clean possession and was still penalised.

Were the players arms free? The only reason I can think of why HTB would be paid. If a player has Prior Opp, the ball isn't pinned and the player doesn't dispose within A REASONABLE TIME, then it is also HTB. This is the only reason I can think of and I have seen many examples of this over the first two rounds. Players are able to get rid of the ball but don't want to for fear of turning it over. What they are doing is holding the ball essentially.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Were the players arms free? The only reason I can think of why HTB would be paid. If a player has Prior Opp, the ball isn't pinned and the player doesn't dispose within A REASONABLE TIME, then it is also HTB. This is the only reason I can think of and I have seen many examples of this over the first two rounds. Players are able to get rid of the ball but don't want to for fear of turning it over. What they are doing is holding the ball essentially.

Good point. I've actually heard umpires say this when paying holding the ball, and questioned about PO. When ever you're tackled, you must attempt to dispose of the ball, regardless of PO. Unfortunately, not all the umpires seem to know this. I've also seen on far too many occasions, a play being tackled make no attempt what so ever to dispose the ball, and still get off.

 

[Bob_vic]

Were the players arms free? The only reason I can think of why HTB would be paid. If a player has Prior Opp, the ball isn't pinned and the player doesn't dispose within A REASONABLE TIME, then it is also HTB. This is the only reason I can think of and I have seen many examples of this over the first two rounds. Players are able to get rid of the ball but don't want to for fear of turning it over. What they are doing is holding the ball essentially.

I paid one exactly like this on the weekend. The player took possession, tucked it under one arm and barrelled his head into the oncoming tackler. The whole time, the ball was still free under one arm. The ball wasn't trapped and the player made no attempt to dispose, even after I gave him a lifetime get rid of it - holding the ball everytime.

The player went apeshit at me, but the player only had himself to blame.

 

[Bob_vic]

I've also seen on far too many occasions, a play being tackled make no attempt what so ever to dispose the ball, and still get off.

It all comes down to whether the umpire believes that the ball is trapped to his body or the ground, and whether an opposing player also has joint possession of the ball. In these instances, a bounce is the correct decision, regardless of whether the player made an attempt.

Notwithstanding, players in the AFL purposely try to ride the ball into the ground in an attempt to force a bounce. (ie. a "forced" trapping of the ball) If the player did have an opportunity to make an attempt within a reasonable time, it is HTB.

A player must make an attempt when the ball is NOT trapped. That's why tackling by one arm is a good tactic because it takes away the player's option to make an attempted handball (if he does, it's always a throw), and then must try to drop the ball and throw his boot at it.

 

[relapse]

Vlad got hungry so he ate the rule book and invented stupid new rules in their place.

 

[Bone Crusher]

It all comes down to whether the umpire believes that the ball is trapped to his body or the ground, and whether an opposing player also has joint possession of the ball. In these instances, a bounce is the correct decision, regardless of whether the player made an attempt. and then must try to drop the ball and throw his boot at it.

I disagree. The rules say the player must make an attempt to dispose. It doesn't say that the player doesn't have to make the attempt is said attempt would be futile. It could be glued to his jumper, you've still got to make the attempt.

A player must make an attempt when the ball is NOT trapped.

Again, that's not what the rule says.

15.2.3-b
has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if,
upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly
Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after
being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

It makes no mention of the ball being locked in, or how that negates the necessity for the play to attempt disposal.

No offence, but I think this highlights a problem with the game. Umpires not applying the rules as they're written, but interpreting them to means something slightly difference, which leads to all umpires having slightly different interpretations. This is why sometimes, when the ball is locked in, and the player makes no attempt, he gets pinged by one umpire, and let off by another. Umpires should adjudicate to what the rules say, not to what they think the rules mean.

That's why tackling by one arm is a good tactic because it takes away the player's option to make an attempted handball (if he does, it's always a throw), and then must try to drop the ball and throw his boot at it.

In this situation, if he hasn't had PO, then it doesn't really matter. All he has to do is make the attempt to kick it. The kick only needs to eventuate if the player has had PO.

 

[Bob_vic]

It all comes down to whether the umpire believes that the ball is trapped to his body or the ground, and whether an opposing player also has joint possession of the ball. In these instances, a bounce is the correct decision, regardless of whether the player made an attempt. and then must try to drop the ball and throw his boot at it.

I disagree. The rules say the player must make an attempt to dispose. It doesn't say that the player doesn't have to make the attempt is said attempt would be futile. It could be glued to his jumper, you've still got to make the attempt.

How can a player attempt to dispose, if the ball is obviously held to him or the ground? The simply answer is that he can't. That's why there's no requirement for him to attempt. The umpire will only ping he player when he reckons that the ball WASN'T held to him. e.g. tackling by one arm and the ball is free in the other. You'll always hear the AFL umps say "no chance" or "held to him" and call for a bounce when the ball is held to the player, even when he didn't make attempt.

