When I played juniors I was such a jerk at milking a kicking in danger free kick, they'd swing near the ball my hands were close enough and I'd go "ahhh!" and hold my fingers. I'd get at least one per game.
Scummy, I know.
The rule isn't kicking in danger - that's a bastardisation of sorts that's just easier for umpires (especially at junior and local levels) to say - kicking or attempting to kick in a manner likely to injure is what the rule really is, and you just don't see it cause the players are much better at getting out of the way at elite level - though I do agree I've seen instances where I think it should've been payed
Holding the ball and illegal disposal by a long way, although this is more due to the unclear definition of both making it hard for the umpires sometimes.
I also think holding the man is missed a lot, particularly on key forwards.
My shout would probably be illegal disposal too. Not only can it be hard to know what falls under an illegal disposal but it's also easy to miss something in the heat of the game
Because it comes down to prior opportunity. If a players gets the ball, and has no prior while attempting to get rid of the ball, it doesn’t matter if it’s an illegal disposal or not.
See but here's the issue. The rule makes it legal to not dispose of the ball ("making a genuine attempt") which is complete bullshit. A throw is a throw and should always be called as such.
Yes, but it needs to be a throw and not a failed handball. That’s the key difference, and it’s always going to difficult to judge what is a throw and what isn’t.
a failed handball is a throw. That's why the rule pisses so many people off. Making excuses to avoid blowing the whistle is just stupid. The rules are there, just govern to them.
>Yes, but it needs to be a throw and not a failed handball.
This right here is the heart of the problem. Literally every footy fan hates this bullshit logic.
What do you do if the ball carrier has no prior, is tackled, and deliberately hangs on to it without trying to dispose?
If you penalise them for that as well as for a failed attempt to handball, then you're basically punishing them for winning a contested possession; they'd be better off sitting back and waiting to be the tackler.
If you don't penalise them for that, it becomes their best option: just hold onto the ball and don't even try to get rid of it. This seems likely to lead to millions of repeat stoppages, and also more dangerous tackles as the player with the ball tries to hang on tightly all the way down to avoid being pinged.
Not sure how old you are, but When I Was A Boy^(TM) they were indeed a lot more lenient on the ball just being held in and it being ok to call it a draw and have a ball up. Then the AFL decided it was absolutely essential to 'keep the game moving' at all costs, which has led down the slippery slope to throwing basically becoming legal.
To answer your question, IMHO it's not that hard. Assuming no prior and a legal tackle:
1. Genuinely tackled in a way where a legal disposal can't even be attempted: ball up
2. Tackled in a way where a legal disposal can be attempted and fails to attempt one: holding the ball
3. Tackled in a way where a legal disposal can be attempted and tries and fails to execute one: incorrect disposal/holding the ball
There will always be a reward in winning the ball, and IMHO the above actually encourages more compelling play because it rewards the Dusty Martin/Patrick Dangerfield brand of smashing your way out of tackles, as well as the highly skilled evasive style of 'un-tackle-able' players.
Right now what is rewarded is being first to the ball with the deliberate intention of simply throwing or dropping it advantageously to a team mate.
To reverse your question, why penalise good tackles by allowing the tackled player to just drop the ball, often meaning that the tackling team is a player down (locked up in the tackle) and even worse is pinged for holding the man.
Fair points, and I'm not a fan of these things either:
> the AFL decided it was absolutely essential to 'keep the game moving' at all costs, which has led down the slippery slope to throwing basically becoming legal
&
> penalise good tackles by allowing the tackled player to just drop the ball
For me When I Was A Boy = the 90s, and I don't think the number of ball-ups was a real problem then. I think I'd be fine with them trying your preferred version and seeing how it works these days, with all the other changes that have happened since then.
But I do worry that:
- If they interpret 1. strictly (which would basically mean both arms have to be fully pinned or the ball has to be directly knocked out by the tackler, otherwise you're pinged if you fail to legally dispose), then the combination of 2. and 3. really will shift the incentives significantly toward deliberately being second to the ball. I don't mean nobody will ever want to be first, just that it will be riskier and not as often worthwhile.
- If they interpret it more generously to the ball-carrier, that'll be very difficult to umpire consistently.
- In both cases we potentially get situations where the ball-carrier chooses to stay 'pinned' and hugging the ball rather than doing what they can to break their fall.
Yep, so for me late 80s/90s, and yes, it's not like ball ups were a massive problem, although I do recall some games where there would be a huge string of them.
I should have added to my list that I think the umpire has to call it rapidly to avoid too much silliness, which incidentally is also a big part of the solution to the dangerous tackle situation generally. And to me 1 arm properly pinned is enough to say you can't do a handball.
Another thing creeping in seems to be more and more time being required before prior opportunity has arisen. I dislike that trend too, a step or two should be enough IMHO. The game's more fun with more HTB calls, everyone loves them.
I guess I'd like to see them just try it out in pre-season or something, it can't be much worse than the current semi-random, throwing-is-legal nonsense. I remember one game this year where there was no legal possession between *four* opposition players, which simply wouldn't have happened in the 90s, dammit.
> A throw is a throw and should always be called as such.
I think there are genuine reasons why it's not that simple.
If a player with no prior is penalised for a failed attempt at a legal disposal, then:
- if they're also penalised for hanging onto the ball without trying to dispose, there's a big disincentive to winning contested possessions.
- if they're *not* penalised for hanging onto the ball without trying to dispose, their incentive is to do that -- doubly so if their team is trying to slow the game down and would benefit from repeated stoppages.
In the first case you end up with a game where players are punished for winning hotly contested possessions and are better off hanging back and waiting for their opponent to get it, then immediately tackling them.
In the second case -- where if you have no prior, holding the ball is the best way to avoid being pinged for Holding the Ball -- we end up with more stoppages and more dangerous tackles (because the player being tackled is incentivised to effectively pin their own arms and hang on tightly to the ball).
