Interpretation of holding the ball
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Curly, out of curiosity. What's the definition of prior opportunity? Is there a set time limit for every player? Is each players reflexes and abilities taken into account. Is it longer for a defender than a forward?
I sound facetious but the holding the ball & incorrect disposal are rules that can be black & white. I don't like the fact that 3 umpires in the same game can offer their own interpretations.
Just the same as deliberate should be scrapped. Simply last touch like every other sport that enjoys continuous ball movement.
I sound facetious but the holding the ball & incorrect disposal are rules that can be black & white. I don't like the fact that 3 umpires in the same game can offer their own interpretations.
Just the same as deliberate should be scrapped. Simply last touch like every other sport that enjoys continuous ball movement.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10134
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1299 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
You have to be able to take possesion for one then dispose of it in a correct manner to have prior.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 5:44pm Curly, out of curiosity. What's the definition of prior opportunity? Is there a set time limit for every player? Is each players reflexes and abilities taken into account. Is it longer for a defender than a forward?
I sound facetious but the holding the ball & incorrect disposal are rules that can be black & white. I don't like the fact that 3 umpires in the same game can offer their own interpretations.
Just the same as deliberate should be scrapped. Simply last touch like every other sport that enjoys continuous ball movement.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
So the perfect tackle, one arm pinned is actually a furphy. And when players pile on another players back, although the "In the back" infringement occurs during prior opportunity, the "Holding the ball" rule takes precedence?CURLY wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 5:50pmYou have to be able to take possesion for one then dispose of it in a correct manner to have prior.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 5:44pm Curly, out of curiosity. What's the definition of prior opportunity? Is there a set time limit for every player? Is each players reflexes and abilities taken into account. Is it longer for a defender than a forward?
I sound facetious but the holding the ball & incorrect disposal are rules that can be black & white. I don't like the fact that 3 umpires in the same game can offer their own interpretations.
Just the same as deliberate should be scrapped. Simply last touch like every other sport that enjoys continuous ball movement.
This is what I mean by blurring what should be B&W rules with interpretation. It is why you will always hate every decision against St Kilda and fail to acknowledge other peoples thoughts, because it ultimately comes down to interpretation, beginning with one of the 3 umpires.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Then if that's the correct interpretation then all umpires should pay it consistently.
That's the main issue for me. I don't care what the interpretation is as long as it's the same all game.
The players/coaches have no real idea what the umpire is going to call?
We're almost getting to the point where the players need to know which umpire is officiating at that instant to know what is going to be adjudicated.
I don't understand why it's so difficult to have consistent rulings within a game?
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8376
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
I guess then you just have to look like you are trying to get rid of it or just get rid of it correctly and quickly
If the ball is held into you then that's different - ball up
No prior to be phased out
If the ball is held into you then that's different - ball up
No prior to be phased out
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Seems there's a few interpretations here too. Which is ok, unless you are an umpire and charged with paying free kicks. Then there is just what the rule book says.
Umpires influencing the flow of the game through interpretation, what a crock!.![🤣](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f923.svg)
Umpires influencing the flow of the game through interpretation, what a crock!.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4897
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
- Has thanked: 1410 times
- Been thanked: 1430 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
How about if the tackling player is just sweating off with no intention of trying to win the ball the guy making the play cannot be penalised if grabbed as soon as he/she takes possession. Players are getting too good at just waiting and tackling rather than competing from a less favourable spot. We now have players very nearly tackled or impeded off the ball on suspicion of where the ball is going to be hand balled. Second guessing shouldn't get more benefit than playing the ball directly.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
And there we have it, Mr Magic, CQ, Devilhead & Yorkeys all very good posters, all have watched years of AFL, but no agreement because the rules are too grey, requiring a decision of one human, an interpretation.
The players who play AFL are incredibly talented with the ball, they can hold on to it, pretend to punch at, let it dribble out from a tackle or get it to the boundary line. These decisions can be black & white.
The players who play AFL are incredibly talented with the ball, they can hold on to it, pretend to punch at, let it dribble out from a tackle or get it to the boundary line. These decisions can be black & white.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Just for the record, the umpires were the least of the problems we had on Saturday IMHO. But their interpretations were less of a problem than their inconsistency was, and for any of them to base a free kick on the actions of the tackler instead of the player with the ball, is inexcusable, when there is clearly no prior opportunity to dispose of it correctly. They have an obligation to be fair as this is the core of their role, in line with the spirit of the game.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
But doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:09pm Just for the record, the umpires were the least of the problems we had on Saturday IMHO. But their interpretations were less of a problem than their inconsistency was, and for any of them to base a free kick on the actions of the tackler instead of the player with the ball, is inexcusable, when there is clearly no prior opportunity to dispose of it correctly. They have an obligation to be fair as this is the core of their role, in line with the spirit of the game.
If you've ever had the misfortune to read the Rules of Golf, whilst complex in parts, the interpretations are clear enough that players can rule on themselves.
Probably a bad comparison but at the end of each rule only one decision can be made in any given circumstance.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
There is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:35pmBut doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:09pm Just for the record, the umpires were the least of the problems we had on Saturday IMHO. But their interpretations were less of a problem than their inconsistency was, and for any of them to base a free kick on the actions of the tackler instead of the player with the ball, is inexcusable, when there is clearly no prior opportunity to dispose of it correctly. They have an obligation to be fair as this is the core of their role, in line with the spirit of the game.
If you've ever had the misfortune to read the Rules of Golf, whilst complex in parts, the interpretations are clear enough that players can rule on themselves.
