Give more opportunity to the game's ball-getters GREG BAUM
June 8, 2010 IN THE white noise that surrounded the AFL's poaching of Israel Folau, there was something of a consensus that the least virtue a rugby league player might bring to the AFL was his tackling. Tacitly, this was an acknowledgement that as AFL grows more like rugby league (and rugby league more like AFL), tackling has become one of the game's pre-eminent skills. Players pride themselves on their tackle count as they once did kicks and handballs.
Correspondingly, the premium on getting the ball - once the whole purpose - is falling. Every fan can think of an instance in which a player did not dare to take possession of the loose ball, not because of a failing of courage, but because he knew that the moment he did, opponents would fall on him, the crowd would bawl for ''baaaall'', and a free kick against him might ensue.
In life, possession supposedly is nine-tenths of the law. In football, it has become an illegal act.
As football becomes compressed into half the field at a time, no player ever is very far from another, the number of tackles is rising steadily, and so is the conundrum.
This column always has argued the reward for a successful tackle is too high anyway. Tackling is a reaction, not an action, so not always worth a free kick. If a tackle jolts the ball free, that is reward enough. Only if the tackle forces an illegal disposal - a throw, for instance - should a free kick follow. Generally, umpires now recognise this.
The problem now is how little time and scope the ball-winning player is allowed. The governing principle is ''prior opportunity''. Presumably acting to instructions, umpires interpret it narrowly. A half-spin, two steps, one baulk, a sideways glance even: actions lasting merely split seconds, yet all are considered ''prior opportunity''.
Indeed, anything other than moving the ball on the instant it comes into a player's hands is ''prior opportunity''. If then caught, the game is up. In a couple of recent instances, a player has taken on his opponent, been tackled, properly disposed of the ball by hand or foot, but been penalised anyway. This is counterintuitive.
But, petrified of stoppages, the AFL still insists on a breathlessly short interpretation of what constitutes ''prior opportunity''. Few players have the ability to wiggle out of packs like Chris Judd and Gary Ablett, but all ought at least to have the incentive to try. Instead, the growing custom is to move the ball on by pushing, prodding and paddling.
If a player does take possession, is seized and goes to ground, as often as not a macabre pantomime ensues. The umpire circles, and with each split-second that he does not call for a ball-up, it becomes more certain he will pay a free against the player in notional possession.
Usually, more players pile in, opponents seeking to trap the ball under the caught player and make certain of the free kick, teammates hoping to leave the umpire no option but to call for a ball-up. Needing to adapt to survive, players have: mostly, they will nudge the ball loose, only for the same pile-up to recur. It makes for an unedifying spectacle.
Of course, some players have become experts at retaining the ball while feigning to have nothing to do with it. So be it. However rules are framed and interpreted, some will find ways of bending and exploiting them. At the moment, the presumption too often is of guilt, not innocence. Surely it is preferable that the con-artist gets away with it occasionally than the honest player is wrongly punished.
Surely, it is better to err on the side of the ball-getter.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/give-more-opportunity-to-the-games-ballgetters-20100607-xqq0.html