15.2.6 Football held to the body of the player
The field Umpire show bounce the football when a Player, in the act of applying a correct tackle, hold the football to the body of the Player being tackled of the football is otherwise pinned to the ground, unless the Player being tackled has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the fooball, in which case Law 15.2.3(a) shall apply.

Read ALL the rules relating to HTB. All of them apply to specific instances. In the specific rule for this instance, there's no mention of a player needing to make an attempt. If there was such requirement written into the rules, it would definitely be a nonsense rule.

In regards to tackling by one arm, I did write "try" to drop the ball and throw a boot at it. I didn't say the player had to successfully make contact with the ball. The player won't be penalised for attempting to correctly dispose (in a "no prior opp" situation).

 

[Bone Crusher]

How can a player attempt to dispose, if the ball is obviously held to him or the ground? The simply answer is that he can't. That's why there's no requirement for him to attempt. The umpire will only ping he player when he reckons that the ball WASN'T held to him. e.g. tackling by one arm and the ball is free in the other. You'll always hear the AFL umps say "no chance" and call for a bounce when the ball is held to the player, even when he didn't make attempt.

15.2.6 Football held to the body of the player
The field Umpire show bounce the football when a Player, in the act of applying a correct tackle, hold the football to the body of the Player being tackled of the football is otherwise pinned to the ground, unless the Player being tackled has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the fooball, in which case Law 15.2.3(a) shall apply.

In regards to tackling by one arm, I did write "try" to throw a boot at it, I didn't say the player had to successfully made contact with the ball.

I stand corrected. Although, I have seen on many occasions, a player be pinged when the ball was held to him, and the umpire tell him it was because he didn't make an attempt.

 

[Bob_vic]

I stand corrected. Although, I have seen on many occasions, a player be pinged when the ball was held to him, and the umpire tell him it was because he didn't make an attempt.

I guess that's when there's always going to be differences of opinion. One person will say that the ball is trapped, another will say that it isn't. The ump's usually in the best position to tell that. Cameras from 100m away can sometimes not tell the whole story.

Sometimes, the player will get tackled and the player will wait in the tackle until the ball does get eventually held to him. ie. the tackle doesn't get held to him in the first instance.

 

[Bob_vic]

I stand corrected. Although, I have seen on many occasions, a player be pinged when the ball was held to him, and the umpire tell him it was because he didn't make an attempt.

I guess that's when there's always going to be differences of opinion. One person will say that the ball is trapped, another will say that it isn't. The ump's usually in the best position to tell that. Cameras from 100m away can sometimes not tell the whole story.

Sometimes, the player will get tackled and the player will wait in the tackle until the ball does get eventually held to him. ie. the tackle doesn't get held to him in the first instance.

 

[borgsta2006]

Good point. I've actually heard umpires say this when paying holding the ball, and questioned about PO. When ever you're tackled, you must attempt to dispose of the ball, regardless of PO. Unfortunately, not all the umpires seem to know this. I've also seen on far too many occasions, a play being tackled make no attempt what so ever to dispose the ball, and still get off.

All AFL and VFL standard umpires should be very aware of this. I know the VFL blokes will be well drilled by Mitch.
If the player's arms are free, they are given a reasonable time to dispose. It then essentially is up to the player to dispose or attempt to dispose of the ball.
If no attempt is made, HTB, if an attempt is made, then it should be play on.
The rules are all there, as Bob Vic said, it is just a matter of the spectator correctly understand ALL of them!!!

 

[Bone Crusher]

The rules are all there, as Bob Vic said, it is just a matter of the spectator correctly understand ALL of them!!!

True. But from what I've seen, some umpires think that the ball being held
to the player relieves him of the responsibility to attempt to dispose, while other umpires still think he need to make the effort to avoid a HtB decision.

 

[borgsta2006]

Ball held to player with no prior opp should always be HTB, unless player who has ball held to him has made no effort to dispose....

 

[Bone Crusher]

Ball held to player with no prior opp should always be HTB, unless player who has ball held to him has made no effort to dispose....

That's what I think. But bob_vic says it should be a bounce. It looks like the rules aren't completely clear. In 15.2.3, it says it's holding the ball, but in 15.2.6, it say a bounce is the correct course of action. Personally, I think 15.2.6 makes the assumption that the player has attempted to dispose of the ball.

 

[Bob_vic]

In a case where it is totally obvious that the ball is held to the player, I don't expect the player to try to make an attempt, as per the law. A player cannot attempt when it is obvious that it's impossible. e.g. player picks up the ball and is immediately tackled from the front. There's absolutely no chance of an attempt.

In a case where I need more evidence, I'm not totally convinced that the ball is held to him/the ground, or I'm on the wrong side of the pack, I do expect the player to make an attempt to "prove" to me that the ball is indeed held to him. Most umps will say "knock it out". Even if the player still does nothing, then it's the ump's call. The ump will usually give the benefit of the doubt to the player with the ball, but not always. It's one that cannot be explained in words. A call must be made taking into account all factors.

