Here’s the point though.
IF Saady was not bouncing the ball at the time he was “Tackled” (mildly grabbed at) and brushed it as he did, and kept going, it would be all good.
It should be exactly the same call provided he retrieves the bounce.
In both instances he’s being judged as “Being in posession”, so why is one determined differently to the other?
A player is running with the ball and he bounces it. Bounce turns to shyte and ball rolls away.
Does this mean the player can be tackled to the ground even though the ball is feet away?
And then does touching this player’s short constitute HTB?
correct, just like when Cyril ran down Atkinson in 2009. He got his kick away in time so the goal stood. But Saad bounced it first, so the rule is htb.
Should it be the rule? I’m ok with it and all (well most anyway) the players know it.
There’s lots of quirky rules that when you think about it, are a bit odd really. I actually don’t know why push in the back is a free. You can push any other part of the body below the shoulders but not the back. How’d we end up with that one? Was there a plethora of dangerous shoves in the early years that resulted in injuries from players being driven into the ground?
Can anyone tell me the time remaining and game when McKenna got pinned holding the ball by that fingernail tackle while bouncing last year? I’m sending something to the AFL.
It was against the Lions in the last qtr. not sure of time remaining but I think it was in the first half of the qtr
Poor sweet innocent child.
None of the rules have been changed. That’s why “interpretations” exist, so there’s nothing written in black and white.
thanks. I found this.
Interesting the comments. Most say oh yeah it’s htb because that counts as a tackle. But if it does, then it also counts as a tackle when dusty is bursting through a pack with prior opp. Because the rules do not differentiate the scenarios. In fact they equate them. A player bouncing is considered in possession during the bounce. Guess what, he’s also in possession when it’s tucked under his wing! This misreading of the actual rules that people have become accustomed to is an overreaction to the kb cheat scenario. Which this isn’t.
It’s correct according to the rules
The rules are wrong
Nobody wants this. We want to see the Judds and Martins given half a second to beat a poor tackle. We want to see Saad and McKenna given half a second to get the ball back and get a kick off.
A “tackle” should only be counted as such when either the ball/player is stopped or the ball stripped - which is how the statisticians define it.
Rance publicly criticised the umpires on FOX ? He specifically refers to 4 frees awarded against him personally and the names of the umpires at that match are well known .
Questionable but no repercussions.
FWIW… I also want to see the tackler rewarded far more than they are at present.
The balance is wrong in my view.
Holding and grabbing jumpers isn’t a show of strength, it’s what you do when you are out of position or beaten for strength yourself
The Judds and Martins are given their half a second to break the poor tackle by the umpire wanting to see if the tackling player has a hold. No hold -> no “Correct Tackle” -> no HTB. I want to see the same interpretation when someone is bouncing the ball.
I also have no problem if a modern day KB bounces the ball being wrapped up in a tackle and being pinged.
Should the level of tackling , arm around opposition player and grabbing of jumpers whilst IN possession of the ball be the same as in a marking contest or general play when NOT IN possession of the ball .
Is the amount of contact / infringement legally or illegally the same when in possession or trying to get possession.
We all know that it is acceptable to call all three umps cheats/incompetent… but if you say that two of them were not cheats/incompetent, you’re in big trouble.
(Not sure if Rance has just said 1/2/3 of them are dodgy, but the point is he’s been similarly specific.)
I want McKenna to learn that he doesn’t need to bounce the ball after he’s taken 5 steps. He does this every time he runs with the ball. He caused that situation in last year’s Brisbane choke-fest because he didn’t have good situational awareness.
Thing is, there is no real definition of tackle. Which is ok so long as whatever that is is applied consistently to all players in possession and with prior. The problem is it is considered differently when there is a bounce compared to when there isn’t s bounce, and NOTHING in the rules supports that variation. Yes, a player bouncing is “in possession” and has had prior. Just like Judd/danger/dusty bursting through a tackle after 3 steps is in possession and has had prior. There is no rule that says a lesser tackle counts against a ball-bouncer compared to a non-bouncer. None.
Yeah, the reason he does that is the maggots pinged him a couple of times for running 9.9 metres between bounces. No-one except the maggots thought he had run too far.
So now he overcompensates to lessen his odds of getting pinged unfairly.
We want good tackles rewarded. IMO.
Not half-arsed one-arm tackles that don’t even slow the guy down.
I just McKenna to learn not to bite
I got some feedback from my enquiry to AFL on the htb decisions - Saad this year and McKenna last year.
Their internal review last year found the McKenna htb was an umpire error, as that brief non impeding shorts tug should not have counted as a correct tackle. They do consider Saad was htb, although I disagreed with the reasoning which was that the tackle hit before he got the ball back.
So net result - McKenna call should not happen again. It’s not touch football after all - hooray. Saad was clearly considered close, and while I don’t like the reasoning given for the call, I’d agree it’s an arguable instance for different reasons (how immediate is immediate disposal with prior?)
I was impressed I even got a response, so props to them.
I reckon they seem better this year, and not just because they replied in this case!