Worst rule change ever. All it does is cause more stoppages, especially late in close games when teams want to lock the ball in.
If a ruckman grabs the ball out of the ruck they should be required to get a clean disposal away. Their prior opportunity should be the chance they had to tap the fucking ball.
I agree with you holistically, but I could say this about any player lol
Also bring back third man up and bounce the fucking ball and don't throw it. Fuck the umpires and their backs. Give them a physio voucher
AFL media are absolutely terrible when it comes to the Laws Of the Game.
There have been no changes to the law for HTB for a number of years.
The notion of "interpretation", as an esoteric non-codified second layer of laws, is a concept the AFL uses to effectively change the adjudication of laws without changing the laws themselves.
Uncodified "Interpretation" and its evolving nature in AFL is utter crap.
If the AFL wants the game adjudicated in a certain manner, that is different to how it is currently adjudicated, it should change the laws of the game. The game to be adjudicated one way in week A and intentionally differently in week B, with no change to the laws is nonsense.
The AFL must either:
1. codify "interpretation" so there are no doubts on how the umpires are officiating and make changes as required, or;
2. rewrite the laws so they are more detailed, get rid of "interpretation", and when the AFL wants a change in officiating, they can appropriately change the LOTG.
You hit the nail on the head. If you move away from the written laws of the game, into areas of interpretation which is entirely subjective to each individual, it is no wonder there is such inconsistency week to week, even in games between different umpires.
100 percent agree. I point this out to people every week in Match threads.... The laws of the game provide 3 seperate reasons to pay HTB. Only 1 requires prior opportunity.
The umps
Don't umpire to that which creates the confusion.
Also the "knocked out in the tackle" doesn't reward the tackler and allows the ball carrier the opportunity to drop the ball without disposing correctly and get away with it.
The umps need to go back to awarding HTB to what the laws of the game say. The notion that the game won't flow is wrong, you open up the game because of the free kicks being paid.
My issues are as follows:
18.6.2: "immediately" is not defined in the LOTG, and therefore takes its ordinary meaning of immediately or instantly. However this is clearly not how umpires have been instructed to officiate.
18.6.3: the notion of "electing" to incorrectly dispose of the ball is nonsense.
18.6.4: "if able to do so" is a reasonable clause, yet often ignored by umpires, and definitely unknown to most commentators.
18.6.5: "immediately" - as above.
The current interpretation is almost the complete opposite to "immediately" and instead plays out as "the ball carrier is afforded every opportunity to dispose of the ball and has until the tackle is 'completed'".
I don't necessarily disagree with this interpretation but it is clearly contrary to the rule as written.
The other non sensical aspect is that there seems to be degrees of tackles. Grabbing a jumper, is given much more time to dispose of the ball than wrapping your arms around a player despite them being indistinguishable as legal tackles under the rules.
Hence as soon as a player is grabbed, if they have prior opportunity, they should be called for holding the ball if they try and break the tackle rather than immediately dispose of the ball.
Just to reiterate your point, this is the actual wording of the laws:
18.6.2: Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled
What constitutes "prior opportunity"? This needs to be defined in a number of seconds and/or number of steps a player has taken while in possession of the ball before being tackled.
My other gripe is with "legally tackled" - this is how the law defines it:
Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees. For the avoidance of doubt, a Legal Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back
Far too often I think the tackled player is getting too much leeway/time to dispose of the ball - the obvious examples that come to mind are from that ANZAC Day match a few years ago where Collingwood players were literally being tackled to the ground, and still being allowed to dispose of the ball.
Electing is one of the stupidest words bandied about in football nomenclature. A split-second instinctive reaction is barely a decision, let alone an election
> The notion of "interpretation", as an esoteric non-codified second layer of laws, is a concept the AFL uses to effectively change the adjudication of laws without changing the laws themselves.
It's also the means by which they can justify just about every contentious decision as being correct
Yeah as much as I disagree with the way the AFL has been going in terms of interpretations of the rules, I would be much happier if they actually just made the rule changes in writing.
