2 Andrew Stephens 16 Brendan Hosking 25 Shaun Ryan and making sense of their destruction


#582

Remember that if the first of those contentious “ball” frees was paid the other ones would not have occurred?

One thing I learned was that even when the ball hits the ground the tackled player who had prior opportunity can dispose of it legally by just punching it away or even kicking it off the ground. Is that new? Its no wonder players try to go to ground when they are tackled, so they can get high, “in the back”, trip, htm, “dislodged in the tackle” decisions awarded in their favour. They also get more time to dispose of the ball.

Seems to me, when you tackle a player, you really need to hold him up, pin both arms and place your leg around/across at least one of his legs to maximise your chances of earning a free.


#583

I think the way it should be is…

Prior opportunity - dispose legally immediately - otherwise free kick
No prior opportunity - ball held to the player - ball-up much quicker than now
No prior opportunity - ball not held to the player - must attempt to get rid of it in a reasonable time (much less than Judd/Ablett time)
No prior opportunity - ball dislodged in the tackle - play on

In the back and round the neck should take precedence over holding the ball.

If the umpire was right re Tippa’s too high, then play on or holding the ball.
But we all know he lied, so free kick
Selwood - free kick against


#584

Concur with the above, but I think this needs tweaking.


#585

NLM got done for one against the Weagles? where he had the guy wrapped up, I think he even had time to look at the umpire for a whistle, none forthcoming, so he threw the guy to the ground. Guy bumped head, he got fined or maybe even rubbed out.

Textbook example.


#586

Under the current interpretation No-prior appears to condone throwing the ball. Which is in direct breach of one of the few rules of the game without any grey area. Which is both nuts, and outrageous. That’s how poorly the current interpretations treat the game of footy.


#587

Just not self regulating ones


#588

Sheesh, even Buckley reckons the Crisp one was “50/50 because of how long he had it” .(read between the lines - we got lucky there)


#589

‘See throw blow whistle’ should be one of the simple no-fuss applications of the rules of the game. Thou shalt not throw the ball.


#590

He baulked one defender, got taken to ground by another. And only got a handball away whilst on the ground IIRC.

Had prior, tackled legally.

HTB every day of the week


#591

Of course it was. Blatant. Only the umpires believe they didn’t get that wrong . And maybe not even them.


#592

Yep. The umpires only say what the managers tell them to. The AFL are quite patronising towards them, in an attempt to protect them - all the decisions are correct, the emperor’s new clothes don’t clash, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

End result is all this big pile of lies, half truths and quarter truths that we’re in today.

And then the AFL is surprised they’re not respected?

The AFL needs to move past this.


#593

There was an umpires strike back in the VFL days - late 70’s. They got a bunch of umpires from lower leagues to officiate.


#594

What do you suggest?


#595

Have they changed the interpretation of the rule that you must make a reasonable attempt to dispose of the ball even when any attempt is impossible given both arms are pinned and you have players on top of you?


#596

The infallible stance held by the umpires is what happens when you protect them from criticism and shelter them from accountability. This is the fault of the media and AFL treating them like helpless children for so long.

They’re adults being paid to perform an important and public job and should be treated accordingly.


#597

:slight_smile: If I had a suggestion I would have made it.
But since you ask…

Quite often ‘knocked out in the tackle’ means ‘allow the momentum to push the ball towards your passing teammate.’
Perhaps we need to put more of an onus on not disposing of the ball illegally.
If a tackle knocks the ball out then it means it’s a ■■■■■■ good tackle (and I say this although my position is that free kicks aren’t awarded, they’re penalties…although perhaps in this case it’s a penalty for not having good ball control).

I do believe that if they did bring this rule in, all of a sudden you would miraculously see hardly any instances of the footy knocked out in the tackle.

Of course that means holding onto the ball, which could mean more congestion.
Perhaps with AN#10’s suggestion of faster ball-ups (which would protect a lot of players from injury, I’m surprised the AFLPA isn’t onto that), it might work.
It would need to be a part of a suite of changes.

And as I said, I wouldn’t be in favour of bringing any of them in without a trial.


#598

This would do it.


#599

Surely it’s as simple as,

NO PRIOR - Ball held=Ball up, / Ball spills, = Play On,

PRIOR - Ball held = Free to tackler, / Not Disposed of Correctly = Free or Play on to Advantage.

It’s really not that hard.


#600

Yeah, I don’t think it would.
One man’s knocked out in the tackle is another man’s throw.

Edit: Unless you’re saying play-on if the tackler makes contact with the ball…


#601

Saw multiple free kicks paid on the weekend in other games idêntical too the ones missed last week.

The problem is that its a grey área. They can pay or not pay a free and justify it.

And if you have rules like that and multiple umpires with different interpretations, well the game isnt consistent.

I dont believe there is any special bias, except maybe for home teams where the crowds reactions influence an umpire.

And I think its human nature.