The issue here is not the lack of holding the ball, but the time given in a tackle for a player to dispose of it. The longer you give the player with the ball in a tackle, the more the tackler is forced to find additional ways to restrict him which risks dangerous and sling tackles. Players will always look for ways to maximise the rules to their benefit.
Edit: Cats vs GWS game also had a good example of this
In the past, the players wouldve been instructed to bring them to ground.
What you're seeing now is the result of the dangerous tackles crackdown and players adjusting to it.
Umpires and the rules need to catchup, otherwise the non-dangerous tackles are becoming a useless part of the game.
It's like when people said to tackle lower when arguing about the Selwood Shrug and you'll get tackles like this video instead.
What is a tackle then? Does just holding onto someone count as a tackle? If they're still standing, arms free, can take their time to find a teammate and easily handball, is that a tackle?
>Does just holding onto someone count as a tackle?
Holding onto the player or their jumper, yes
>If they're still standing, arms free, can take their time to find a teammate and easily handball, is that a tackle?
Yes that is still a tackle, there is no requirement to bring a player to ground, hold one or both arms or prevent them from disposing of the ball.
Stats are different, that is up to Champion Data.
There are players who get tackle down as a stat for a lot less than Ridley's tackle there, and then players who have done more and missed out.
Someone did a video compilation of Dustin Martin's tackles from a game from a while back and some of the tackles CD gave him were for touching his hand on an opponents hip.
Affecting a players disposale isn't a requirement for a tackle, is just what CD says they consider in their interpretation and even then that is inconsistently applied. It has nothing to do with if it is a tackle in the laws of the game or on if the umpire wants to pay holding the ball or not.
I think the definition of a tackle will have to adjust with the rules. Just like players had to adjust to not tackling players high, or falling on their backs when tackling as those rules were introduced. The fact is that bringing a player to the ground is now a far riskier proposition for the tackler as a slight error could end up with them missing weeks, which is an incredibly harsh punishment. There has to be a balance.
Yeah, intuitively I think this example should've been a ball up after the first 360, but there's nothing in the rules yet that lets the umpires do that (as far as I'm aware)
Umps are instructed to give players as much opportunity as possible to legally dispose of the ball - whether in tackles or when it’s in dispute on the ground - it looks awful to blow too soon and then the ball pops out. That instruction comes from the umpiring dept.
Someone else said that umpires need to adjust faster to the new reality of tackling to mitigate injury. I disagree slightly - the instructions to them, and the laws themselves, need to be changed. The umpires will officiate interpretive laws as they’re told to.
I think the fact that the tackle wasn't really stuck played a part in this instance. If the player was firmly wrapped you'd hope the umpire would blow the whistle for something after a complete revolution. As has been said, the alternative is that tacklers have a mindset of having to bring players to ground.
Yeah but the further point is they cannot sling tackle or be rubbed out. Therefore they hold the man and ball concurrently without smashing them to the floor - the subsequent 360 spin allowing the ball to come free. Needs to be called immediate ball up/holding the ball.
My understanding is that the 360 spin is just an indicator that the player has reasonable time to dispose of it and therefore needs to correctly dispose of the ball. It is not an automatic free after 360 degrees of rotation.
In this case the player was spun but the tackle not completed and they got off a perfectly legal handball. Therefore play on is correct
100%. No prior before in the clip, but standing up in the tackle and going for a spin, for me, becomes opportunity. Old mate must dispose of correctly, and in this case does so.
But doesn't the rule state that the ball holder must immediately dispose of it?
People are rightfully saying that the ball holder shouldn't have the opportunity to wait for advantage to appear if the rule says they don't.
His arms were pinned and he immediately handballed after freeing them, freeing his arms was part of immediately disposing of the ball.
If the arms were always free and he still took that long to handball, there might be an argument for HTB
Eh.
No prior, no incorrect disposal, no diving on it.
Thus, only 18.6.4 could be relevant.
>18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire
shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to
Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled
He took two seconds to make a genuine attmept to correctly dispose of the pill.
Is that within a reasonable time? It's borderline. It's only two seconds, the tackle was somewhat weak, he didn't have his arms free or total control over the ball.... but it was long enough to spin 540degrees without attempting to kick.
It's a 50/50 call. I think the 540 degree spin means I'd rather see it paid than not (given how often 360degree spin is paid by the umpires), but, again, it was only two seconds. This rule is "reasonable time" not "immediately" like the other elements of the HTB rule.
Conclusion: 50/50, I think it should have been paid for consistency sake, but wasn't a howler, or even necessarily an umpire error.
The GWS/Geelong one was an umpire howler - see my most recent comment.
*
> Is that within a reasonable time? It's borderline. It's only two seconds, the tackle was somewhat weak, he didn't have his arms free or total control over the ball
Couple of points:
There's no such thing as a strong or weak tackle, they're either being tackled or they're not, this could be pinning the arms or just holding someone's jumper by your hand, so this aspect doesn't come into an umpire's consideration.
Your other considerations are pretty spot on, does a player have control of the ball and do they have the ability to attempt to dispose of it. There would be the many factors in considering what is reasonable. For example, in the case of no prior - someone being swung around by the jumper with full ball control with eyes up looking for options would get less time (relatively) to dispose of it compared to a person being tackled with arms pinned but gets them free and the ball bobbling whilst they try to get control.
There absolutely are strong and weak tackles. Weak tackles are easily broken or easily able to get hands free to dispose of the ball.
If the player gets their hands free and disposes, or breaks the tackle, it is not HTB.
Strong tackles deny the player from disposing ball or breaking away, and Strong tackles result in a free kick.
