If you throw or drop the ball its incorrect disposal as long as your not being tackled. Otherwise thenrules change.
It seems if you do that whilst being tackled its play on.
And if you dont drop or throw it whilst being tackled its HTB. Prior is being able to drop the ball whilst being tackled.
AFL logic
Personally I think they have somehow 
the 
and ruined the game.
Confusing as
Yes, but you could only review a decision that was made which stopped play completely. And even then it would get abused by the players. You could not stop play to review a free kick that wasnāt paid because that would quickly become a farce.
You may have missed my use of the sarcastica font.
I knew you were smarter than thatā¦
Its funny the industry I work in has rules with very grey areas in the way the rules are written and interpreted. Long story short they are deliberately written that way. So (in the governing authorityās own words). āwe can get you if we want tooā
I think the AFL rules are no different. Makes it very easy to fix a match, get a predetermined outcome. Then look at the rule book and say well technically we where correct.
5 & 6 are the best points Iāve seen.
Umpires should watch 84 GF. Yes there are lots of frees but they are clear and concise. It let the play open up.
As for the ruck rule get rid of the outer circle. That circles most of the reason there are so many stoppages
Absolutely, but if the muppets in charge say he had no prior, then unfortunately incorrect disposal isnāt possible based on the current interpretation
Deliberate out of bounds
Perhaps it is time to bring in a last touch rule. That might seem harsh for a lot of situations, but the rule is the rule, and everybody knows it is the rule. You are removing subjective interpretation and umpire discretion. Thereās too many stoppages in the game anyway.
Handing ball to teammate before giving it to the ump. Just get rid of this stupid law
Like anything else the problem is that an umpire seems to pay 50 or not pay 50 based on whatever mood he is in at that given secondā¦ or whatever his kickback from Sportsbet specifies he should do. Maybe we should put a timer so a player has 20 seconds from the whistle to get the ball to the correct player or an ump, or the 50 is paid.
50m penalty. Too much a penalty. Reduce it to 25.
Or maybe establish a situation like half the distance to the goal in the NFL where the 50 metre limit does not allow for a possession inside the 50 arc unless the infraction itself was committed inside it. Nobody should get a free shot at goal from the top of the goal square for something that happens in the centre.
Throwing the ball. Seriously this is out of control. The umps need to properly penalise obvious throws
Yes, x 100.
is that by hand and foot?
I havenāt seen the footage, but if there is no prior, the player only need to attempt to dispose of the ball legally - not necessarily succeed.
Did he have prior in this case?
Not relevant but help me out, all.
Was there ever a thread called āthings that make you smileā or something like that? Got something I wanna post but canāt find it.
Yes, had prior.
the mistake here is believing that the AFL view this as a problem.
quite the contrary, the ability to manipulate results with impunity is exactly what the AFL has worked so hard to establish over the last 20 years.
In his presser today, AFL plant Brad Scott himself stated, unequivocally, that the AFL change the rules in order to manipulate the game āto make it enjoyable for the fansā.
and that really is the greatest trick theyāve ever pulled on the footy following masses and they do it in full view of absolutely everyone without a care in the world because there is nobody to hold them to account,
the rules are designed this way specifically to give umpires the ability to control the outcome of games as and when required.
Yepā¦ itās not a bug; itās a feature.
And Iād be willing to, uh, wager, that the gambling industry has a lot to do with it.
the fact that sports betting has been normalised to this degree predominately as a result of the AFL is quite literally disgusting.
it is also 100% the reason that corruption is rife within that institution.
talk about the blackest day in australian sportā¦
Not according to the AFL. Brad Scott said the AFL told him the Stewart non-call was correct as he didnāt have prior. So, following their logic it was the right call. Do we all think he had prior? Of course. Does it matter? Hell no.
Which is match fixing
Thought crisps summed it up perfectly how HTB should be adjudicated. Even he as a player said he wants a clamp down on proper disposal - he said the Stewart one is HTB simply because he had prior opportunity and didnātā disposal of it properly. None of this attempted to dispose of it. That would get rid of a few contentious ones I would think. I thought that was already teh rule to be honest.
What about instead of kicks for htb a lot of the time the umpire just quickly throws the ball up as a penalty. Ie just dont have htb
Because a kick is a big penalty.
Save the kicks for high tackles, trips, dangerous tackles.
Wonder how the game would look.
And EVERYONE knows that if the one thing that the AwFL does not do it is farces.