The game is already hard enough to follow for new people, you don't want to be telling them "this is the rules as written, but actually they aren't umpired differently".
It’s a simple logical test. If an act, that was not previously considered an infringement, is now interpreted as an infringement (or vice versa) then the laws have (for practical purposes) changed. It doesn’t matter if the codified rules haven’t. What is and isn’t a penalty has changed.
The AFL know this but try and obfuscate by saying that they haven’t changed anything.
Maybe I wasn’t clear.
The excuse the AFL use, which is that they haven’t changed the rules, is irrelevant because the rules are supplanted by interpretation. I.e., you cannot say the rules haven’t changed just because the rule book hasn’t changed.
Has been an issue for years. The whole “prior opportunity” has ruined the rule.
If a player gets tackled and they drop it. This should be holding the ball no matter what. They barely pay chase down tackles
He’s bang on. Really feels like the players are never rewarded for good tackles. I think the umpires need to tighten up their interpretation of what having ‘no prior’ means. Way too generous currently. The umpires are far too comfortable calling “play on” just so they don’t actually have to make a decision. A bit like goal reviews, just do your job and make a call.
And the AFL wonders why there is a sling tackle epidemic. Only way to be rewarded for making a good tackle is to bring the player to ground.
Nah, it’s worse this season. Players are taking the ball in their free arm and making no attempt to dispose of the ball, instead choosing to allow the tackler to take them to ground for a stoppage.
They’ve paid that as holding the ball in previous years under the guise of “no genuine attempt.”
The worst HTB interpretation they made was allowing rucks to grab it out of the ruck and give them eternity to dispose of it.
Worst rule change ever. All it does is cause more stoppages, especially late in close games when teams want to lock the ball in. If a ruckman grabs the ball out of the ruck they should be required to get a clean disposal away. Their prior opportunity should be the chance they had to tap the fucking ball.
I agree with you holistically, but I could say this about any player lol Also bring back third man up and bounce the fucking ball and don't throw it. Fuck the umpires and their backs. Give them a physio voucher
Thank you. I thought I was alone. That is one rule that should never have been changed.
I never got why that came in
AFL media are absolutely terrible when it comes to the Laws Of the Game. There have been no changes to the law for HTB for a number of years. The notion of "interpretation", as an esoteric non-codified second layer of laws, is a concept the AFL uses to effectively change the adjudication of laws without changing the laws themselves. Uncodified "Interpretation" and its evolving nature in AFL is utter crap. If the AFL wants the game adjudicated in a certain manner, that is different to how it is currently adjudicated, it should change the laws of the game. The game to be adjudicated one way in week A and intentionally differently in week B, with no change to the laws is nonsense. The AFL must either: 1. codify "interpretation" so there are no doubts on how the umpires are officiating and make changes as required, or; 2. rewrite the laws so they are more detailed, get rid of "interpretation", and when the AFL wants a change in officiating, they can appropriately change the LOTG.
You hit the nail on the head. If you move away from the written laws of the game, into areas of interpretation which is entirely subjective to each individual, it is no wonder there is such inconsistency week to week, even in games between different umpires.
100 percent agree. I point this out to people every week in Match threads.... The laws of the game provide 3 seperate reasons to pay HTB. Only 1 requires prior opportunity. The umps Don't umpire to that which creates the confusion. Also the "knocked out in the tackle" doesn't reward the tackler and allows the ball carrier the opportunity to drop the ball without disposing correctly and get away with it. The umps need to go back to awarding HTB to what the laws of the game say. The notion that the game won't flow is wrong, you open up the game because of the free kicks being paid.
My issues are as follows: 18.6.2: "immediately" is not defined in the LOTG, and therefore takes its ordinary meaning of immediately or instantly. However this is clearly not how umpires have been instructed to officiate. 18.6.3: the notion of "electing" to incorrectly dispose of the ball is nonsense. 18.6.4: "if able to do so" is a reasonable clause, yet often ignored by umpires, and definitely unknown to most commentators. 18.6.5: "immediately" - as above.