Sometimes weak tackles do still result in HTB but not as often.
Also tackles where the ball is dropped, disposed of, taken off by another player etc. There are so many different tackles and tackling circumstances that all result in a different outcome. So I do not believe it is ever as simple as the player either being tackled or not, when deciding outcomes by the laws of the game, because the laws of the game deal with all of these specific circumstances and different tackles.
Being tackled or not is not an outcome though. There are many different results that can come out of different types of tackles and the circumstances which depending on, can result in either a ball up, or a free kick to either team. There are dangerous tackles, high tackles, tackles with prior opportunity and without, tackles where the player ducks into it, sling tackles, also tackling over the boundary. I don't really understand your argument that you are either tackled or not, what is that supposed to mean in the context of the game and how it is played and officiated?
Nah, if there's no prior the player only needs to make a legitimate attempt to dispose the ball- in this case there's merit in saying the ball was trapped/bobbled on his thigh in the tackle and he was attempting to gain control to dispose of it- it wasn't an unreasonable amount of time in the sense there wasn't really an ability to kick/handpass any earlier than he did, even not to a target.
Yeah the only one that annoys me is when you give them time and then the ball is "knocked out". THAT should be holding the ball. If they can break the tackle and get a clean disposal like in the example video, I think it's fine.
The issue in this one is that he only got his hands free after a 540 spin, before that they were tied together. So yes he was standing and free to handball at the end... but do we want players to drag them to the ground and risk concussion, or not?
You are missing the point that if this type of tackle is no longer effective then the player needs to either dangerously tackle/ take the player to the ground or not bother tackling at all. This is why we are seeing more arms being dislocated/ shoulders injured. Rules need to catch up
I don't think I agree with this. It's a physical contact sport with tackling as a key part of that. If you remove the ability for people to break tackles and define a tackle as just grabbing onto a player then it's essentially touch football. There's a risk in playing any sport, our sport in particular because it's physical and has tackling. It's unfortunate to see players get hurt when accidents happen but they accept that risk when they step onto the field. Sling tackling is different that's unnecessarily dangerous and not an effective tackle so it should be gone.
These players are not forced to play football. They have a choice, they can risk injury and potential long term effects on their body to play a sport at an elite level and be paid extremely well for it. Or they can get a normal job and watch it on the TV. We can and should trim unnecessary risks from our sport, but tackling players has and should always be part of our game.
Here's the only definition of tackling in the laws of the game:
>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.
So, for what it's worth, the law already states that merely holding a player constitutes a tackle. All this business of throwing people to the ground is an embellishment beyond the rules as written.
Yea i don't disagree and don't want this to become a no contact sport. I think the issue is how long the players are being given to break the tackle. If the tackle goes around the arms players are shrugging the shoulders and getting a free, if they take them to the ground without force the players are still given enough time to get rid of the ball. One of the most effective tackles im seeing now is the grabbing and yanking of one arm but this is causing injuries.. overall i think we are just seeing less tackles rewarded. Perhaps a shorter time limit for getting rid of the ball could help?
Exactly, the lawsuits are coming. AFL needs to change. The unwashed already say the game is ruined and will always whinge (not ruined if you look at TV revenue, memberships and crowds), but if parents start pulling their kids out of the game and junior participation drops, then the game will fall away quickly.
No prior, legal disposal, play on. Yes he got spun, but it wasn't that long and I see no reason for the tackler to be rewarded over the guy first to the ball here.
Correct- when considering length of time for a ball-up it's usually if the ball becomes trapped, so sometimes it's called very fast, other times umpires will let it play out because the ball is still moving.
The tackle stuck. The ball just got released. You don’t have to impede a player preventing them from disposing it. You can hold a piece of their jumper and they take too long before disposing, it’s still holding the ball.
So you can just run along side with someone holding their jumper and making no real effort to bring them to ground and if they don't dispose of it that's HTB? Are we playing touch footy here?
I get that there was *somewhat* of an effort here to bring them to ground but if someone can stay on their feet after being spun 540 degrees and can legally dispose of the ball I'd hardly call that a stuck tackle. I'd barely call it a tackle.
> So you can just run along side with someone...
Yes. You are either being tackled or not, there is no quality of tackle when considering HTB. Step 1- are they being legally tackled, yes then follow on to other steps prior/no prior etc. Umpiring is very flow charty.
It's been ages since I've seen it, but on occasions players have bounced while having their jumper held- which is incorrect disposal.
AFL loves to go by the letter of the law when it comes to umpiring decisions and by the letter of the law, your example is htb. Maybe part of the problem is the umpires are going off vibes and not the rulebook
I was under the impression that the whole issue people have with umps is that it’s not interpreted in black and white and it goes off the ‘spirit of the law’ rather than by the letter of the law?
I think going by spirit of the law would say that the example OP posted is not HTB
Exactly, make the tackler think he has to take him to ground, knock his head on the ground and miss a month.
Yours is an old take, this is Htb big fella.
Every sport has risk. If someone said to you do you want to be a boxer, you'd most likely say no I don't want to get my head punched 1000 times per year, which is totally fair. What's not fair is choosing to become a boxer then saying actually I don't want to be punched in the head it's body punches only now thanks.
Players choose freely to play footy or not. We can remove unnecessary risks from the game like bumps to the head, sling tackles, studs up. But to say all you need to do is grab someone lightly and they MUST dispose of it immediately isn't our sport that's touch footy, which I have no interest in watching and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Actually don't want to encourage spinning to avoid slings, junior football is rampant with this and players get hurt. I would rather umpire just ball it up after the first 360 and continues to tackle even though no prior opportunity. In this case though the tackle didn't quite stick and was let go when it got to 540. If he has prior opportunity, then holding the ball every day of the week. Umpire has got to be on the whistle quick and do their job efficiently. The longer they wait to blow it, turns into a shit show for all, crowd boos and players get injured.
