Interpretation of holding the ball

[Ghost Like]

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.

[CURLY]

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.

You have to be able to take possesion for one then dispose of it in a correct manner to have prior.

[Ghost Like]

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.

You have to be able to take possesion for one then dispose of it in a correct manner to have prior.

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?

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]

I like the way it was interpreted. I can't stand it when a player picks up the ball trying to create a stoppage.
Neither Coffield or Marshall were interested in moving the ball on.

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]

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

[CQ SAINT]

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!.

[Yorkeys]

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]

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.

[CQ SAINT]

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]

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.

But doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?

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.

[CQ SAINT]

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.

But doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?

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.

There is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.

[Ghost Like]

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.

But doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?

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.

There is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.

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?

Surely a perfect or pretty good tackle will cause a holding the ball OR incorrect disposal. So how do either come about?

[CQ SAINT]

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.

But doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?

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.

There is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.

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?

Surely a perfect or pretty good tackle will cause a holding the ball OR incorrect disposal. So how do either come about?

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.
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.

[CQ SAINT]

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.

But doesn't clear, black & white interpretations lead to consistency?

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.

There is no mention of 'a perfect tackle' in either the holding the ball or incorrect disposal rules. That's an opinion.

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?

Surely a perfect or pretty good tackle will cause a holding the ball OR incorrect disposal. So how do either come about?

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.
2 more seconds and the same tackle might have been perfect.

[Ghost Like]

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.

[CQ SAINT]

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.

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.
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]

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.