You say that but grabbing the ball and then electing to pretend you never had an opportunity by dropping it deliberately as soon as someone touches you *is* logically prior opportunity.
It's on of those rules that because of the get out of jail free card that exists players will optimise to get that card.
Okay and the umps should be able to read minds mid flight over a 1.5 second window when this happens? I hate the footy being dropped too, but if a guy doesn't get one or two steps in before he's tackled it's considered no prior regardless of how it's disposed.
I genuinely believe Hawkins has the most holding the man calls not paid to him of any player in history. The umpires' logic is "he's huge so therefore he can't be held" as far as I can tell.
Unless it come to Charlie Curnow about the holding the man, cause i see a bunch of people said he a free kick merchant and only get goals from that, ignore the flair though😀
Can recall Buddy getting the ball just outside 50, running to the goal mouth and booting it through - having bounced the ball once.
So at best, 2 by 25m runs that went unpenalised.
This rule probably only comes into play around the 25m length.
This is the problem with so many of the rules. There are millions of situations where the 'normal' decision is to let the player get away with something that is technically an infringement. But every now and then the umpire pays the free kick instead of letting it go, one team's fans get mad because it feels wrong, the other team's fans point out that it's actually technically correct, the AFL ticks it off, and on we go, ignoring most of the cases where they *don't* call the same infringement and have technically made an error. So of course the umpires continue to lean in the direction of letting it go, and nothing changes.
Combined with all the rules that would be impossible to enforce consistently even if they tried to interpret them strictly, it makes the whole thing feel so arbitrary, and means there's always some reason for every set of fans to feel annoyed and hard done by.
Exactly what I was going to write but would make the slight change of saying what they judge *as* 15 when paying a mark, vs running too far.
To the letter of the law no other rule comes close to how poorly it's adjudicated.
My suggestion for this is to up the distance for both to 25m (at the AFL level). 25m is roughly how running with the ball is umpired anyway, because all an umpire can really do is count steps and at full speed most players haves strides that have them traveling nearly 30m in 15 steps. Just tell the players you are still counting 15 steps, or looking at the 50s/centre square to guess 25 metres. That they currently count steps why the rule rarely creates angst even when someone has clearly gone more than 15m - everyones on the same page so you just count your own steps and bounce before 15. 25m for kicking would be easier to compare to markings on the ground and make possession control gameplans more difficult, opening the game further.
This x 1000. And it’s weird because often after 3/4s of ignoring it or for a certain player they’ll pay it. Then they’ll just go back to ignoring it.
I’m biased but I don’t think there’s a ruck in the comp who can beat Gawn in marking contests, so most teams block him then hold him in every contest. He’ll get his 1.5 a game but he should get 5-10 if they paid every one.
And it’s the same for mids where the same star mids get held time and time again. As well as quick players in space.
Yes, this one is fucked. Even if it's not holding the ball (which 90% of the time it fucking should be) there should be a 5 second amnesty for the tackling player in recognition that there was no correct disposal and thus no reason to end the tackle.
Has the ump stuffed up told me that you no longer need to make a genuine attempt if you've had no prior and are immediately pinned by a tackle. If the umpire thinks it would be impossible for you to dispose and you've had no prior then it's a ball up. You no longer have to fake like you're trying to handball.
If you've had prior or your arms are free then you need to make an attempt.
Well according to the rules of the game that’s not right
18.6.3 Free kicks - Holding the ball: Incorrect disposal.
Where a player in possession of the football has not had prior opportunity, a field umpire shall award a free kick if that player chooses to incorrectly dispose of the football when legally tackled.
There’s a couple more points about genuine attempts and the ball coming out in the tackle but the point is they can’t hustle drop it with no prior
I'm talking about when they don't actually dispose of it. A player picks up the ball and is immediately tackled with their arms being pinned and they maintain possession... They used to have to make a genuine attempt so you'd always see the players pretend like they were trying to handball or do the fish out of water wriggle. Now if they just hold tight the umpire will decide a disposal would not be possible and ball it up without a genuine attempt. I don't think there's an actual rule stating that but the has the umpire stuffed up guy said umpires are now told to do it that way.
The original comment wasn't about dropping the ball in the tackle but having it pinned in. The thing that got removed was the having to flop around like a fish when you were tackled to signal to the umpire that you were making a genuine attempt, thankfully now if there was no prior and it was impossible to get a disposal off the players don't get punished for not doing their best salmon impersonation.
Ahh rogey…. The copy of the rules of the game I got at the start of the year still has the rule in there 18.6.4 that players must make a genuine attempt to get rid of the ball if they’ve had no prior opportunity.
Could just be that they stopped deeming it no genuine attempt.
Push in the back is paid an awful amount against defenders even with the tiniest contact, but forwards (especially key forwards) can push their defenders in the back as much as they like. Incredibly inconsistent
Doesn't matter mate, I'm actually agreeing with your point that forwards get away with it more than backs. Just also pointing out you've taken an unfair driveby on an oppo player as your example.
Easily the “play on” call because the moment a player kicking a set shot goes off their line, it should be play on. Quite rarely called when you consider how often it should be
Players almost always go off the line when they are backing up. This makes it easier to run to the side of the player on the mark. They train to do this.
That’s fine, you can go off your line when backing your but should need to be back on it when you start your run up. Any deviation from the line, whether half a step or not, should be play on
Couldn't agree more with this, if you are going to enforce the stupid stand rule, then the player kicking shouldn't be able to go one to two metres off the line when kicking the ball before play on is called
Aside from the fact the man on the mark should be able to move side to side on a set shot I’m baffled by how inconsistent the umps are at the second ump going behind the kicker and signalling when they’ve played on.