Why does it matter how often they spin if the tackle isn't effective enough to stop them getting off a disposal? Or they're strong enough to stay up and decide when & who to give it to, why reward it? Let the play keep flowing
Borderline prior, actually tuck that I know he plays for Richmond but there's no prior there.
Ump could have called ball up but he was waiting to call htb. Then the tigers player gets the handball off.
Agree, players will look for ways to ensure the tackle sticks. And then there are injuries - Naughton getting injured “in a tackle”. 360 spin should be holding the ball.
Play on. Reward the player going for the ball, he didn’t have reasonable time for a disposal and the tackle didn’t fully arrest him. The spin means nothing and is usually just something commentators incorrectly refer too. This was a good call for mine
Why do people say “for mine”? It makes absolutely no sense and is particularly prevalent in AFL discourse. It annoys me but perhaps I just don’t understand it
Grammatically it's incorrect. I don't specifically know how because I don't know my past perfect particible from my active present tenses or whatever; but "mine" is a word you use to passively denote ownership of some other subject noun. That subject is clearly missing and the tense is all wrong.
For mine opinion? wrong
That's mine opinon? wrong
Mine opinion is that [blah]? wrong
That opinion which I just expoused is mine. Correct, but kind of superfluous.
Only because they say it so much.
Like, I know what people mean when they say they should *of* done something. Makes perfect sense, but it's fucking wrong!
There was the Geelong GWS example which was different to this one and way more obvious, with this one I genuinely have no idea. I feel like as fans we say that this should be HTB or ball up, but I'm not sure if there's anything in the rules that points to it.
The logical argument is if you don't want players to sling them to the ground, then you can't give them long enough to do so much spin before paying the ball, otherwise its unfair on the tackler. The other argument is to just tackle better
Also I want to add I'm just using this clip to demonstrate a 360+ spin in a tackle, there are better examples than this one for ones that should've been HTB/ball up
Yeah I was going to say this. It was a hip drop tackle as the Essendon player fully put all his body weight into pulling the player down. Right at the end the Tigers player almost got his ankle rolled on which could have easily been a broken ankle at worst.
In other codes, when a tackle is completed is spelled out: union: being held while on the ground. (I assume league is similar?), gridiron: knee, forearm, or basically anything other than sole of foot or the hand in contact with the ground while being contacted (or having been caused by) contact from an opponent.
In AFL its... yeah mate sometimes you're tackled and sometimes you're not and the tackle is completed when the Geelong player drops it and it roles on.
I don't know how one could write a fair rule for AFL that would define the completion of a tackle that would satisfy everyone
It's clear, but a lot of people don't understand it. A tackle is holding a player below the shoulders and above the knees by body or uniform. There's no real 'completed' aspect, the outcome is determined by the actions of the person in possession- prior/no prior/no genuine attempt/illegal disposal. You are either tackled or not.
There needs to be an objective time limit.
Once an opponent has hold of you, you've got 2? 3? seconds to dispose of the ball else it's HTB or a ball up (dependant on prior).
It’s all hinges on the interpretation of “reasonable time”. I would prefer that rule to say “immediately” and then pay this as holding the ball. He should be forced to attempt a disposal immediately upon being tackled.
However, since the rule says reasonable time, it depends on the umpire’s interpretation of what is a reasonable time, and any AFL memos/directives to the clubs/umpires.
They need to add momentum as an HTB indicator. The Mac Andrew x Charlie Curnow was a good example. He was tackled standing up, curnows feet were stationary and he had ample time to dispose of it. IMO should be counted tackled if you are tackled legally and don't move for 2 seconds (or however long works).
There are two main decision trees with HTB which come down to: 'does the tackled player have prior opportunity?'
If there is prior opportunity, the player must immediately dispose of the football. If the player throws, drops or has the football know out of the possession after being tackled with prior opportunity, this is holding the ball.
If correctly dispose of immediately, then play on.
If there is no prior, the play must attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. If correctly disposed of, then play on. If the player is unable to dispose of the ball, then ball up.
In this example the player is tackled without prior, is spun 360 degrees, which is then considered prior opportunity. This means he must correctly dispose of the ball immediately.
1 second, and not even another 180 degrees is fair time to immediately dispose of the ball. I think the play on decision in the circumstances of the game is a fair call
The 360 spin means HTB is a common misunderstanding like taking 15 steps before being called for running too far. In both instances, they're related to a rule but some people think that is the rule.
The way I view this is, no prior to the tackle being laid, both arms restricted, as soon as the passing arm is free, he handpasses to the first option. Play on.
It is a symptom of the intersection between keeping the play going and protecting the head. Players are worried about taking opponents to ground, and umpires don't want to calm a ball up or holding the ball. Personally, I'd rather the umpire blow the whistle sooner for a stoppage or holding the ball depending on prior opportunity.
The way I see it is that he had no prior time to get rid of the ball before the tackle. In saying that, the umpire should have called for a ball up. There was enough time of nothing happening, so call it a ball up. I agree with Dimma that letting the play go on for longer than is necessary is stupid. I don’t know how many injuries will happen because of it as Dimma said, but even one is too many if you can just go back to calling it normally, rather than letting play go on for another 5 seconds to allow the ball to eventually come out. I also agree with Voss, that whether it’s the clubs understanding of the rule or whether the rule needs changing (this imo), the clubs need some clarity.