The "phantom handball" is a good example. The player pretends that the ball is held in by repeatedly handballing the ball back into himself. In this example, the ump will usually not be fooled and pay HTB.

Then there are the cases where it is totally obvious that the ball is NOT held to the player. In these cases, the player must attempt to correctly dispose within a reasonable time.

Once it is proven obvious that the ball isn't going anywhere and the ball is held to the player or the ground, the requirement for attempting ceases to exist.

BTW, I think Borgsta made a typo... I think Borgstra meant that the ball held to the player with no prior opp should always be a bounce (that's what the law says), unless he didn't attempt. I think Borgstra would agree that he doesn't penalise for "not attempting" when the player is wrapped up and there's obviously no chance of the player being able to make an attempt. Otherwise, where it is impossible to make an attempt, the player with the ball would always be pinged for HTB, which obviously doesn't happen and definitely not the intent of the law. Once the umpire has adjudicated that the ball is held to the player, the specific law makes no mention of the player having to make an attempt.

Hope that clarifies it...

 

[Bone Crusher]

Hope that clarifies it...

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that all players must at least make an attempt where possible. Note, that's where it's possible to make an attempt, not possible to make a successful attempt. Surely that would be less open to interpretation, and wouldn't rely on the player knowing whether or not the ump can see that he can't dispose of the ball.

 

[Bob_vic]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that all players must at least make an attempt where possible. Note, that's where it's possible to make an attempt, not possible to make a successful attempt. Surely that would be less open to interpretation, and wouldn't rely on the player knowing whether or not the ump can see that he can't dispose of the ball.

In the real world, I don't think there's any difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying.

If it's possible to attempt, then the ball mustn't be held to the player.
If it isn't possible to attempt, then the ball must be held to the player.

It can only be one or the other, under the laws. It makes total logical sense. It can't be made anymore black and white.

If the umpire is unsure or is blind-sighted, then he must give the benefit of the doubt to the player with the ball. ie. bounce - no free kick. (It says so in the accreditation manual.)

I understand that anything could be possible, but when umpiring, reasonable limits must prevail. Any doubt must go to the player with the ball, not to the tackler.

Everybody knows when the ball is obviously held to to the player and a bounce is to occur. It's not rocket science. There's no need to keep play going unnecessarily. (Keeping play going by waiting too long to blow the whistle can cause other problems, e.g. starting a wrestle, fight, etc.)

It's the 50/50 ones that everyone can debate about. Most of the 50/50s shouldn't be paid. Umpires should be awarding only the blatant and obvious free kicks.

Whether you think the AFL umps are doing this is a totally different debate, but the umps are instructed at all levels everything I have mentioned here. I do agree with you that the AFL umps don't always seem to pick up when the ball is not held to the player (usually in a pack situation), but on TV there are numerous camera angles compared to just the one angle of the umpire, and even that angle maybe obscured. This is where the benefit of the doubt comes in. There shouldn't be any guessing. I don't seem to have trouble picking when the ball is held to the player and when it isn't, but then again, I don't have 8 TV cameras pulling apart my decisions... It always seems easier that what it actually is. Remember, the umps' angle of view is lower than that of the TV camera and also the majority of the crowd. A TV camera and the crowd also don't have to run around a field, then make a decision. Fatigue and concentration can also affect the umps and also the players. Even the fittest athletes can still fall victim to fatigue. Making a decision on the run can also be difficult because your vision bobbles, although this doesn't really apply to a pack situation where the play is basically stationary.

 

[borgsta2006]

BTW, I think Borgsta made a typo... I think Borgstra meant that the ball held to the player with no prior opp should always be a bounce (that's what the law says), unless he didn't attempt. I think Borgstra would agree that he doesn't penalise for "not attempting" when the player is wrapped up and there's obviously no chance of the player being able to make an attempt. Otherwise, where it is impossible to make an attempt, the player with the ball would always be pinged for HTB, which obviously doesn't happen and definitely not the intent of the law. Once the umpire has adjudicated that the ball is held to the player, the specific law makes no mention of the player having to make an attempt.
Hope that clarifies it...

Typo definitely made my friend

 

[Strawbs]

And I've just seen one of the most frustrating examples of no prior opportunity in the Swans/Blues game where the bloke gets pinged because he copped a shocking handball from his teammate. I call it the "crap handball free." YOU STILL NEED TO GET PRIOR OPPORTUNITY!

 

[ManInWhite]

Not that we get anything more than milliseconds to decide but what I sometimes use as a sanity check is think along the lines not so much of "am I correct by paying holding the ball" but "would I be incorrect by not paying holding the ball". Sometimes turning the spin on the situation helps it answer itself.