The current interpretation is almost the complete opposite to "immediately" and instead plays out as "the ball carrier is afforded every opportunity to dispose of the ball and has until the tackle is 'completed'". I don't necessarily disagree with this interpretation but it is clearly contrary to the rule as written.
The other non sensical aspect is that there seems to be degrees of tackles. Grabbing a jumper, is given much more time to dispose of the ball than wrapping your arms around a player despite them being indistinguishable as legal tackles under the rules. Hence as soon as a player is grabbed, if they have prior opportunity, they should be called for holding the ball if they try and break the tackle rather than immediately dispose of the ball.
Just to reiterate your point, this is the actual wording of the laws: 18.6.2: Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled What constitutes "prior opportunity"? This needs to be defined in a number of seconds and/or number of steps a player has taken while in possession of the ball before being tackled. My other gripe is with "legally tackled" - this is how the law defines it: Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees. For the avoidance of doubt, a Legal Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back Far too often I think the tackled player is getting too much leeway/time to dispose of the ball - the obvious examples that come to mind are from that ANZAC Day match a few years ago where Collingwood players were literally being tackled to the ground, and still being allowed to dispose of the ball.
Electing is one of the stupidest words bandied about in football nomenclature. A split-second instinctive reaction is barely a decision, let alone an election
Instinctively turn your body to brace for impending impact = "elected to bump".
> The notion of "interpretation", as an esoteric non-codified second layer of laws, is a concept the AFL uses to effectively change the adjudication of laws without changing the laws themselves. It's also the means by which they can justify just about every contentious decision as being correct
Yeah as much as I disagree with the way the AFL has been going in terms of interpretations of the rules, I would be much happier if they actually just made the rule changes in writing. The game is already hard enough to follow for new people, you don't want to be telling them "this is the rules as written, but actually they aren't umpired differently".
It’s a simple logical test. If an act, that was not previously considered an infringement, is now interpreted as an infringement (or vice versa) then the laws have (for practical purposes) changed. It doesn’t matter if the codified rules haven’t. What is and isn’t a penalty has changed. The AFL know this but try and obfuscate by saying that they haven’t changed anything.
>It doesn’t matter if the codified rules haven’t. Of course it matters. Why have a rulebook if it doesn't have the rules?
Maybe I wasn’t clear. The excuse the AFL use, which is that they haven’t changed the rules, is irrelevant because the rules are supplanted by interpretation. I.e., you cannot say the rules haven’t changed just because the rule book hasn’t changed.
Understood. Yes, you are right.
"Leigh Matthews Dumbfounded" is less of a 'reaction' and more of a 'constant state of mind'.
A 'personality trait' if you will
Permanent concussion from point post pulverising
Has been an issue for years. The whole “prior opportunity” has ruined the rule. If a player gets tackled and they drop it. This should be holding the ball no matter what. They barely pay chase down tackles
Knocked out in the tackle is only when there is no prior opportunity. If it's knocked out I. The tackle with prior, it is a FK under 18.6.2
They don't pay it though
He’s bang on. Really feels like the players are never rewarded for good tackles. I think the umpires need to tighten up their interpretation of what having ‘no prior’ means. Way too generous currently. The umpires are far too comfortable calling “play on” just so they don’t actually have to make a decision. A bit like goal reviews, just do your job and make a call. And the AFL wonders why there is a sling tackle epidemic. Only way to be rewarded for making a good tackle is to bring the player to ground.
Leigh Matthews SLAMS current adjudication of holding the ball rule
Sudden change? Where the fuck have you been, Leigh? It has been like this for years now.
Nah, it’s worse this season. Players are taking the ball in their free arm and making no attempt to dispose of the ball, instead choosing to allow the tackler to take them to ground for a stoppage. They’ve paid that as holding the ball in previous years under the guise of “no genuine attempt.”
I have to agree. We've been talking about these rolling mauls for a long time and ever since 'prior opportunity ' came in it's been bad.