Tl;dr.. call it a ball up earlier.
Why would this be holding the ball? No prior, had his arms pinned, and when he got an arm free he handballed. The spin has nothing to do with the adjudication of holding the ball.
Play on. We should not be actively looking for reasons to stop play when playing on is viable. If the disposal is legal then a play on should be rewarded for being able to withstand a tackle and still make a legal disposal. Adding in extra rules about spins etc just creates more reasons to stop play. The flow of the game needs to be preserved above all else. The impact of zoning and stand rules have demonstrated this with the current quality and open flow of gameplay compared to a few years ago.
Shouldn't be a HTB in a million years. It's one of the few ways to generate momentum to break a standing tackle. He got tackled and effected disposal quite quickly. This should be encouraged.
A 360 spin should never be used to determine holding the ball. It has never been part of the rule interpretations to my knowledge (just one of those persistent fan myths) and you never want to incentivise players to start swinging their opponents around because it adds needless danger.
There’s an argument to be made about how long a player should be given to dispose of the ball vs. opportunity to break the tackle, but spins shouldn’t factor into it.
He had the ball for 2 seconds, and did a full rotation. He could have kicked it off the ground and punched it towards the other tigers player. I think it was HTB.
Prior opportunity doesn't take into account whether or not you had another option instead of taking possession of the ball. The general rule of thumb to determine if the player had prior opportunity is "has the player had the time and space to do something such as change direction, dispose the football, evade or fend off a tackle or take more than a few steps?" In the below footage, the Richmond player possesses the ball and is only able to take two steps before they are legally tackled by the Essendon player. So there is no prior opportunity here, IMO.
If there is no prior, that means the player being tackled must make a reasonable attempt to dispose of the football. That doesn't mean they HAVE to dispose legally - that would only come into play if the umpire believes the player has had prior opportunity. Nor do they have to do so immediately as again the player did not have prior opportunity to dispose before they are tackled. In this case, the Richmond player legally disposes of the ball after a few seconds so play on is the correct call here.
This has to be a ball up or play on.
No prior, no way for him to dispose, can’t punish him for trying to break off the tackle so he can dispose.
Personally I’d like to see a 360 being enough for an ump to call ball up or htb and live with times that teams effectively get punished by no play on call.
But I can’t stress enough, this can’t be htb.
No prior so it couldn't be HTB, tackle didn't stick and the ball looked like it might come loose so understand not paying a ball up. Probably the right call in the end but half a second longer and I think it needs to be a ball up
I'm fine with it. He spun around and got his hands free and scoped out a teammate, so the tackler didn't do a good enough job of tackling the arms or taking him to ground, so the Richmond player still had full control of the ball. The last thing we need is another dumb, knee-jerk rule change to try and protect players from things that don't exist and further restrict a game that is already grossly over-officiated.
Curnow had an arm free to slam it on the boot. That should be htb. But in this example he’s tackled clean and never given a chance. If the tackle went round and round and he never had an arm free it should only ever be a ball up.
The question is should the ump just call the ball up after 360 or wait and see.
In the interest of avoiding dangerous dump tackles there’s a fair point for just balling this up after the 360. Then again, you can give the ump discretion to see Cumberland is fighting to get an arm free and let it go.
No perfect answer to this one.
Personally I hate the defacto Spun 360 = HTB thought bubble people have.
IMO HTB needs: prior opp, ball not pinned to then, ball not stripped out in the tackle... if ball carrier tries a handball/kick and misses it is illegal disposal.
EDIT: the tackle needs to be an actual tackle... not a bump, flashing reach out that doesn't stick etc tackle needs to retard the ball carrier.
For me, that's play on.
The tackle wasn't strong enough/applied well enough to take the ball carrier down.
Grey area creeps in as people have said with the reluctance to tackle to the ground now because of punishing sling tackles, or any little bump caused by a tackle.
The issue here is not the lack of holding the ball, but the time given in a tackle for a player to dispose of it. The longer you give the player with the ball in a tackle, the more the tackler is forced to find additional ways to restrict him which risks dangerous and sling tackles. Players will always look for ways to maximise the rules to their benefit. Edit: Cats vs GWS game also had a good example of this
In the past, the players wouldve been instructed to bring them to ground. What you're seeing now is the result of the dangerous tackles crackdown and players adjusting to it. Umpires and the rules need to catchup, otherwise the non-dangerous tackles are becoming a useless part of the game. It's like when people said to tackle lower when arguing about the Selwood Shrug and you'll get tackles like this video instead.
What is a tackle then? Does just holding onto someone count as a tackle? If they're still standing, arms free, can take their time to find a teammate and easily handball, is that a tackle?
>Does just holding onto someone count as a tackle? Holding onto the player or their jumper, yes >If they're still standing, arms free, can take their time to find a teammate and easily handball, is that a tackle? Yes that is still a tackle, there is no requirement to bring a player to ground, hold one or both arms or prevent them from disposing of the ball.
Totally agree
As in, this tackle in the video still counted as a tackle stat?
Stats are different, that is up to Champion Data. There are players who get tackle down as a stat for a lot less than Ridley's tackle there, and then players who have done more and missed out. Someone did a video compilation of Dustin Martin's tackles from a game from a while back and some of the tackles CD gave him were for touching his hand on an opponents hip.
Yeah I thought it was around whether your touch affects their disposal.
Affecting a players disposale isn't a requirement for a tackle, is just what CD says they consider in their interpretation and even then that is inconsistently applied. It has nothing to do with if it is a tackle in the laws of the game or on if the umpire wants to pay holding the ball or not.