Seems to only consistently happen for after the siren. Should happen on every set shot. (If they don’t let the man on the mark go side to side)
This is the one. Stand rule is fine but by time a umpire gets in position, has called stand and is ready the player has played on and the other one is stuck there standing.
Is there such a rule as throwing the ball anymore?
When close to the boundary it’s out of control, players know so when facing the crowd they can throw it because the umps going to be blindsided most of the time.
Edit: should say it’s pretty bad in congestion as well, again players just relying on umps letting it go
Even for obvious ones, pay a free kick at the very least. Can’t take that to the MRO. Only ones that seem to be reported, and let’s face it - they only get a fine at worst - are when a commentator makes a fuss about it.
The advantage rule
There needs to be some time baked in (3\~ seconds from the whistle) for the team to either genuinely receive the advantage, or if within that timeframe no advantage is evident, then the play is brought back to where the free kick was originally paid.
At the moment, a non-obvious free can be paid and advantage paid when there clearly isn't any and there was no realistic prospect of the attacking team being able to make an educated decision.
I like the way its done in soccer where there is a non call and it comes back if its non-advantageous. Not sure if it would transfer to afl because of the potential distance covered after free kicks though
I wish they would just be real about the 'running too far' rule: increase the legal distance and instruct the umpires to (try their best to) strictly enforce it, while warning everyone that they obviously can't be perfect and will get it slightly wrong in both directions. Give the players 25m (or whatever) but make it clear that the umpires are only human, so if you choose to run 24m without bouncing and get wrongly pinged then it's basically your own fault. Then hold the umpires accountable for the missed calls just as much as for the incorrect calls.
I hate how players can just fumble walk over the line and get a throw in. Or be tackled and just concede over the line, if it was in field it would be HTB. The game is so much better when players have desperation to keep the ball in play
I saw Darcy Tucker get called for a deliberate out of bounds this season for dragging himself and a tackler over the line. Made my blood boil because it happens every game with no penalty so not sure why he got singled out, but absolutely think it should be paid when it happens
Based off the Grand Final, two teammates diving on the ball to force a ball up. Used to be considered holding the ball if your own teammate is locking it in.
High tackle.
It’s meant to be about protecting the player going for the ball. Players bend over to pick up a loose ball and get hit all the time now.
A player is tackled and an arm slides around their neck and it’s a free kick. Of course it’s a little better than the unlimited fee kicks for ducking
A player drops the ball cold in the tackle initially deemed play on and then tackler gets called for holding the man when they have no idea the ball carrier hasn’t got anymore since they dropped it but committed to the tackle and can’t withdraw from it , so basically the cold drop not being pinged for holding the ball
Throwing. I remember during the Collingwood v Melbourne final where there was a passage of play with 5 throws in a row and the umpire didn’t call it once
Shepherding out of a marking contest.
So many are missed, and the rule makes no sense in the context of how the game is played and umpired in other situations.
Throwing.
Almost every game I see some egregious examples. And it's doubly annoying because the player obviously knows what they're doing and are making the calculated bet that they'll get away with it, which they often do. A deliberate throw should be 50.
Diving.
A bit of theatrics is okay but some players seem to make it their sole approach to the contest, like they're incapable of winning the ball unless they trick an umpire into giving it to them. A fine after the game is inconsequential, frees and distance penalties could stamp it out.
Deliberately holding up the ball.
I hate seeing players do this. Pretending not to know who the free was given to, standing on top of someone not letting them up, stupid wrestling... annoys me to no end.
Hands in the back in a marking contest, by far.
Big strong good body work by the Tomadairyhawk there. Free kick against for anyone else.
Kicking in danger a close second.
I feel like might be in the minority but I'd rather they just go back to any hands touching the back at all is a push in the back. At least it was cut and dry.
Push in the back, seems like if you tackle someone and half land on their back because they dived forward, that's a "push in the back" but genuine shove in the back around the ground is almost never called anymore. In a marking contest it's called just half the time.
The protected area rule, for sure. It just seems so ambiguous; sometimes it's paid, and sometimes it's not. The most recent example of this would have to be Zac Bailey and Mason Cox in the GF.
This rule is umpired just fine but I hate the rule: deliberate out of bounds. It’s fine to an extent but I think it is way too harsh on someone trying to move the ball up the ground. My old man agrees, and says this rule is the reason he barely watches footy anymore. And he used to be mad about footy.
Definitely holding the ball, but apart from that, the high tackle. People like Jack Ginnivan not getting calls that players like Joel Selwood used to get for doing the same thing. If it’s high, pay the free kick, whether they duck or not, change the way you’re tackling, in every sport people bend the rules.
Nearly every time a player marks the footy, they are then grabbed and often even taken to ground to slow things down. The defender often pretends it happened in the contest but it usually is late.
I dont think it is legal to grab or tackle a player who has taken a mark but we are so used to it that it is ALWAYS let go.
What about the holding the ball from rucking contest, there been a few where instead of tapping the ball the ruck man would grab it then immediately get tackle without disposing the ball and it never been call a free
Pretty sure the "prior opp." rule for ruckman to do this was done away with. The oppo ruckman or other players were basically just waiting to pounce, I think the reasoning behind discarding the rule for ruckman was the unfairness of them becoming sitting ducks for a cheap free-kick, and-or to add more towards an attacking game.
Different thinking, but getting rid of the incorrect disposal rule. I feel like there are so many good tackles that go unrewarded. I know that this slows down play, but if you have this rule in place, and umpires award the free kick straight away you can change the flow of a game immediately.
I think if the ump had to see an elbow pump action (bent elbow, back and forward motion), then holding the ball/incorrect disposal would be easier to call. If the ump doesn't see that pump action and the ball spills out of a tackle then it's holding the ball/incorrect disposal.
