Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

[Meg]

The umpires have got to allow a lot of dropping the ball, because if they didn't there would hardly be an incentive to try to take possession.

Ludwig, are you confident that you can always pick when the ball has been deliberately dropped as distinct from when the ball has been dislodged by the tackler? I'm not sure that I can be sure (and certainly not when watching live at the game). I suspect that quite often when my first reaction is outrage about the 'play on' call, the umpire has probably judged, with no prior opportunity, the ball has been dislodged by the tackle.

[mcs]

I'm padding up for respect and decency. No Swans player deserves to be sworn at by their own members in public or on online forums.

The Cunningham / Bont incident also exposed a distinct lack of understanding on your part. Going back with the flight, if Cunningham had turned his head and looked for Bont's position, the umpire would have given a free kick to Bont in the square.

You can have emotions, but you have a split second to think about what you are posting.

Stop trying to lecture me on my 'lack of understanding'. I perfectly understand that Cunningham was unlikely to stop what happened. But that doesn't mean one can't be frustrated by his complete lack of awareness in the circumstance.....

So Cunningham would give away a free just by turning his head???? What would the free kick be in that circumstance? I know we are all used to the Swans getting some rather terrible umpiring decisions along the line, but I haven't seen the rule book that includes 'turning your head is punishable by a free kick'

[Bexl]

I was watching the cats roos game and could not watch any more after a soft free to brown of the roos.. And I was hoping the roos would win but the soft free @@@@ makes it unwatchable.

[Billericay]

I actually don't mind some aspects of the new HTB interpretation. It seems like if you dispose of the ball incorrectly they are now calling it HTB. I support "rewarding the tackler" in that way. I have a problem with the fact that they no longer seem to bother about prior opportunity, which encourages players not to take possession of the ball - quite the opposite. I'm hoping that it will settle down and they'll get that bit sorted as the season wears on.

Some of the other decisions on Friday night - particularly those against AA - were disgraceful. Swans were also penalised a couple of times for holding the man when they tackled a Dogs player that had the ball (and released the player once the ball spilled). One when Suckling got tackled particularly annoyed me.

I think the Mills decision may be "correct" according to the rules (which do state the player has to be under actual pressure, not perceived pressure), but (1) it's clearly not been communicated clearly to the players (2) I don't see why they have to give a free kick (i.e. goal) rather than a ball up.

There was a deliberate paid against the Dogs (Dalhaus I think) that was also completely wrong. I don't like how it's now a case of "if in doubt it's deliberate"

[Ludwig]

Ludwig, are you confident that you can always pick when the ball has been deliberately dropped as distinct from when the ball has been dislodged by the tackler? I'm not sure that I can be sure (and certainly not when watching live at the game). I suspect that quite often when my first reaction is outrage about the 'play on' call, the umpire has probably judged, with no prior opportunity, the ball has been dislodged by the tackle.

Actually I am saying just the opposite. I can't tell a legal disposal from an illegal one anymore. It's so hard to predict what an umpire might call in any given situation. It can be play on, incorrect disposal, not making an effort, push in the back, high contact, ducking or whatever. So many calls surprise me now.

[liz]

I was watching the cats roos game and could not watch any more after a soft free to brown of the roos.. And I was hoping the roos would win but the soft free @@@@ makes it unwatchable.

I don't think that one was soft. I think it was a figment of the umpire's imagination. Mind you, the free to GHS that awarded him the match winning kick looked pretty dubious. If there was high contact it was minimal and incidental, and I doubt the umpire could even see anyway, given all the bodies around the ball.

[stevoswan]

Not surprising at all that Gil the Dill has come out and supported the umpire that gifted the Bulldogs/Picken a goal in the last quarter, effectively killing the Swans momentum. At work today, I was talking to an ambo who happens to be a born in Sydney life long Swans supporter. He wasn't happy about the umpiring on Friday night either and told me that all around the world in all major football codes, the umpires have their bank/income details scrutinised by their respective leagues to ensure none of them are on the 'take', ie: corrupt, and stated that the AFL is the ONLY major football league in the world where this does not happen. This is bizarre and says a lot about this league, who seem to want to have total control of everything but leave 'credibility' and 'accountability' issues like this unchecked......why is this so? So they can control results as well? Who knows, but it is truly weird that they haven't followed the rest of the planet on the accountability and credibility of those who control the play. Questions need to be asked.

[Billericay]

Actually I am saying just the opposite. I can't tell a legal disposal from an illegal one anymore. It's so hard to predict what an umpire might call in any given situation. It can be play on, incorrect disposal, not making an effort, push in the back, high contact, ducking or whatever. So many calls surprise me now.

I think if a player disposes of the ball incorrectly the umpires now want to pay it as HTB regardless of prior opportunity. Happy with penalising incorrect disposal, unhappy with no prior opportunity.

The other "rule changes" I'm baffled by and so are the players I think. There was a moment in the Cats v Norf game when there was a tackle and the ball spilled out and all the players turned to the umpire to see what would happen.

