Holding the ball

[dimelb]

I've been out of things for a while - can anyone fill me in on what the new (temporary) rule is on holding the ball? Roos was obviously not pleased.

[Doctor J.]

Re: Holding the ball

Originally posted by dimelb
I've been out of things for a while - can anyone fill me in on what the new (temporary) rule is on holding the ball? Roos was obviously not pleased.

Got no idea myself either Dim.

Stayed for the Dorks V Aints game, and the umpires interpretztion of holding the ball was completely different.

In our game if a player was tackled with the ball and brought to the ground he was pinged for holding the ball (failing to get the ball out from under a pack). No regard for prior opportunity at all. In the Dorks V Aints, the umps at least made sure a player had prior opportunity before pinging someone for holding it.

The only explanation I can give for some of the decisions today is Goldspink!!!

[Reggi]

Mclaren - Goldspink and that 33 w took there lead - it was nice to hear Silvagni say it was a joke.

It will destroy the sport if we have what happened yesterday where players sweat on another guy going after the footy - becuase if they jump on him, the umpire will reward them with holding the ball.

Reward the player who goes after the football - If it's in the open, and he drags it under,sure free kick. But if guys get jumped on with the ball underneath them!!! They are trying to play the ball - many more 'in the back' should have been payed to these players - rather than the free against the.

These rule changes will destroy the sport - it was a horrible game to watch (and get rid of these supergoals and 3 points for rushed behinds)

I'm glad our club treats this comp with the distain it deserves - it deserves a lot more.

Glad I don't have a Wizard home loan - saves me from swapping mortgage holder.

[sharp9]

On a couple of occasions we were pinged for a rule which doesn't actually exist.....not trying to get rid of the ball.

We did this last year as well. What's wrong with our brains? We have obviously been taught that if you are tackled after having no prior opportunity then just ie there and wait for the ball up. On several occasions the player oin possession was clearly not doing everything he could to keep the play going.

One time (Dempster, Clarke or Vogels) was pushed onto the ball. It came clear, he rolled clear and took his hands off the ball. The ump pinged him anyway. he wasn't "holding the ball" but he wasn't making any attempt to play football either. this is not, strictly, against the rules, but that is the interpretation umps are making AGAINST Sydney. Whether or not they do it against other teams is irrellevant, we MUST not lie still...or pathetically punch the ball against our own chests after a tackle. Wriggle, pull, think of a tackled situation as a maul in Union, ie keep trying to move the ball until the ump blows the whistle.

DON"T JUST BLOODY LIE THERE!

[footyhead]

Re: Holding the ball

Originally posted by dimelb
I've been out of things for a while - can anyone fill me in on what the new (temporary) rule is on holding the ball? Roos was obviously not pleased.

The AFL say they are trying their best to attract converts, but if even hardend supportrs are finding it hard to follow the current nuances of the Rules, how the F...K are new supporters supposed to get familiar with the game ?
Big problem in Aussie Rules and always has been.

[sharp9]

My understanding of the rule (which seems to be what the umps were trying to do) is if you dive on a loose ball you must do EVERYTHING you can to get rid of it. If you are already on the ground and you take possession to the chest, you must actually get rid of it.

Roosey is implying that we were pinged for picking up the loose ball and being tackled - hence that the game is being ruined. But Willoughby didn't even try to move it on. Sure he was tackled, but he lay there like a dead fish. And then Buchanan came over the top and didn't free the ball either. So the answer is that if one player is being tackled then another cannot come to help him. He eithers gets the ball out from the tackle or has it held to him in which case it is a ball up.

At no stage has anyone (accept Carlton fans) suggested that diving on a loose ball equals prior opportunity. Diving on the ball and then accepting the tackle can, conceivably, constitute killing the ball.

Last year we had more HTB without prior opp than all other teams in the comp put together. Obviously there is a caoching problem here. Other teams don't do it.

Also everyone knows that without Judds we do everything we can to stop clean takeaways, hence ball up after ball up. We are perceived as trying to get ball ups at every opportunity. Therefore the umps are looking for us to infringe here.

[Jeffers1984]

On yesterday's game, i never thought anyone could out do Goldstink with their poor umpiring, but that new guy number 33 i think (the blonde haired dude) did!

The heath james high tackle was a shocker and the willoughby holding the ball was just as bad.

[liz]

I'm not sure that any change in interpretation is temporary in the sense that it is for Wiz Cup games only. I think it represents an attempt by the "rule makers" or "rule enforcers" to reduce the number of stoppages and can be expected to continue into the season proper.

That said, it can be viewed to be "temporary" in the sense that in a month or two's time the umpiring fraternity will find some other aspect of the game to over-umpire and will change their monitoring of this aspect.

The one that I thought was tough yesterday was the Willoughby one. Sure, he jumped on the ball but was under pressure even when he made first contact with the ball. He didn't try very hard to move it on, but it can be argued that it is very hard to do that when someone else is lying on top of you straight away. The answer is to adjudge that one "in the back" because he was forced forward over the ball by the tackler, rather than just been held up.

On the whole I don't have a problem with a stricter enforcement of this application of the rules (so long as it is consistent). And for the life of me I don't understand why the Swans are so intent on holding it up so often. If their strategy is to create ball-ups it must be because they think they are OK at clearances. Otherwise it would be a dumb strategy because you would be playing into the opposition's hands.

But surely the skills required to move the ball quickly to advantage at a ball-up is not dissimilar to that required to move it quickly to advantage when possession is first gained on the ground. Sure, at stoppages set plays can come into play, and it gives you a bit more opportunity to get numbers around the ball. However, one of the Swans' relative strengths is their running ability, so you would think that in general play they would tend to have more players around the ball than the opposition and hence they'd have an advantage in trying to clear it before the stoppage occurs.