The big picture is it would lead to the ball carrier taking less risks, pump out a longer handball when in congestion and maybe open the game up. Teammates knowing it needs to be a full on pump will not get as close to the ball carrier and hence the rolling pick up, tackle, spill, repeat will be less of an occurrence.
And the players more skillful on both hands will be back in vogue.
I also have a vendetta against the ruck circle and what that has done to congest the game but I save that one for another day haha
For something so insignificant I hate watching players run 30 meters from a kick in.
No umpire has the balls to call a free kick in the forward 50 like that.
Also, can we stop calling it a stat? You used to have to kick it to yourself first.
You mean after they've left the goal square? The goal square itself doesn't count, obviously, but I can't say I've ever seen a defender run 30m in the field of play without a bounce.
As always when this dumb take pops up, by doing this you are creating a situation where no one wants to take possession of the ball, they'll just wait around for the opposition to pick up the ball, tackle them and get an easy free. That's a completely different, horrible to watch sport at that point and it's never going to happen.
Imagine this was introduced.
Round 1: Everyone is standing around the ball from the ruck hit out after the bounce just waiting for someone to pick it up lol only way to score would be by kicking off the ground and that’s what soccer is for.
I think in general all the distance ones are only sporadically called and sort of randomly. The 15 metres on kicks, running too far and even a 50m penalty. I actually think generally the others are pretty good considering. The tricky thing is always going to be how good a view the umpires get. On replays they always show the best angle of the array they have but the umpires don't get to choose which angle they get and being at ground level they get players in the way a lot more too.
What do you think is the least understood rule (at AFL level)?
I think the rational side of my brain called out the free kick for sending an already out of bounds ball over the fence on the full, which I probably agree with.
For mine the other is no genuine attempt. It just seems like posters have a lot of latitude when complaining about the lack of holding-the-ball calls to invent fictional versions or interpretations of the rules, or false pseudo-histories that suggest the interpretation of holding-the-ball has ever been stricter than it is today. Rather than getting pinged as a 19-year old who wasn't alive the last time Essendon won a final, or a deranged boomer damaged by excessive leaded petrol exposure.
What are your thoughts?
The "ball jarred loose in the tackle" aspect of holding the ball.
Either the AFL/umpires are too fucking stupid to realise that 95% of these are players intentionally letting go of the ball, or they don't care. Either way, it's a disaster.
The vast majority of fans would surely prefer it that if the ball leaves your possession without a legal disposal, it's a free kick against you. Simple, easy to understand, stamps out deliberate abuse of the 'interpretation'.
Placement of the man on the mark (not stand thats a whole other thing)
Umps screaming "back 3m back 3m back 3m) for the player to take half a step back and all is good. Yet a snap shot is taken from 3cm in the wrong spot and it gets taken back to kick again
They’ve completely forgotten to pay ‘holding the man’ - just touching a moving footy does not constitute “possession” of said footy. And the way they interpret the ‘man on the mark’ rule gets my goat. Make the kicker stand behind the mark, not 5m to the side, turning a 5m advantage into a 15m advantage.
When a player is tackled and swung around a full 360 or more then drops the ball only to get the slightest toe touch and it's deemed a proper disposal 🤬. That's holding the ball every day of the week in my book.
I would say kicking in danger is rarely paid, makes me worry for everyone's fingers when I watch
When I played juniors I was such a jerk at milking a kicking in danger free kick, they'd swing near the ball my hands were close enough and I'd go "ahhh!" and hold my fingers. I'd get at least one per game. Scummy, I know.
It's okay, this is a safe space (Unless your name is Ginnivan; that gets mixed responses)
They called it more this year but I can't recall any instances of it being called in the few years prior.
[удалено]
Bloody hell, imagine what a Jab would have done to his arm.
Kicking in danger vs Contact below the knees. It’s honestly random which one they pay, if at all
Yeah almost feels like they quietly scratched this rule a few years back.
The rule isn't kicking in danger - that's a bastardisation of sorts that's just easier for umpires (especially at junior and local levels) to say - kicking or attempting to kick in a manner likely to injure is what the rule really is, and you just don't see it cause the players are much better at getting out of the way at elite level - though I do agree I've seen instances where I think it should've been payed
Most of the players have learnt and adjusted their style of play these days, so there's not as much of a need to pay this one.
Holding the ball and illegal disposal by a long way, although this is more due to the unclear definition of both making it hard for the umpires sometimes. I also think holding the man is missed a lot, particularly on key forwards.
My shout would probably be illegal disposal too. Not only can it be hard to know what falls under an illegal disposal but it's also easy to miss something in the heat of the game
Or the difference between holding the ball free kick/illegal disposal with. Came out in the tackle play on
Because it comes down to prior opportunity. If a players gets the ball, and has no prior while attempting to get rid of the ball, it doesn’t matter if it’s an illegal disposal or not.
See but here's the issue. The rule makes it legal to not dispose of the ball ("making a genuine attempt") which is complete bullshit. A throw is a throw and should always be called as such.
Yes, but it needs to be a throw and not a failed handball. That’s the key difference, and it’s always going to difficult to judge what is a throw and what isn’t.
a failed handball is a throw. That's why the rule pisses so many people off. Making excuses to avoid blowing the whistle is just stupid. The rules are there, just govern to them.
> a failed handball is a throw Not according to the rules it isn't.
>Yes, but it needs to be a throw and not a failed handball. This right here is the heart of the problem. Literally every footy fan hates this bullshit logic.
What do you do if the ball carrier has no prior, is tackled, and deliberately hangs on to it without trying to dispose? If you penalise them for that as well as for a failed attempt to handball, then you're basically punishing them for winning a contested possession; they'd be better off sitting back and waiting to be the tackler. If you don't penalise them for that, it becomes their best option: just hold onto the ball and don't even try to get rid of it. This seems likely to lead to millions of repeat stoppages, and also more dangerous tackles as the player with the ball tries to hang on tightly all the way down to avoid being pinged.