The one good exception is the new ducking rule. That's a significant improvement.

[mcs]

The one good exception is the new ducking rule. That's a significant improvement.

The ducking rule is a substantial improvement on previous years and is working.

As you say, the HTB one remains problematic. Was it Jones in the last quarter that got pinged for one where he was crunched at exactly the same time as getting the ball?

If the afl want to tinker and remove the prior opportunity bit then fine, but they will reap the rewards by turning the game into one where players become afraid of taking possession. As a result, I think we would see more and more games resemble wet weather footy, where players will just kick the ball forward, for fear of getting pinged for actually wanting to get the ball in a contested circumstance. It would solve congestion but ruin the game in the process.

[Meg]

Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

There's a huge difference between the Mills situation and what those Hawks players did. I think the lawmakers have lost sight of why the rule was introduced.

Well that's true, I was responding to what seemed to be an objection to the rule itself.

In regard to the further tightening of the interpretation, that came from some incidents last year and by agreement of the coaches.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-30/tighten-rushed-behind-rule-afl-coaches-say

I'm slightly annoyed with Mills for taking the risk but more annoyed with the coaches who should have instilled into the players that they should never rush a behind unless they have an opposition player immediately physically hassling them. The third example on the video I posted earlier makes that aspect clear.

I think Mills didn't understand the second aspect of the rule. He should have. And the coaches should have made sure all players understood. I hope they are all clear now.

Ps. I agree that a ball-up, at least for this first year of the tightened interpretation, would be a more warranted response.

[liz]

Well that's true, I was responding to what seemed to be an objection to the rule itself.

In regard to the further tightening of the interpretation, that came from some incidents last year and by agreement of the coaches.

Tighten rushed behind rule, AFL coaches say - AFL.com.au

I'm slightly annoyed with Mills for taking the risk but more annoyed with the coaches who should have instilled into the players that they should never rush a behind unless they have an opposition player immediately physically hassling them. The third example on the video I posted earlier makes that aspect clear.

I think Mills didn't understand the second aspect of the rule. He should have. And the coaches should have made sure all players understood. I hope they are all clear now.

I'm not annoyed with Mills, or even that critical of him. If the interpretation was correct, he made a mistake, that's all. All players make plenty of mistakes every week (especially when rule interpretations are tweaked) and one's like that they can learn from. Better he (and the team) learn the hard way in round 2 than it prove to be a critical mistake late in a final.

[liz]

The ducking rule is a substantial improvement on previous years and is working.

As you say, the HTB one remains problematic. Was it Jones in the last quarter that got pinged for one where he was crunched at exactly the same time as getting the ball?

If the afl want to tinker and remove the prior opportunity bit then fine, but they will reap the rewards by turning the game into one where players become afraid of taking possession. As a result, I think we would see more and more games resemble wet weather footy, where players will just kick the ball forward, for fear of getting pinged for actually wanting to get the ball in a contested circumstance. It would solve congestion but ruin the game in the process.

Until they crack down on "kicking in danger" or, worse, a player sustains a serious injury because he is collected by a flying foot that is hacking the ball off the ground.

[mcs]

Until they crack down on "kicking in danger" or, worse, a player sustains a serious injury because he is collected by a flying foot that is hacking the ball off the ground.

That is the logical endpoint Liz given how the AFL likes to do circle work with its tinkering of rules. It would be a hugely negative step to remove prior opportunity completely, but the afl seem partially to be on that path with the change of interpretation of HTB this season.

[Meg]

The ducking rule is a substantial improvement on previous years and is working.

As you say, the HTB one remains problematic. Was it Jones in the last quarter that got pinged for one where he was crunched at exactly the same time as getting the ball?

If the afl want to tinker and remove the prior opportunity bit then fine, but they will reap the rewards by turning the game into one where players become afraid of taking possession. As a result, I think we would see more and more games resemble wet weather footy, where players will just kick the ball forward, for fear of getting pinged for actually wanting to get the ball in a contested circumstance. It would solve congestion but ruin the game in the process.

I agree that the ducking addition to the 'too high' adjudication is a big improvement.

Re the Jones' penalty, he wasn't penalised without consideration of prior opportunity, he was penalised because the umpire said Jones made no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball.

I haven't watched a replay but I have a reluctant suspicion that the call might be right. I think Jones was clinging on tightly to the ball at all times (with a lot of help from his 'friends' holding it to him). I don't think he made any of the usual faux punching actions.

Has anyone else looked at the incident (with an objective eye if that is possible!).

[Meg]

I'm not annoyed with Mills, or even that critical of him. If the interpretation was correct, he made a mistake, that's all. All players make plenty of mistakes every week (especially when rule interpretations are tweaked) and one's like that they can learn from. Better he (and the team) learn the hard way in round 2 than it prove to be a critical mistake late in a final.

I agree with all that. My 'annoyed' comment is because he seemed to not understand the rule, in that he seemed to think being inside the goal square was sufficient to allow him to punch through the ball. Not much excuse for not understanding as the AFL had issued explanations and video examples.