See, I disagree there, … if you penalise a player who make s genuine attempt to dispose correctly, … then they just won’t, … they’ll hold it and bang, Stoppage, … or they’ll just drop it, which also by that rationale should be penalised, but isn’t.
If they make a genuine attempt to get rid of it or are in the act of doing so at their first opportunity, and they miss it with the kick, because pulled off it etc, … then Play On he tried, is the juice, … and on it goes.
Edit; I think the more pertinent question on that one now I remember it, … is was that “At his first opportunity” to dispose of it?
Free Kick Difference confirms my theory. The AFL hates Essendon for obvious reasons, hates Carlton from when Pigs ■■■■ was President and Port Adelaide - I have no idea, what’s Kochie done to upset them?
Not sure of the exact wording but the ball is meant to be dropped. When Higgins won goal of the year last year the excuse was momentum lifted the ball from his hand so it wasn’t a throw or some BS like that.
Ray Chamberlian is terrible for that, its his “look at me, look at me” moment.
Excellent point. That free kick would not be so controversial had it been paid as too high, rather than holding
Good point. I’d counter that by saying if the player has no prior and no legal way off attempting to dispose of the ball, then he should be able to hold on to it and a ball up would be a fair result. Throwing it shouldn’t be an option. Throwing is, has been and always should be incorrect disposal.
That’s not countering anything, … that’s agreeing with my prior post.
Edit; and therfore that one.
But if you don’t have prior opp, but should still be able to get rid of it, it should be HTB.
Cameron Ling struggles with this aspect…among others…like any other aspect of football.
If you mean “Could have made a correct disposal” despite or while being tackled, but don’t, … then that would constitute a “Prior” opportunity, … no?
Probably should be:
… ‘eventually will be called for HTB free’.
Because let’s say you are tackled around the waist immediately but with arms free.
There is no prior at that point.
But you then make no attempt to handball off your then done. You’ve had the prior opportunity only throughout the course of the tackle
Being an umpire what was your determination of the decisions?
This is a very good point and no doubt afl directed.
Wasn’t Pazza an umpire? Should get his thoughts on this
There may not be a deliberate bias, however there is very likely a subconscious bias against us given the umpires along with everyone else have been told adnausium for the last 6 years that Essendon is the root of all evil.
Tell me the difference between ball spills and dropping the ball. That’s the difficult one. You can make it look like it spilt out pretty easily
I know what you mean, but they are letting it go if you, “let it go” so to speak these days, … and while it’s technically wrong, and would have been called as such a decade ago, … you can see why the AFL and umps are ok with it to reduce stoppages, … and for the same reason, so am I. As long as it’s not thrown, . or “given”, … which, just by the by, I’ve seen an increasing incidence of too in the past 2 years.
Edit; Only talking when NO PRIOR there though, JTBC.
This is most of the problem. It should be paid as it was years ago. Now it is simply to hard to umpire.
It doesn’t really make the game flow any better in the long run as players would get rid of the ball quicker and not try to ride as many tackles.
Same as the stupid chopping the arms free. To hard to umpire under current interpretation.
The rules desperately need to be simplified so that there is less grey.
Remember that massive block Cox put on hooker not allowing him to run at the ball he facing the ■■■■■■ crowed. BT banging on about how good it was.
You can’t farking do it.