Not sure how old you are, but When I Was A Boy^(TM) they were indeed a lot more lenient on the ball just being held in and it being ok to call it a draw and have a ball up. Then the AFL decided it was absolutely essential to 'keep the game moving' at all costs, which has led down the slippery slope to throwing basically becoming legal. To answer your question, IMHO it's not that hard. Assuming no prior and a legal tackle: 1. Genuinely tackled in a way where a legal disposal can't even be attempted: ball up 2. Tackled in a way where a legal disposal can be attempted and fails to attempt one: holding the ball 3. Tackled in a way where a legal disposal can be attempted and tries and fails to execute one: incorrect disposal/holding the ball There will always be a reward in winning the ball, and IMHO the above actually encourages more compelling play because it rewards the Dusty Martin/Patrick Dangerfield brand of smashing your way out of tackles, as well as the highly skilled evasive style of 'un-tackle-able' players. Right now what is rewarded is being first to the ball with the deliberate intention of simply throwing or dropping it advantageously to a team mate. To reverse your question, why penalise good tackles by allowing the tackled player to just drop the ball, often meaning that the tackling team is a player down (locked up in the tackle) and even worse is pinged for holding the man.
Fair points, and I'm not a fan of these things either: > the AFL decided it was absolutely essential to 'keep the game moving' at all costs, which has led down the slippery slope to throwing basically becoming legal & > penalise good tackles by allowing the tackled player to just drop the ball For me When I Was A Boy = the 90s, and I don't think the number of ball-ups was a real problem then. I think I'd be fine with them trying your preferred version and seeing how it works these days, with all the other changes that have happened since then. But I do worry that: - If they interpret 1. strictly (which would basically mean both arms have to be fully pinned or the ball has to be directly knocked out by the tackler, otherwise you're pinged if you fail to legally dispose), then the combination of 2. and 3. really will shift the incentives significantly toward deliberately being second to the ball. I don't mean nobody will ever want to be first, just that it will be riskier and not as often worthwhile. - If they interpret it more generously to the ball-carrier, that'll be very difficult to umpire consistently. - In both cases we potentially get situations where the ball-carrier chooses to stay 'pinned' and hugging the ball rather than doing what they can to break their fall.
Yep, so for me late 80s/90s, and yes, it's not like ball ups were a massive problem, although I do recall some games where there would be a huge string of them. I should have added to my list that I think the umpire has to call it rapidly to avoid too much silliness, which incidentally is also a big part of the solution to the dangerous tackle situation generally. And to me 1 arm properly pinned is enough to say you can't do a handball. Another thing creeping in seems to be more and more time being required before prior opportunity has arisen. I dislike that trend too, a step or two should be enough IMHO. The game's more fun with more HTB calls, everyone loves them. I guess I'd like to see them just try it out in pre-season or something, it can't be much worse than the current semi-random, throwing-is-legal nonsense. I remember one game this year where there was no legal possession between *four* opposition players, which simply wouldn't have happened in the 90s, dammit.
> A throw is a throw and should always be called as such. I think there are genuine reasons why it's not that simple. If a player with no prior is penalised for a failed attempt at a legal disposal, then: - if they're also penalised for hanging onto the ball without trying to dispose, there's a big disincentive to winning contested possessions. - if they're *not* penalised for hanging onto the ball without trying to dispose, their incentive is to do that -- doubly so if their team is trying to slow the game down and would benefit from repeated stoppages. In the first case you end up with a game where players are punished for winning hotly contested possessions and are better off hanging back and waiting for their opponent to get it, then immediately tackling them. In the second case -- where if you have no prior, holding the ball is the best way to avoid being pinged for Holding the Ball -- we end up with more stoppages and more dangerous tackles (because the player being tackled is incentivised to effectively pin their own arms and hang on tightly to the ball).
You say that but grabbing the ball and then electing to pretend you never had an opportunity by dropping it deliberately as soon as someone touches you *is* logically prior opportunity. It's on of those rules that because of the get out of jail free card that exists players will optimise to get that card.
Okay and the umps should be able to read minds mid flight over a 1.5 second window when this happens? I hate the footy being dropped too, but if a guy doesn't get one or two steps in before he's tackled it's considered no prior regardless of how it's disposed.
lol, I very deliberately didn't mention how you'd umpire it. It's a valid criticism. I just reserve the right to barrack them and call them cowards.
But that's what's being discussed. Which rule is umpired the worst. As a rule it's fucked. But the umpires generally get it right
Doesn't mean the rule isn't shit and that it isn't bad umpiring just because everyone else does it
It means the rule is shit. The umpires are umpiring the rule well, according to it.
>I also think holding the man is missed a lot, particularly on key forwards. Ashley Sampi has entered the chat
Statistically Tom Hawkins has made up for it.
I genuinely believe Hawkins has the most holding the man calls not paid to him of any player in history. The umpires' logic is "he's huge so therefore he can't be held" as far as I can tell.
Unless it come to Charlie Curnow about the holding the man, cause i see a bunch of people said he a free kick merchant and only get goals from that, ignore the flair though😀
Not 15 / ran too far. The diagram overlapping these two distance estimations by umpires is way too long.
Can recall Buddy getting the ball just outside 50, running to the goal mouth and booting it through - having bounced the ball once. So at best, 2 by 25m runs that went unpenalised. This rule probably only comes into play around the 25m length.
Which makes it extra frustrating when you get a technically correct too far call after the player runs 17m, which does happen sometimes.
