Yes I know ( at the time, thought for moment he may have gotten away with it)
1 Like
Yeah, me too, ⌠because he got the ball back after he bounced it, and kept motoring, because he wasnât actually tackled.
If the free was still then correct in that instance, then the rule is wrong for mine.
8 Likes
Think the way the rule is defined is wrong. Ok, KB dropped the ball in front of him to avoid HTB, but genuine bouncing of the ball should not mean automatic HTB.
The way it should work: if you try to bounce the ball and you do not successfully retrieve it and then either dispose of it, or break and run away from the tackle, then that should be HTB. If you do then dispose or break the tackle, play on.
7 Likes
Are you sure the decision is right? You canât bounce the ball once tackled but Saad was tackled as the ball returned to him. Therefore we didnât âdropâ the ball in the tackle. This rule is clearly at odds with how every other tackle is umpired around the ground.
2 Likes
Another way to think of what the rule should be, if you bounce the ball, that is absolute demonstration of prior opportunity. If you canât correctly dispose of the ball or break the tackle, then HTB.
That deals with the KB factor, but still allows exciting passages of play, like Saadâs.
4 Likes
Westhoff went to handball, ball came free and he then hit it with his fist, thatâs a throw you #32 â â â â !!!
4 Likes
I do like it though when Chelsea is our Umpire.
3 Likes
All the laws say is that you are deemed to be in possession when in the act of bouncing. So forget whether the ball was bounced before or after the tackle. The real question is (if you ask me), if you were tackled in exactly the same way while you continued to hold the ball, would you be considered holding the ball? If you break a brief slipped tackle then play on (if you donât bounce it). Bouncing is exactly the same possession. If you hold for a while then bounce, and the tackle sticks, the duration will get you. If you bounce and donât get it back you are still IN Possession so clearly itâs holding the ball (the kb rule).
Saad was barely tackled and got a kick away almost as soon as tackled, so play on for mine- no one would have paid against him if he held the ball then kicked in that exact same tackle (rather than bounced).
But the umpires like drama. Like htb after a long prior if the kick is a short dribbled one. Itâs still a kick, you idiots!
10 Likes
Whatâs happened to the other female umpire, elena?
I will investigate !
Though I do really only have eyes for Chelsea, when she signals a Bomber goal, thrusts out her hands and wriggles her behind, I forget Mrs Fox is sitting next to me.
Careful mate, you just know ggiant and others will come in here and have a go at you for objectifying her
The current Mrs Fox is the only person I fear.
She has strict but clear rules, understandable given my past indiscretions.
I am allowed to look , but no touching and no audible sounds. Think I am safe as the crowd noise when we kick a goal covers up my groans.
Saad kicked a goalâŚso he was in complete control the whole timeâŚthe tackle didnt stick till after he kicked the ballâŚit was bullsh!t free everyday of the week
This is what the rule states
The Umpire seems to have believed it was a tackle and that it was not disposed of immediately.
So a âTackleâ is holding the player in any way, does not have to impede his progress just be touching him.
This is the bit that is so frustrating about this. Seems like they are willing to pay HTB if someone like Saad of McKenna just get touched by the tackling player while bouncing the ball - and then they are able to run off and kick a goal or pass. Much more grace is given to someone who gets tackled for two, three seconds and makes a semi-controlled kick.
3 Likes
But countless times we see someone break a tackle HTB is not paid. Its what we expect to see, and the interpretation seems to be that if a tackle is attempted but is broken, then the player is not âCorrectly Tackledâ, otherwise HTB would be paid every time someone is touched, but tries to break the tackle rather than immediately dispose of the ball. So, that means if someone touches Saad when he is bouncing the ball but he runs off, then he has not been âCorrectly Tackledâ, and therefore does not need to immediately dispose of the ball.
Problem is, I canât find anywhere in the game laws where there is an explicit allowance for someone to be able to break a tackle. The only thing we have is that 15.4.1(b) requires âholdingâ. Saad was not held. A touch is not holding.
Good explanation. The rule has always been a murky one, for it doesnât explain how Stringer can break 3 tackled and still not get pinged for HTB.
And furthermore, if a player is tackled after bouncing the ball, he has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of it. The bounce is not the âprior opportunityâ because obviously he did not know someone was going to tackle him (or in McKennaâs case, touch his jumper).
As usual, poor policy making by the AFL is a) illogical; b) breaks the flow of the game (that the AFL says it wants to achieve); c) ruins the excitement for the fans; and d) provides another opportunity for the maggots to control the outcome of the game.
so a 360 or 180 degree spin while being tackled should be htbâŚbut they let it go
I wouldnât agree with this. If you bounce you have had time to dispose so I would say a bounce is always possession with prior. My issue is that if you wouldnât pay a htb free for a tackle where there was no bounce but there was prior opp (eg where ball player takes 4-5 steps before an attempted tackle) because the tackle is slipped or disposal is quick after the tackle (happens plenty every game), then nothing in the rules says there is a difference between that scenario and where a bounce is involved. Player is in possession with prior, exactly the same way.
3 Likes