Holding the ball

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Mel
This is the rule that constantly confuses my poor NRL born and bred husband. I don't blame him either. The interperatation of in-the-back seems to change from game to game, or sometimes even DURING a game. Very frustrating.

My favourite is when there are a few players in a pack with the ball on the ground. One team has a few players appealing for holding the ball, but they are each holding a different oppostion player. This being the case shouldn't it be holding the man, as surely not all of the players can be in possession of the ball.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by goswannie14
My favourite is when there are a few players in a pack with the ball on the ground. One team has a few players appealing for holding the ball, but they are each holding a different oppostion player. This being the case shouldn't it be holding the man, as surely not all of the players can be in possession of the ball.

Hands up who can still see Mark Browning with one hand on an opposition jumper and the other in the air appealing for a free? Not that he ever laid a tackle mind.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by mocaholic
Hands up who can still see Mark Browning with one hand on an opposition jumper and the other in the air appealing for a free? Not that he ever laid a tackle mind.

Don't start picking on Miffa!

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by goswannie14
If someone is lying on you, should that be in the back?

No. You're not pushing, just lying.

[cos789]

Originally posted by goswannie14

This being the case shouldn't it be holding the man, as surely not all of the players can be in possession of the ball.

Nothing illegal there . The law says you're not allowed to retard the player .

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by cos789
The law says you're not allowed to retard the player .

There's some players for whom further retardation is impossible.

[cos789]

Ok you experts , what about the Port player who was tackled with the ball ending up between is legs . The Swans player had a hold of him as well as holding the ball in with one hand and appealing for "holding the ball " . The umpire did nothing except say "you're holding the ball in " . Which was true , nut the port player was still in possession of the ball and making absolutley no attempt to knock the ball clear . Since he was originally in posession he does have to make an attempt , since the ball can be held to you in a normal tackle .


.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by goswannie14
If someone is lying on you, should that be in the back?

Yes it should,like i have said in the past if the tackler pulls the ball under the tackled the tackler should get pinged for holding the ball.

[swantastic]

They should change the HTB rule,to the Luke Ablett rule.

[Nico]

Bevo is very skilled at this. One of his better traits.

[lwoggardner]

Simple instruction to players.

Do not look at the umpire while trying (or pretending) to clear the ball. Do, however, continue with the exaggerated punching motions.

They have it in for us, pleading with the ump just proves (to them) that a Swan is trying to put one over them.

[laughingnome]

Here's one guys: back in my junior days I was tackled by two guys. One had my arms pinned the other was behind holding the ball to my chest. I'd only just recieved the ball from a handpass and was pinned as I wasn't trying to get it free.

Bad umpiring or evidence that players just can't plead to the umpire and have to look like they're doing something to get the ball free?

[Boodnutz]

[i][/B]

What if the tactic is to deliberately give the free kick? If the option is to give up a ball in broken play and risk a break-away, a free kick can be part of the slowing down process. It would be interesting to see how many times the other teams gain an advantage (ie clean possession inside 50) from one of these free kicks.

Invariably, these free kicks seem to be given in the middle third of the ground where options can be manned up while you're in the process of giving the ball back. Look how long it takes after the holding the ball signal is given to getting players back on their feet and slowly throwing the ball back to the awarded player.

I also can't recall any of these decisions in our defensive 50 where it could really hurt us.

I think Roos and his coaching team are laughing at the rule. I think players are told "if you're the player on the ground and there is no Swans player to give it to, pull it in and give away the free kick. If you're around the fringe of the play, you've got 5 to 10 seconds to find your man and cover him".

Makes sense then why free kick counts invariably go against us.

[NMWBloods]

It happens a reasonable number of times in our defensive 50. LRT's free was within 40m of goal. It's rare that it happens when there are no other Swans aroound either. A better plan would be to get the ball out to a team mate, as other sides do.

[Boodnutz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It happens a reasonable number of times in our defensive 50. LRT's free was within 40m of goal. It's rare that it happens when there are no other Swans aroound either. A better plan would be to get the ball out to a team mate, as other sides do.

Yeah, other sides do and often give the ball up on the break. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in our defensive 50 but I don't recall it.

I am saying Sydney place more value on denying broken play than anyone else. It's not always a given that we will be pinged, but when we are is it really hurting us on the scoreboard? Maybe it is, or maybe someone within the club has done analysis at that depth and decided it's a better risk to slow up play and give the free.