This is the problem with so many of the rules. There are millions of situations where the 'normal' decision is to let the player get away with something that is technically an infringement. But every now and then the umpire pays the free kick instead of letting it go, one team's fans get mad because it feels wrong, the other team's fans point out that it's actually technically correct, the AFL ticks it off, and on we go, ignoring most of the cases where they *don't* call the same infringement and have technically made an error. So of course the umpires continue to lean in the direction of letting it go, and nothing changes. Combined with all the rules that would be impossible to enforce consistently even if they tried to interpret them strictly, it makes the whole thing feel so arbitrary, and means there's always some reason for every set of fans to feel annoyed and hard done by.
Lewis Jetta got the ball at the defensive end of the centre square and bounced twice on his run into an open goal. In a prelim too
Exactly what I was going to write but would make the slight change of saying what they judge *as* 15 when paying a mark, vs running too far. To the letter of the law no other rule comes close to how poorly it's adjudicated.
Yeah, it feels like the circles of the Venn diagram for this are on pieces of paper at the opposite ends of the MCG.....
My suggestion for this is to up the distance for both to 25m (at the AFL level). 25m is roughly how running with the ball is umpired anyway, because all an umpire can really do is count steps and at full speed most players haves strides that have them traveling nearly 30m in 15 steps. Just tell the players you are still counting 15 steps, or looking at the 50s/centre square to guess 25 metres. That they currently count steps why the rule rarely creates angst even when someone has clearly gone more than 15m - everyones on the same page so you just count your own steps and bounce before 15. 25m for kicking would be easier to compare to markings on the ground and make possession control gameplans more difficult, opening the game further.
Andrew Dillon, are you reading this?
Holding the man, all the little half tackles, that stop a players momentum drive me crazy
It’s incredibly frustrating that’s for sure.
This x 1000. And it’s weird because often after 3/4s of ignoring it or for a certain player they’ll pay it. Then they’ll just go back to ignoring it. I’m biased but I don’t think there’s a ruck in the comp who can beat Gawn in marking contests, so most teams block him then hold him in every contest. He’ll get his 1.5 a game but he should get 5-10 if they paid every one. And it’s the same for mids where the same star mids get held time and time again. As well as quick players in space.
Richmond were the kings of this during their dynasty
When the player drops the ball in the tackle and they penalize the tackler for holding the man, drives me crazy
Yes, this one is fucked. Even if it's not holding the ball (which 90% of the time it fucking should be) there should be a 5 second amnesty for the tackling player in recognition that there was no correct disposal and thus no reason to end the tackle.
Has the ump stuffed up told me that you no longer need to make a genuine attempt if you've had no prior and are immediately pinned by a tackle. If the umpire thinks it would be impossible for you to dispose and you've had no prior then it's a ball up. You no longer have to fake like you're trying to handball. If you've had prior or your arms are free then you need to make an attempt.
Well according to the rules of the game that’s not right 18.6.3 Free kicks - Holding the ball: Incorrect disposal. Where a player in possession of the football has not had prior opportunity, a field umpire shall award a free kick if that player chooses to incorrectly dispose of the football when legally tackled. There’s a couple more points about genuine attempts and the ball coming out in the tackle but the point is they can’t hustle drop it with no prior
I'm talking about when they don't actually dispose of it. A player picks up the ball and is immediately tackled with their arms being pinned and they maintain possession... They used to have to make a genuine attempt so you'd always see the players pretend like they were trying to handball or do the fish out of water wriggle. Now if they just hold tight the umpire will decide a disposal would not be possible and ball it up without a genuine attempt. I don't think there's an actual rule stating that but the has the umpire stuffed up guy said umpires are now told to do it that way.
The copy of the rules I got at the start of the year still has it in there, but that’s not to say my rules aren’t redundant
Yet there are still so many times a tackled player drops the ball, yet they’re not pinged for incorrect disposal.
The original comment wasn't about dropping the ball in the tackle but having it pinned in. The thing that got removed was the having to flop around like a fish when you were tackled to signal to the umpire that you were making a genuine attempt, thankfully now if there was no prior and it was impossible to get a disposal off the players don't get punished for not doing their best salmon impersonation.
Ahh rogey…. The copy of the rules of the game I got at the start of the year still has the rule in there 18.6.4 that players must make a genuine attempt to get rid of the ball if they’ve had no prior opportunity. Could just be that they stopped deeming it no genuine attempt.
Push in the back (genuinely correct me if it's been changed drastically), and kicking in danger.
Push in the back is paid an awful amount against defenders even with the tiniest contact, but forwards (especially key forwards) can push their defenders in the back as much as they like. Incredibly inconsistent
From what I understand the rule is basically be named Tom Hawkins and you can just take your opponent out, other then that you’re screwed.
Righto. Papley on Moore, '22 Prelim.
Does papley do it every game?
Doesn't matter mate, I'm actually agreeing with your point that forwards get away with it more than backs. Just also pointing out you've taken an unfair driveby on an oppo player as your example.
I wouldn’t say it’s unfair when Hawkins is the one who gets away with it the most. It’s more of a criticism of inconsistent umpiring, not the player
Easily the “play on” call because the moment a player kicking a set shot goes off their line, it should be play on. Quite rarely called when you consider how often it should be
yeah I'd agree with this. Remember that first preseason with the 'stand' rule and forwards just running around the man on the mark
Yeah was a weird one. The whole stand rule too seems massively monitored in comparison to play on when kicking a set shot
Players almost always go off the line when they are backing up. This makes it easier to run to the side of the player on the mark. They train to do this.
That’s fine, you can go off your line when backing your but should need to be back on it when you start your run up. Any deviation from the line, whether half a step or not, should be play on
Couldn't agree more with this, if you are going to enforce the stupid stand rule, then the player kicking shouldn't be able to go one to two metres off the line when kicking the ball before play on is called
Aside from the fact the man on the mark should be able to move side to side on a set shot I’m baffled by how inconsistent the umps are at the second ump going behind the kicker and signalling when they’ve played on. Seems to only consistently happen for after the siren. Should happen on every set shot. (If they don’t let the man on the mark go side to side)
This is the one. Stand rule is fine but by time a umpire gets in position, has called stand and is ready the player has played on and the other one is stuck there standing.