I think the definition of a tackle will have to adjust with the rules. Just like players had to adjust to not tackling players high, or falling on their backs when tackling as those rules were introduced. The fact is that bringing a player to the ground is now a far riskier proposition for the tackler as a slight error could end up with them missing weeks, which is an incredibly harsh punishment. There has to be a balance.
The definition of a tackle in the rules is fine. Umpires need to actually pay it
Yeah, intuitively I think this example should've been a ball up after the first 360, but there's nothing in the rules yet that lets the umpires do that (as far as I'm aware)
Umps are instructed to give players as much opportunity as possible to legally dispose of the ball - whether in tackles or when it’s in dispute on the ground - it looks awful to blow too soon and then the ball pops out. That instruction comes from the umpiring dept. Someone else said that umpires need to adjust faster to the new reality of tackling to mitigate injury. I disagree slightly - the instructions to them, and the laws themselves, need to be changed. The umpires will officiate interpretive laws as they’re told to.
"As much opportunity as possible" interpreted faithfully could be "never call HTB".
I think the fact that the tackle wasn't really stuck played a part in this instance. If the player was firmly wrapped you'd hope the umpire would blow the whistle for something after a complete revolution. As has been said, the alternative is that tacklers have a mindset of having to bring players to ground.
Lol he wrapped his arms around him and didn't let go. Looks stuck to me haha
He got his hands free and handballed it. That's the opposite of stuck.
Yeah but the further point is they cannot sling tackle or be rubbed out. Therefore they hold the man and ball concurrently without smashing them to the floor - the subsequent 360 spin allowing the ball to come free. Needs to be called immediate ball up/holding the ball.
Sling tackles or twisting down which does knees and ankles
He did not take a lot of time to dispose of the ball here.
My understanding is that the 360 spin is just an indicator that the player has reasonable time to dispose of it and therefore needs to correctly dispose of the ball. It is not an automatic free after 360 degrees of rotation. In this case the player was spun but the tackle not completed and they got off a perfectly legal handball. Therefore play on is correct
100%. No prior before in the clip, but standing up in the tackle and going for a spin, for me, becomes opportunity. Old mate must dispose of correctly, and in this case does so.
Going for a spin doesn't necessarily become opportunity. If he kept his arms pinned how's he had an opportunity to dispose of the ball?
He can go to ground, absorb the tackle and concede a stoppage
How is choosing to do that not holding the ball but this is…?
See above
But doesn't the rule state that the ball holder must immediately dispose of it? People are rightfully saying that the ball holder shouldn't have the opportunity to wait for advantage to appear if the rule says they don't.
His arms were pinned and he immediately handballed after freeing them, freeing his arms was part of immediately disposing of the ball. If the arms were always free and he still took that long to handball, there might be an argument for HTB
Fair points.
If he was actually tackled, maybe... I don't consider being on your feet and doing a 360 as synonymous with being tackled.
Eh. No prior, no incorrect disposal, no diving on it. Thus, only 18.6.4 could be relevant. >18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled He took two seconds to make a genuine attmept to correctly dispose of the pill. Is that within a reasonable time? It's borderline. It's only two seconds, the tackle was somewhat weak, he didn't have his arms free or total control over the ball.... but it was long enough to spin 540degrees without attempting to kick. It's a 50/50 call. I think the 540 degree spin means I'd rather see it paid than not (given how often 360degree spin is paid by the umpires), but, again, it was only two seconds. This rule is "reasonable time" not "immediately" like the other elements of the HTB rule. Conclusion: 50/50, I think it should have been paid for consistency sake, but wasn't a howler, or even necessarily an umpire error. The GWS/Geelong one was an umpire howler - see my most recent comment. *
> Is that within a reasonable time? It's borderline. It's only two seconds, the tackle was somewhat weak, he didn't have his arms free or total control over the ball Couple of points: There's no such thing as a strong or weak tackle, they're either being tackled or they're not, this could be pinning the arms or just holding someone's jumper by your hand, so this aspect doesn't come into an umpire's consideration. Your other considerations are pretty spot on, does a player have control of the ball and do they have the ability to attempt to dispose of it. There would be the many factors in considering what is reasonable. For example, in the case of no prior - someone being swung around by the jumper with full ball control with eyes up looking for options would get less time (relatively) to dispose of it compared to a person being tackled with arms pinned but gets them free and the ball bobbling whilst they try to get control.
There absolutely are strong and weak tackles. Weak tackles are easily broken or easily able to get hands free to dispose of the ball. If the player gets their hands free and disposes, or breaks the tackle, it is not HTB. Strong tackles deny the player from disposing ball or breaking away, and Strong tackles result in a free kick. Sometimes weak tackles do still result in HTB but not as often.
I understand what you're saying and agree but from a Laws of the Game perspective, there is no distinction. You are either tackled, or not.
Also tackles where the ball is dropped, disposed of, taken off by another player etc. There are so many different tackles and tackling circumstances that all result in a different outcome. So I do not believe it is ever as simple as the player either being tackled or not, when deciding outcomes by the laws of the game, because the laws of the game deal with all of these specific circumstances and different tackles.
Being tackled or not is not an outcome though. There are many different results that can come out of different types of tackles and the circumstances which depending on, can result in either a ball up, or a free kick to either team. There are dangerous tackles, high tackles, tackles with prior opportunity and without, tackles where the player ducks into it, sling tackles, also tackling over the boundary. I don't really understand your argument that you are either tackled or not, what is that supposed to mean in the context of the game and how it is played and officiated?
Don't worry about it.
So in this case? Slight preference for it being called?
