Umpires working hard to clarify 'contentious' holding the ball rule (afl site)

[one-eyed]

Umpires working hard to clarify 'contentious' rule

Michael Whiting 
afl.com.au
August 29, 2014 1:38 PM


THE UMPIRING department is working hard to clarify what Wayne Campbell still describes as a "contentious" holding the ball rule.
 
The national umpiring director told AFL.com.au there were still grey areas around the rule, primarily with the definition of prior opportunity.
 
He said umpires had particular difficulty applying the rule mid-season, but were working hard to get a uniform definition.
 
"It's been a contentious rule for a long period of time, 10 or 15 years," Campbell said.
 
"One thing we're searching for is the definition of prior opportunity. When you show somebody an incident, the general public, I think they can see 'that is or that isn't'.
 
"Everyone brings a pre-conceived idea to a contest, one is who they barrack for and therefore which way they'd like it (the decision) to go.
 
"Some people are more offensively minded than defensively minded, so some people don't want any prior opportunity, and some people think the tackle is a reward in itself in that it brings it back to a neutral ball.
 
"A definition of prior opportunity would be good for us I think."
 
Campbell said the laws of the game committee would meet next week.
 
He said they would need to decide whether to consolidate the current rules or bring in new ones.
 
"The second half of the year there's been some fantastic footy played, so you're only going to fix it if it's broken, which is not to say we can't tinker with things to make the game better, I think we should always look to do that," he said.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-29/umpires-working-hard-to-clarify-contentious-rule

[(•))(©™]

My point is -

"No Prior opportunity" needs to be ditched.
Ridiculous clause.
Embarrassing.

The idea of a tackle to compromise the ball holder.
If he's caught and doesn't kick or handball -ping him!

MOVING ON.

[tony_montana]

My point is -

"No Prior opportunity" needs to be ditched.
Ridiculous clause.
Embarrassing.

The idea of a tackle to compromise the ball holder.
If he's caught and doesn't kick or handball -ping him!

MOVING ON.

Exactly its not stuffing hard - if you get tackled and you don't dispose of it CORRECTLY then you're gooooneee! If you get a kick or handball away its playon. If it gets held in its a ball up. Its not stuffing rocket science, bring our game back FFS

[Penelope]

so do you instruct players to get the contested ball and risk being penalised or let an opponent take posession and tackle them immediately, knowing that a ball up or free kick to you is the most likely outcome?

[The Big Richo]

My point is -

"No Prior opportunity" needs to be ditched.
Ridiculous clause.
Embarrassing.

The idea of a tackle to compromise the ball holder.
If he's caught and doesn't kick or handball -ping him!

MOVING ON.

Exactly its not stuffing hard - if you get tackled and you don't dispose of it CORRECTLY then you're gooooneee! If you get a kick or handball away its playon. If it gets held in its a ball up. Its not stuffing rocket science, bring our game back FFS

Can't agree, prior opportunity is crucial in making getting the ball the object of the game, otherwise it becomes a tackling contest.

[tony_montana]

It will bring back the art of being able to protect the ball, you wont get pinged if you don't dispose of it incorrectly. It will also eliminate this ridiculous grey area called interpretation which not only changes from week to week but from umpire to umpire in the same game.

[Penelope]

it will reward those second to the ball

[Judge Roughneck]

If you have no prior opportunity - to kick or handball

And get tackled immediately

How is it right / fair / as the game is meant to be

to get call for holding the ball ?

I would agree; doesn't reward the like of miles or cotchin who generally get to the ball first.

The game would evolve to the situation where to would not go for the ball, but rather wait to tackle.

[The Big Richo]

There's nothing wrong with the rule at the moment, the issues come from umpire errors or what are perceived as umpire errors, bearing in mind spectators and TV viewers generally watch the game from the opposite side the umpire does.

A rule change won't eliminate errors, you will just get different errors. That is the nature of sport.

[tony_montana]

it will reward those second to the ball

Only rewards the tackler if the ball extractor is weak and can't protect himself and the ball ie likely not to happen at afl level.

. I don't think it will be as bad as one would think, if you win the ball first in a pack and get immediately tackled, it'll likely end up in a ball up like it does now, rarely does the tackler enforce a spillage in a pack situation.  Out in the open? It may happen on the odd occasion, bad luck be more aware of your surroundings, sick and tired of seeing the ball not disposed of correctly after a good tackle and no ensuing free kick. Watching the Carl v ess game now and imagining how it would play under these rules, would make little difference, but on one occasion the Carlton player took the ess player on, got caught and dropped it attempting a hball, no free kick - should have been a free.

[Penelope]

as long s they are attempting to dispose of it proprly i dont have a problem.

on the other hand i hate seeing the bloke who gets the hard ball penalised when he is tackled as soon as he takes possesion. it already happens too often and goes against the substance of the game, be in front and get to the ball first.

the other can of worms it opens up is the chicken wing tackle. under the scenario you propose, if the tackle locks both arms, and the ball is pinned in, its a ball up. on the other hand if you lay a chicken wing tackle one arm is free and the bloke in possesion will more often than not dispose of the ball imcorrectly.

as a coach you would be teaching players to sweat on an opponent to grab the ball in a pack situation and tackle them by one arm, as this would be best odds of winning possession.

[tony_montana]

They are paying those frees under another rubbish rule, the 'you aren't making enough of an effort to get rid of it while someone sits on your back' rule.

If you chicken wing and hurt them, then should be suspended. if you chicken wing wrong arm, they can still kick it away or still keep it pinned.

[tigs2011]

My favourite rule was the new "you bumped the poor baby a bit hard" rule. Poor Goddard.