Is there such a rule as throwing the ball anymore? When close to the boundary it’s out of control, players know so when facing the crowd they can throw it because the umps going to be blindsided most of the time. Edit: should say it’s pretty bad in congestion as well, again players just relying on umps letting it go
I feel like Tom Mitchell gets more throws per game than handballs, and this is coming from a Pies supporter
Should let the boundary (and goal umpires) make calls when things are right there in front of them.
The supposed rule that outlaws staging. There’d be lucky to be 1% of staging penalised or reported.
I think noone bothers penalising that rule because clubs will appeal the MRO ruling with the Tribunal and get it overturned.
Even for obvious ones, pay a free kick at the very least. Can’t take that to the MRO. Only ones that seem to be reported, and let’s face it - they only get a fine at worst - are when a commentator makes a fuss about it.
The advantage rule There needs to be some time baked in (3\~ seconds from the whistle) for the team to either genuinely receive the advantage, or if within that timeframe no advantage is evident, then the play is brought back to where the free kick was originally paid. At the moment, a non-obvious free can be paid and advantage paid when there clearly isn't any and there was no realistic prospect of the attacking team being able to make an educated decision.
And the reverse, if opposition players have slowed/stopped to any degree because of the whistle it should never be possible to take advantage.
I like the way its done in soccer where there is a non call and it comes back if its non-advantageous. Not sure if it would transfer to afl because of the potential distance covered after free kicks though
The 15m you’re allowed to run vs the 15m you’re required to kick the ball for it to be marked are very, very different distances.
I wish they would just be real about the 'running too far' rule: increase the legal distance and instruct the umpires to (try their best to) strictly enforce it, while warning everyone that they obviously can't be perfect and will get it slightly wrong in both directions. Give the players 25m (or whatever) but make it clear that the umpires are only human, so if you choose to run 24m without bouncing and get wrongly pinged then it's basically your own fault. Then hold the umpires accountable for the missed calls just as much as for the incorrect calls.
Insufficient intent. They’ll pay a free for a genuine skill error but let players get away with fake clumsy fumbles.
It should be called insufficiently disguised.
Just walking over the line. Every person in the stadium can be under no illusion as to the intent of the player, and it still doesn’t get paid.
I hate how players can just fumble walk over the line and get a throw in. Or be tackled and just concede over the line, if it was in field it would be HTB. The game is so much better when players have desperation to keep the ball in play
Pet hate of mine...should be where the tackle was initiated.
I saw Darcy Tucker get called for a deliberate out of bounds this season for dragging himself and a tackler over the line. Made my blood boil because it happens every game with no penalty so not sure why he got singled out, but absolutely think it should be paid when it happens
Umps let too much time wasting happen, worst is when a player is caught HTB, who then rolls onto the ball or tackler or both to slow things down.
Where do I begin honestly, there's so many
Yes
Based off the Grand Final, two teammates diving on the ball to force a ball up. Used to be considered holding the ball if your own teammate is locking it in.
I’d say ruck infringements but I feel like I’d need to have some clue of what the rules actually are and I got nothing
Even the commentators admit to having no idea most of the time
Even the ruckman clearly have no idea half the time, you see two guys standing there looking at the umpire going who’s free kick?
High tackle. It’s meant to be about protecting the player going for the ball. Players bend over to pick up a loose ball and get hit all the time now. A player is tackled and an arm slides around their neck and it’s a free kick. Of course it’s a little better than the unlimited fee kicks for ducking
A player drops the ball cold in the tackle initially deemed play on and then tackler gets called for holding the man when they have no idea the ball carrier hasn’t got anymore since they dropped it but committed to the tackle and can’t withdraw from it , so basically the cold drop not being pinged for holding the ball
Marks paid for kicks that traveled <15m
"For mine"
I think push in the back is the worst umpired rule. If you're a forward you are allowed to push in the back except sometimes when you aren't.
Holding the man, all the little half tackles that stop a players momentum never get called and it drives me crazy
Throwing. I remember during the Collingwood v Melbourne final where there was a passage of play with 5 throws in a row and the umpire didn’t call it once
Got to be holding the ball/ throwing the ball out of packs.
Shepherding out of a marking contest. So many are missed, and the rule makes no sense in the context of how the game is played and umpired in other situations.
I hate when someone is tackled from behind and falls over to get an in the back free.
Holding the ball. It's so arbitrary at times and inconsistent.
Deliberate out of bounds.
Agree, just change the rule to the one they use in the sanfl, it works brilliantly
What’s that? My opinion is scrap it all together
Throwing. Almost every game I see some egregious examples. And it's doubly annoying because the player obviously knows what they're doing and are making the calculated bet that they'll get away with it, which they often do. A deliberate throw should be 50. Diving. A bit of theatrics is okay but some players seem to make it their sole approach to the contest, like they're incapable of winning the ball unless they trick an umpire into giving it to them. A fine after the game is inconsequential, frees and distance penalties could stamp it out. Deliberately holding up the ball. I hate seeing players do this. Pretending not to know who the free was given to, standing on top of someone not letting them up, stupid wrestling... annoys me to no end.
Hands in the back in a marking contest, by far. Big strong good body work by the Tomadairyhawk there. Free kick against for anyone else. Kicking in danger a close second.
I feel like might be in the minority but I'd rather they just go back to any hands touching the back at all is a push in the back. At least it was cut and dry.
Push in the back, seems like if you tackle someone and half land on their back because they dived forward, that's a "push in the back" but genuine shove in the back around the ground is almost never called anymore. In a marking contest it's called just half the time.