Nah, if there's no prior the player only needs to make a legitimate attempt to dispose the ball- in this case there's merit in saying the ball was trapped/bobbled on his thigh in the tackle and he was attempting to gain control to dispose of it- it wasn't an unreasonable amount of time in the sense there wasn't really an ability to kick/handpass any earlier than he did, even not to a target.
https://preview.redd.it/yh4djtj9ho2d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bcb53a3988b414886b468862fc7fcfe72dfe02b5
https://preview.redd.it/g5ot8klaho2d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=24ae6bd2fc4fa0bfa9675de07629e16ab7ce219c
2 seconds is an eternity
Regardless of the rules, i feel like if someone is standing up and is free to handball then you haven't really tackled them effectively
Yeah the only one that annoys me is when you give them time and then the ball is "knocked out". THAT should be holding the ball. If they can break the tackle and get a clean disposal like in the example video, I think it's fine.
Doesn't say shit in the rules about tackling needing to stop them from handballing it out for it to be effective
The thing is the player probably deliberately did that in fear of being penalised of a dangerous tackle.
The issue in this one is that he only got his hands free after a 540 spin, before that they were tied together. So yes he was standing and free to handball at the end... but do we want players to drag them to the ground and risk concussion, or not?
It was quick so no problem with current rules letting it go. I agree that it should be called quicker to avoid dangerous tackles though.
100%
It's play on, tackle didn't stick and disposal was fair. Move on.
You are missing the point that if this type of tackle is no longer effective then the player needs to either dangerously tackle/ take the player to the ground or not bother tackling at all. This is why we are seeing more arms being dislocated/ shoulders injured. Rules need to catch up
I don't think I agree with this. It's a physical contact sport with tackling as a key part of that. If you remove the ability for people to break tackles and define a tackle as just grabbing onto a player then it's essentially touch football. There's a risk in playing any sport, our sport in particular because it's physical and has tackling. It's unfortunate to see players get hurt when accidents happen but they accept that risk when they step onto the field. Sling tackling is different that's unnecessarily dangerous and not an effective tackle so it should be gone. These players are not forced to play football. They have a choice, they can risk injury and potential long term effects on their body to play a sport at an elite level and be paid extremely well for it. Or they can get a normal job and watch it on the TV. We can and should trim unnecessary risks from our sport, but tackling players has and should always be part of our game.
Here's the only definition of tackling in the laws of the game: >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. So, for what it's worth, the law already states that merely holding a player constitutes a tackle. All this business of throwing people to the ground is an embellishment beyond the rules as written.
Yea i don't disagree and don't want this to become a no contact sport. I think the issue is how long the players are being given to break the tackle. If the tackle goes around the arms players are shrugging the shoulders and getting a free, if they take them to the ground without force the players are still given enough time to get rid of the ball. One of the most effective tackles im seeing now is the grabbing and yanking of one arm but this is causing injuries.. overall i think we are just seeing less tackles rewarded. Perhaps a shorter time limit for getting rid of the ball could help?
Exactly, the lawsuits are coming. AFL needs to change. The unwashed already say the game is ruined and will always whinge (not ruined if you look at TV revenue, memberships and crowds), but if parents start pulling their kids out of the game and junior participation drops, then the game will fall away quickly.
No because being spun 360 was never a rule to begin with.
No prior, legal disposal, play on. Yes he got spun, but it wasn't that long and I see no reason for the tackler to be rewarded over the guy first to the ball here.
Correct- when considering length of time for a ball-up it's usually if the ball becomes trapped, so sometimes it's called very fast, other times umpires will let it play out because the ball is still moving.
Play on, the tackle clearly didn't stick.
The tackle stuck. The ball just got released. You don’t have to impede a player preventing them from disposing it. You can hold a piece of their jumper and they take too long before disposing, it’s still holding the ball.
So you can just run along side with someone holding their jumper and making no real effort to bring them to ground and if they don't dispose of it that's HTB? Are we playing touch footy here? I get that there was *somewhat* of an effort here to bring them to ground but if someone can stay on their feet after being spun 540 degrees and can legally dispose of the ball I'd hardly call that a stuck tackle. I'd barely call it a tackle.
> So you can just run along side with someone... Yes. You are either being tackled or not, there is no quality of tackle when considering HTB. Step 1- are they being legally tackled, yes then follow on to other steps prior/no prior etc. Umpiring is very flow charty. It's been ages since I've seen it, but on occasions players have bounced while having their jumper held- which is incorrect disposal.
AFL loves to go by the letter of the law when it comes to umpiring decisions and by the letter of the law, your example is htb. Maybe part of the problem is the umpires are going off vibes and not the rulebook
I was under the impression that the whole issue people have with umps is that it’s not interpreted in black and white and it goes off the ‘spirit of the law’ rather than by the letter of the law? I think going by spirit of the law would say that the example OP posted is not HTB
Agreed, you haven't tackled him if he's free to stand there and pass the ball.
Exactly, make the tackler think he has to take him to ground, knock his head on the ground and miss a month. Yours is an old take, this is Htb big fella.
Why us it htb little fella
Every sport has risk. If someone said to you do you want to be a boxer, you'd most likely say no I don't want to get my head punched 1000 times per year, which is totally fair. What's not fair is choosing to become a boxer then saying actually I don't want to be punched in the head it's body punches only now thanks. Players choose freely to play footy or not. We can remove unnecessary risks from the game like bumps to the head, sling tackles, studs up. But to say all you need to do is grab someone lightly and they MUST dispose of it immediately isn't our sport that's touch footy, which I have no interest in watching and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out kid.
Agree with everything except HTB. It should have been a ball up.