Probably a bad comparison but at the end of each rule only one decision can be made in any given circumstance.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
That's semantics CQ and you are right, it is an opinion. If you were to instruct someone to lay a perfect tackle, what would you say?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:52pmThere is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:35pmBut doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:09pm Just for the record, the umpires were the least of the problems we had on Saturday IMHO. But their interpretations were less of a problem than their inconsistency was, and for any of them to base a free kick on the actions of the tackler instead of the player with the ball, is inexcusable, when there is clearly no prior opportunity to dispose of it correctly. They have an obligation to be fair as this is the core of their role, in line with the spirit of the game.
If you've ever had the misfortune to read the Rules of Golf, whilst complex in parts, the interpretations are clear enough that players can rule on themselves.
Probably a bad comparison but at the end of each rule only one decision can be made in any given circumstance.
Surely a perfect or pretty good tackle will cause a holding the ball OR incorrect disposal. So how do either come about?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Umpires interpret the rules. The onus is on the guy with the ball. The umpire needs to consider 4 things when a 'legal' tackle is made.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 11:01pmThat's semantics CQ and you are right, it is an opinion. If you were to instruct someone to lay a perfect tackle, what would you say?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:52pmThere is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:35pmBut doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:09pm Just for the record, the umpires were the least of the problems we had on Saturday IMHO. But their interpretations were less of a problem than their inconsistency was, and for any of them to base a free kick on the actions of the tackler instead of the player with the ball, is inexcusable, when there is clearly no prior opportunity to dispose of it correctly. They have an obligation to be fair as this is the core of their role, in line with the spirit of the game.
If you've ever had the misfortune to read the Rules of Golf, whilst complex in parts, the interpretations are clear enough that players can rule on themselves.
Probably a bad comparison but at the end of each rule only one decision can be made in any given circumstance.
Surely a perfect or pretty good tackle will cause a holding the ball OR incorrect disposal. So how do either come about?
1. has he possessed the ball,
2. has he had an opportunity to dispose of it correctly,
3. did he dispose of it incorrectly,
4. was the ball knocked out by the tackle.
The quality of that legal tackle once deemed legal, is of no consequence to the interpretation of the rule.
1. Marshall possessed the ball and was immediately tackled correctly.
2. He had no opportunity to dispose of it correctly because he was taken to ground and had one arm pinned.
3. He didn't dispose of the ball incorrectly
4. The ball was not knocked out by the the tackle.
In the spirit in which the game should be played or in which the rule should be interpreted, a ball up was the only fair decision
It can't be any clearer.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
It was about 2 seconds short of being the perfect tackle. Marshall is renowned for tacking one step and then quickly attempting to kick the ball clear of congestion.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 11:01pmThat's semantics CQ and you are right, it is an opinion. If you were to instruct someone to lay a perfect tackle, what would you say?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:52pmThere is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:35pmBut doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 10:09pm Just for the record, the umpires were the least of the problems we had on Saturday IMHO. But their interpretations were less of a problem than their inconsistency was, and for any of them to base a free kick on the actions of the tackler instead of the player with the ball, is inexcusable, when there is clearly no prior opportunity to dispose of it correctly. They have an obligation to be fair as this is the core of their role, in line with the spirit of the game.
If you've ever had the misfortune to read the Rules of Golf, whilst complex in parts, the interpretations are clear enough that players can rule on themselves.
Probably a bad comparison but at the end of each rule only one decision can be made in any given circumstance.
Surely a perfect or pretty good tackle will cause a holding the ball OR incorrect disposal. So how do either come about?
2 more seconds and the same tackle might have been perfect.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Cheers CQ, good discussion. Great way to explain why the Marshall decision was incorrect. The follow up though is interesting as well, the arbitrary time you imposed. No where in the rule is a time mentioned so that in itself is an individual's interpretation. I think we can make our rules clearer for the adjudicator, the players and the spectators.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
The time wasn't arbitrary. It was a guesstimate on the time Marshall usually takes to attempt a disposal in congestion. He steps, has great balance and drops the ball with one hand on his boot.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Wed 15 Jul 2020 9:46am Cheers CQ, good discussion. Great way to explain why the Marshall decision was incorrect. The follow up though is interesting as well, the arbitrary time you imposed. No where in the rule is a time mentioned so that in itself is an individual's interpretation. I think we can make our rules clearer for the adjudicator, the players and the spectators.
It was a great tackle but technically, a tad early to .impose an incorrect disposal decision.
In the heat of the moment, the umpires can be excused for the mistake. His response about 'perfect tackle' technically, made his decision inexcusable for me. But what else could he say? 'He had prior' no, he dispose of the ball incorrectly' no. His opinion on the tackle was unwarranted and unfair. Umpire should stick to the rules and not try to change the spirit in which the game should be played. They are trying to remove the 'no prior opportunity' aspect and it is obvious.
- Sanctorum
- Club Player
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2014 10:08pm
- Has thanked: 1473 times
- Been thanked: 1000 times
Re: Interpretation of holding the ball
Same goes for the decision against Coffield, there was no way he had prior opportunity as he literally slid along the ground to gather the ball and had a Freo player fall on him instantaneously, yet got pinged...
I don't know if there's much that can be done to resolve these inconsistent decisions, because in essence umpires are a law unto themselves.
Ratten's philosophy of players creating space and executing pinpoint passes, pressure opponents and keep the ball moving has worked well in the 3 games they won, and should have continued on after the 1st quarter last week.
I don't know if there's much that can be done to resolve these inconsistent decisions, because in essence umpires are a law unto themselves.
Ratten's philosophy of players creating space and executing pinpoint passes, pressure opponents and keep the ball moving has worked well in the 3 games they won, and should have continued on after the 1st quarter last week.
"To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.."
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910) American writer and humorist
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910) American writer and humorist