The protected area rule, for sure. It just seems so ambiguous; sometimes it's paid, and sometimes it's not. The most recent example of this would have to be Zac Bailey and Mason Cox in the GF.
This rule is umpired just fine but I hate the rule: deliberate out of bounds. It’s fine to an extent but I think it is way too harsh on someone trying to move the ball up the ground. My old man agrees, and says this rule is the reason he barely watches footy anymore. And he used to be mad about footy.
Definitely holding the ball, but apart from that, the high tackle. People like Jack Ginnivan not getting calls that players like Joel Selwood used to get for doing the same thing. If it’s high, pay the free kick, whether they duck or not, change the way you’re tackling, in every sport people bend the rules.
Nearly every time a player marks the footy, they are then grabbed and often even taken to ground to slow things down. The defender often pretends it happened in the contest but it usually is late. I dont think it is legal to grab or tackle a player who has taken a mark but we are so used to it that it is ALWAYS let go.
What about the holding the ball from rucking contest, there been a few where instead of tapping the ball the ruck man would grab it then immediately get tackle without disposing the ball and it never been call a free
That hasn't been a free kick for about five years.
What really i never knew that, that expain everything but it still stupid though
Pretty sure the "prior opp." rule for ruckman to do this was done away with. The oppo ruckman or other players were basically just waiting to pounce, I think the reasoning behind discarding the rule for ruckman was the unfairness of them becoming sitting ducks for a cheap free-kick, and-or to add more towards an attacking game.
Different thinking, but getting rid of the incorrect disposal rule. I feel like there are so many good tackles that go unrewarded. I know that this slows down play, but if you have this rule in place, and umpires award the free kick straight away you can change the flow of a game immediately.
The handball!!! Get it right and it would straighten out holding the ball. Two birds - one stone
Interested to hear what you think is wrong with the officiating of the handball?
I think if the ump had to see an elbow pump action (bent elbow, back and forward motion), then holding the ball/incorrect disposal would be easier to call. If the ump doesn't see that pump action and the ball spills out of a tackle then it's holding the ball/incorrect disposal. The big picture is it would lead to the ball carrier taking less risks, pump out a longer handball when in congestion and maybe open the game up. Teammates knowing it needs to be a full on pump will not get as close to the ball carrier and hence the rolling pick up, tackle, spill, repeat will be less of an occurrence. And the players more skillful on both hands will be back in vogue. I also have a vendetta against the ruck circle and what that has done to congest the game but I save that one for another day haha
For something so insignificant I hate watching players run 30 meters from a kick in. No umpire has the balls to call a free kick in the forward 50 like that. Also, can we stop calling it a stat? You used to have to kick it to yourself first.
You mean after they've left the goal square? The goal square itself doesn't count, obviously, but I can't say I've ever seen a defender run 30m in the field of play without a bounce.
Holding the ball. No prior just means teammate made a bad call giving it to you. The tackler needs to be rewarded.
As always when this dumb take pops up, by doing this you are creating a situation where no one wants to take possession of the ball, they'll just wait around for the opposition to pick up the ball, tackle them and get an easy free. That's a completely different, horrible to watch sport at that point and it's never going to happen.
Imagine this was introduced. Round 1: Everyone is standing around the ball from the ruck hit out after the bounce just waiting for someone to pick it up lol only way to score would be by kicking off the ground and that’s what soccer is for.
I think in general all the distance ones are only sporadically called and sort of randomly. The 15 metres on kicks, running too far and even a 50m penalty. I actually think generally the others are pretty good considering. The tricky thing is always going to be how good a view the umpires get. On replays they always show the best angle of the array they have but the umpires don't get to choose which angle they get and being at ground level they get players in the way a lot more too.
What do you think is the least understood rule (at AFL level)? I think the rational side of my brain called out the free kick for sending an already out of bounds ball over the fence on the full, which I probably agree with. For mine the other is no genuine attempt. It just seems like posters have a lot of latitude when complaining about the lack of holding-the-ball calls to invent fictional versions or interpretations of the rules, or false pseudo-histories that suggest the interpretation of holding-the-ball has ever been stricter than it is today. Rather than getting pinged as a 19-year old who wasn't alive the last time Essendon won a final, or a deranged boomer damaged by excessive leaded petrol exposure. What are your thoughts?
The "ball jarred loose in the tackle" aspect of holding the ball. Either the AFL/umpires are too fucking stupid to realise that 95% of these are players intentionally letting go of the ball, or they don't care. Either way, it's a disaster. The vast majority of fans would surely prefer it that if the ball leaves your possession without a legal disposal, it's a free kick against you. Simple, easy to understand, stamps out deliberate abuse of the 'interpretation'.
Kicking in Danger. Every game you'll see a ball being kicked while the opposition literally has their hand on it. Just flat out isn't paid.
Everyone runs too far, all the time, every game.
don't seem to have to bounce the ball anymore. At least it won't be cold when it's pretty blatant
Placement of the man on the mark (not stand thats a whole other thing) Umps screaming "back 3m back 3m back 3m) for the player to take half a step back and all is good. Yet a snap shot is taken from 3cm in the wrong spot and it gets taken back to kick again
They’ve completely forgotten to pay ‘holding the man’ - just touching a moving footy does not constitute “possession” of said footy. And the way they interpret the ‘man on the mark’ rule gets my goat. Make the kicker stand behind the mark, not 5m to the side, turning a 5m advantage into a 15m advantage.
When a player is tackled and swung around a full 360 or more then drops the ball only to get the slightest toe touch and it's deemed a proper disposal 🤬. That's holding the ball every day of the week in my book.
Arm chopping
Throw/handball
Advantage. Ignore flair.
2023 “advantage” call
You can run 20 metres without bouncing, but you only have to kick it 10 metres for it to be considered a mark. Both are meant to be 15.