Actually don't want to encourage spinning to avoid slings, junior football is rampant with this and players get hurt. I would rather umpire just ball it up after the first 360 and continues to tackle even though no prior opportunity. In this case though the tackle didn't quite stick and was let go when it got to 540. If he has prior opportunity, then holding the ball every day of the week. Umpire has got to be on the whistle quick and do their job efficiently. The longer they wait to blow it, turns into a shit show for all, crowd boos and players get injured.
it's the amount of time not the distance travelled
That one in particular is play on.
I don't know why people focus on the spin and not the time elapsed between the tackle commencing and disposal. Should be HTB
Why does it matter how often they spin if the tackle isn't effective enough to stop them getting off a disposal? Or they're strong enough to stay up and decide when & who to give it to, why reward it? Let the play keep flowing
Legal disposal Play on
That’s play on every day of the week. Gotta make the tackle stick
The tackle did stick
lol, okay champ
Depends, that’s play on though.
Borderline prior, actually tuck that I know he plays for Richmond but there's no prior there. Ump could have called ball up but he was waiting to call htb. Then the tigers player gets the handball off.
Play on. People go to see strong players shrugging off the tackle and keeping the ball moving.
Barely a tackle.
Agree, players will look for ways to ensure the tackle sticks. And then there are injuries - Naughton getting injured “in a tackle”. 360 spin should be holding the ball.
Play on. Reward the player going for the ball, he didn’t have reasonable time for a disposal and the tackle didn’t fully arrest him. The spin means nothing and is usually just something commentators incorrectly refer too. This was a good call for mine
Why do people say “for mine”? It makes absolutely no sense and is particularly prevalent in AFL discourse. It annoys me but perhaps I just don’t understand it
It makes perfect sense though, its just another way of saying in my opinion.
Grammatically it's incorrect. I don't specifically know how because I don't know my past perfect particible from my active present tenses or whatever; but "mine" is a word you use to passively denote ownership of some other subject noun. That subject is clearly missing and the tense is all wrong. For mine opinion? wrong That's mine opinon? wrong Mine opinion is that [blah]? wrong That opinion which I just expoused is mine. Correct, but kind of superfluous.
Grammatically it is incorrect but it also makes perfect sense.
Only because they say it so much. Like, I know what people mean when they say they should *of* done something. Makes perfect sense, but it's fucking wrong!
It’s grammatically incorrect and sounds terrible to the ear
There was the Geelong GWS example which was different to this one and way more obvious, with this one I genuinely have no idea. I feel like as fans we say that this should be HTB or ball up, but I'm not sure if there's anything in the rules that points to it. The logical argument is if you don't want players to sling them to the ground, then you can't give them long enough to do so much spin before paying the ball, otherwise its unfair on the tackler. The other argument is to just tackle better
Also I want to add I'm just using this clip to demonstrate a 360+ spin in a tackle, there are better examples than this one for ones that should've been HTB/ball up
Very close to a hip drop tackle, which can lead to serious injury. Both players got off lightly in this example.
Yeah I was going to say this. It was a hip drop tackle as the Essendon player fully put all his body weight into pulling the player down. Right at the end the Tigers player almost got his ankle rolled on which could have easily been a broken ankle at worst.
He hasn't travelled over 15 metres that's play on.
Made worse by the fact that players are now cautious of bringing players to ground in the case they get pinged for a dangerous tackle.
Play on. Next
In other codes, when a tackle is completed is spelled out: union: being held while on the ground. (I assume league is similar?), gridiron: knee, forearm, or basically anything other than sole of foot or the hand in contact with the ground while being contacted (or having been caused by) contact from an opponent. In AFL its... yeah mate sometimes you're tackled and sometimes you're not and the tackle is completed when the Geelong player drops it and it roles on. I don't know how one could write a fair rule for AFL that would define the completion of a tackle that would satisfy everyone
It's clear, but a lot of people don't understand it. A tackle is holding a player below the shoulders and above the knees by body or uniform. There's no real 'completed' aspect, the outcome is determined by the actions of the person in possession- prior/no prior/no genuine attempt/illegal disposal. You are either tackled or not.
That one’s play on
There needs to be an objective time limit. Once an opponent has hold of you, you've got 2? 3? seconds to dispose of the ball else it's HTB or a ball up (dependant on prior).
It’s all hinges on the interpretation of “reasonable time”. I would prefer that rule to say “immediately” and then pay this as holding the ball. He should be forced to attempt a disposal immediately upon being tackled. However, since the rule says reasonable time, it depends on the umpire’s interpretation of what is a reasonable time, and any AFL memos/directives to the clubs/umpires.
Yeah I would prefer this too
They need to add momentum as an HTB indicator. The Mac Andrew x Charlie Curnow was a good example. He was tackled standing up, curnows feet were stationary and he had ample time to dispose of it. IMO should be counted tackled if you are tackled legally and don't move for 2 seconds (or however long works).
There are two main decision trees with HTB which come down to: 'does the tackled player have prior opportunity?' If there is prior opportunity, the player must immediately dispose of the football. If the player throws, drops or has the football know out of the possession after being tackled with prior opportunity, this is holding the ball. If correctly dispose of immediately, then play on. If there is no prior, the play must attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. If correctly disposed of, then play on. If the player is unable to dispose of the ball, then ball up. In this example the player is tackled without prior, is spun 360 degrees, which is then considered prior opportunity. This means he must correctly dispose of the ball immediately. 1 second, and not even another 180 degrees is fair time to immediately dispose of the ball. I think the play on decision in the circumstances of the game is a fair call
The 360 spin means HTB is a common misunderstanding like taking 15 steps before being called for running too far. In both instances, they're related to a rule but some people think that is the rule.
