I wouldn’t 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 wouldn’t 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.
Watch out she will cut out your tongue.
To be fair, most 360s after prior get paid htb. 360 with no prior they let go. But, they do allow plenty of slipped tackles or disposals immediately on being tackled, where there is prior. Should be tga same if there is a bounce. I guess a difference is if you are tackled first and don’t slip the tackle and you go for a bounce , that will be a long time in possession in a tackle even if you get it back and dispose pretty quickly, so probably fair htb there. But that’s not what saad did.
Hmmm, it is my only working part these days !!
I am sure Captain J, that in the past, a tackle was where you actually stopped some-one playing on and they could not dispose of the ball correctly. The current rule is more like touch footy.
Sounds as though this is the only rule that hasn’t been adjusted for new interpretations of HTB
I think it’s a simple matter of everyone getting conditioned to ‘any bounce and any tackle whether it holds or not is htb, because KB rule change something something’, regardless of what the rules actually say or what is otherwise considered a ‘hold’ or ‘immediate’ disposal in other circumstances.
There’s a reason they don’t publish their interpretations. They can’t be proved to be wrong that way.
I don’t think it’s grey or murky at all. I don’t think I have ever seen a player be tackled either during or prior to bouncing that has not been paid htb. The one last year with Mckenna I thought was a bit more baffling because I don’t think he was actually tackled (more like a hand was laid on him, but he was not impeded). Saad was tackled as the ball was coming back to him from the bounce so it was a correctly paid free kick.
The understanding, if not the actual rule, was always that the player with the ball had to be retarded by the tackler. But, like all AFL rules, that was just an interpretation. Unfortunately where there is room for interpretation, there’s the likelihood there’ll be many versions of them.
Take for example Tbell’s ruck work. Last week he was pinged for straight arming the opposition ruckman at the throw ins. This week he was able to do it without penalty.
The frustrating thing is that rules are interpreted differently during a game, and often by the same umpire. All anybody wants, including the players, is consistency.
The problem here is that Saad, like McKenna last year, was not dispossessed by the tackle nor did he fail to dispose correctly. I think It should be play on but that is not the way they interpret it. Had the tackle commenced before the bounce I could accept it but even then you should get the opportunity to dispose correctly imo considering that the rule makes it clear that a bounce constitutes the player still being in possession.
That we’ve had two of these that cost us goals at crucial stages in the last quarter in recent times is very unusual so I don’t think the league will address it. I think the club should raise the query though if only to potentially benefit Saad and McKenna in the long term.
We want to see exciting running goals like these. It would be a good change. It’s a pity Essendon has been excluded from the new faux rules committee.
I don’t get the confusion around this one. It has been paid this way for as long as I remember. Playing and watching. The tackle doesn’t have to be any good if you’re bouncing.
I think we all get that. I think we’re all saying that that interpretation sucks though in the particular circumstances concerned
Agreed. The only context in which we would enjoy that interpretation is if we were the tackler.
Maybe look at it from the opposite direction. If a player bounces the ball, then he can be tackled while not in possession of the ball (ie it isn’t holding the man). When and if he regains possession then usual rules apply regarding immediate disposal. I think this is where the KB rule change went wrong because he just threw the ball on the ground before being tackled to then receive a holding the man free.
In my scenario (yes I’m dreaming) the reality would become players bouncing, being tackled and deliberately avoiding regaining possession so we’d then be in a contested ball situation. This would still provide some reward for the tackle and leave the player with the ball able to take a run and bounce knowing exactly what could happen. If the tackle doesn’t stick then there’s no free either way and the bouncer can regain possession and kick the goal.
Which rule says this?
(Hint, there isn’t one)
Rule doesn’t say this. It says you are in possession during a bounce. That’s fine, I just think you should have tha same opportunity to shake a tackle or dispose as you do when you haven’t bounced. When you have had prior, that obligation is to dispose “immediately”, but in reality we give a tackled player a chance to shake a tackle or take a step or two to kick. Just asking for the same.
How long can you remember ?
I remember when it was not a tackle unless it retarded your progress, no just touching someone on the bum.
I recall blokes like Bluey Sheldon crashing through packs with some little pissant from Carlscum riding on his back, and he still cleared the ball to Kenny Fraser.
Both McKenna and Saad had control of the ball, we’re not retarded in their progress and kicked goals. BS rule, administered by BS umpires.
Correct. I probably would have got the answer without the hint, I reckon.
You’d also know that “interpretation” for better or worse, has informed the rules for decades.
That hasn’t mattered for… a while.