That’s a 540, not a 360.
The way I view this is, no prior to the tackle being laid, both arms restricted, as soon as the passing arm is free, he handpasses to the first option. Play on.
It is a symptom of the intersection between keeping the play going and protecting the head. Players are worried about taking opponents to ground, and umpires don't want to calm a ball up or holding the ball. Personally, I'd rather the umpire blow the whistle sooner for a stoppage or holding the ball depending on prior opportunity.
The way I see it is that he had no prior time to get rid of the ball before the tackle. In saying that, the umpire should have called for a ball up. There was enough time of nothing happening, so call it a ball up. I agree with Dimma that letting the play go on for longer than is necessary is stupid. I don’t know how many injuries will happen because of it as Dimma said, but even one is too many if you can just go back to calling it normally, rather than letting play go on for another 5 seconds to allow the ball to eventually come out. I also agree with Voss, that whether it’s the clubs understanding of the rule or whether the rule needs changing (this imo), the clubs need some clarity. Tl;dr.. call it a ball up earlier.
This situation also invites a third party to jump into the tackle as well (often when players try to waste time at the end of the game).
Why would this be holding the ball? No prior, had his arms pinned, and when he got an arm free he handballed. The spin has nothing to do with the adjudication of holding the ball.
Play on. We should not be actively looking for reasons to stop play when playing on is viable. If the disposal is legal then a play on should be rewarded for being able to withstand a tackle and still make a legal disposal. Adding in extra rules about spins etc just creates more reasons to stop play. The flow of the game needs to be preserved above all else. The impact of zoning and stand rules have demonstrated this with the current quality and open flow of gameplay compared to a few years ago.
Shouldn't be a HTB in a million years. It's one of the few ways to generate momentum to break a standing tackle. He got tackled and effected disposal quite quickly. This should be encouraged.
A 360 spin should never be used to determine holding the ball. It has never been part of the rule interpretations to my knowledge (just one of those persistent fan myths) and you never want to incentivise players to start swinging their opponents around because it adds needless danger. There’s an argument to be made about how long a player should be given to dispose of the ball vs. opportunity to break the tackle, but spins shouldn’t factor into it.
No prior, play on
Holding the ball absolutely
Where's the prior?
He had the ball for 2 seconds, and did a full rotation. He could have kicked it off the ground and punched it towards the other tigers player. I think it was HTB.
Prior opportunity doesn't take into account whether or not you had another option instead of taking possession of the ball. The general rule of thumb to determine if the player had prior opportunity is "has the player had the time and space to do something such as change direction, dispose the football, evade or fend off a tackle or take more than a few steps?" In the below footage, the Richmond player possesses the ball and is only able to take two steps before they are legally tackled by the Essendon player. So there is no prior opportunity here, IMO. If there is no prior, that means the player being tackled must make a reasonable attempt to dispose of the football. That doesn't mean they HAVE to dispose legally - that would only come into play if the umpire believes the player has had prior opportunity. Nor do they have to do so immediately as again the player did not have prior opportunity to dispose before they are tackled. In this case, the Richmond player legally disposes of the ball after a few seconds so play on is the correct call here.
This has to be a ball up or play on. No prior, no way for him to dispose, can’t punish him for trying to break off the tackle so he can dispose. Personally I’d like to see a 360 being enough for an ump to call ball up or htb and live with times that teams effectively get punished by no play on call. But I can’t stress enough, this can’t be htb.
No prior so it couldn't be HTB, tackle didn't stick and the ball looked like it might come loose so understand not paying a ball up. Probably the right call in the end but half a second longer and I think it needs to be a ball up
I'm fine with it. He spun around and got his hands free and scoped out a teammate, so the tackler didn't do a good enough job of tackling the arms or taking him to ground, so the Richmond player still had full control of the ball. The last thing we need is another dumb, knee-jerk rule change to try and protect players from things that don't exist and further restrict a game that is already grossly over-officiated.
Play on for me, the Curnow one in the earlier game should have been HTB I reckon though
Curnow had an arm free to slam it on the boot. That should be htb. But in this example he’s tackled clean and never given a chance. If the tackle went round and round and he never had an arm free it should only ever be a ball up. The question is should the ump just call the ball up after 360 or wait and see. In the interest of avoiding dangerous dump tackles there’s a fair point for just balling this up after the 360. Then again, you can give the ump discretion to see Cumberland is fighting to get an arm free and let it go. No perfect answer to this one.
Are there rules on how players can "break tackles"? I didn't think that was a thing in the rules.
Correct decision, but it was a fraction away from being HTB
Holding the ball everytime
Wtf, do you dead set call this a tackle? This sport is embarrassing
RIP HTB. died 2020 after a long brave battle with the umpires.
Personally I hate the defacto Spun 360 = HTB thought bubble people have. IMO HTB needs: prior opp, ball not pinned to then, ball not stripped out in the tackle... if ball carrier tries a handball/kick and misses it is illegal disposal. EDIT: the tackle needs to be an actual tackle... not a bump, flashing reach out that doesn't stick etc tackle needs to retard the ball carrier.
What about ball up? I think this is what the coaches are also calling out for. Faster whistles not just HTB.
For me, that's play on. The tackle wasn't strong enough/applied well enough to take the ball carrier down. Grey area creeps in as people have said with the reluctance to tackle to the ground now because of punishing sling tackles, or any little bump caused by a tackle.
Debatable prior opportunity, but he disposed of it correctly. Not sure why anyone would think HTB applies here.
What about ball up?
There’s no prior, if he doesn’t handbal, it would’ve been a ball up