Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[HR]

Rioli was a correct decision guys. As others have said, it was another stop richmond rule. KB had it created because he was hungry and now rioli has been pinged correctly to the rule.
So many different decisions to be infuriated about.....this aint one of em.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Rioli was a correct decision guys. As others have said, it was another stop richmond rule. KB had it created because he was hungry and now rioli has been pinged correctly to the rule.
So many different decisions to be infuriated about.....this aint one of em.

Point is though, that K.B. used to just fling the arms up n let the ball dribble along the ground. Rioli actually disposed of the ball correctly as soon as he received or felt contact, should be play on. Especially when you consider that forty or fifty times a game a player will be tackled while in possession yet then spend ten seconds being spun around full 360 degrees a couple of times attempt to wrestle their way through said tackle n then when they can't find a suitable premium option to release the ball to. Simply drop the ball n it's play on or at worst a ball up.

Someone who has some understanding of how to play football and isn't a *smile* lawyer needs to go through the rule book from *smile* to breakfast time n completely re write the rules without the gibberish n dot points, clauses, sub sections and addendums that the current rule book is full of. Simply because no-one, especially the umpires have any idea what the *smile* is going on during a game.

 

[DavidSSS]

I call bulls**t on the Rioli free. He bounced the ball as he is supposed to, he then had the ball back in his hands and handballed it. The rule states that to be pinged for holding the ball the player being tackled must attempt to dispose of the ball illegally. Rioli did not do this, he bounced not to dispose of the ball (as Bartlett used to do), he bounced because otherwise he would be correctly pinged for holding the ball. The bounce was not a disposal and therefore it is not holding the ball. It has nothing to do with the feel of the game, this one is really simple: Rioli's bounce was not an attempt to dispose of the ball so it is not holding the ball.

DS

 

[HR]

15.2.2
Its pretty simple actually.
Rioli deliberately bounced the ball, this is not a means of disposal. He was effectively still holding the ball.
The rule is one of the more well put together ones. Its black and white, no grey and easy to interpret consistantly.
I only wish our rule book was constructed like this rule across the board.

 

[tigerlove]

The rule states that to be pinged for holding the ball the player being tackled must attempt to dispose of the ball illegally.

Except if you bounce the ball, then the rule is applied differently. You only then have to be tackled, you have no further opportunity to dispose of the ball. I guess the contention is was he actually tackled? I haven't seen the replay of this yet. It's a bit like the old 'ruck' rule (which has now changed). If you grabbed the ball out of the ruck you lost your opportunity to dispose of it and if you were tackled it was an automatic free against.

 

[bigwow]

Except if you bounce the ball, then the rule is applied differently. You only then have to be tackled, you have no further opportunity to dispose of the ball. I guess the contention is was he actually tackled? I haven't seen the replay of this yet. It's a bit like the old 'ruck' rule (which has now changed). If you grabbed the ball out of the ruck you lost your opportunity to dispose of it and if you were tackled it was an automatic free against.

Rioli got a free earlier this year or last year tackling Saad in the same circumstances, and Broady was penalised as well a few weeks back.

 

[DavidSSS]

15.2.2
Its pretty simple actually.
Rioli deliberately bounced the ball, this is not a means of disposal. He was effectively still holding the ball.
The rule is one of the more well put together ones. Its black and white, no grey and easy to interpret consistantly.
I only wish our rule book was constructed like this rule across the board.

Yep, simple it is. Rioli bounced the ball, effectively still in possession (in bouncing the ball he was not attempting to dispose of the ball which would have been an illegal disposal, he was bouncing the ball with no intent to dispose of the ball), then he handballed it, thus legally disposing of the ball.

DS

 

[Jason King]

Why do I feel the umps are going to crucify Grimes next game on Cameron? Nothing Grimes did was outside of the rules or spirit of the game. Just look at how Dusty or Prestia (insert AFL Star Here) get held before stoppages.... thats something that needs crucifixion.

 

[MD Jazz]

Yep, simple it is. Rioli bounced the ball, effectively still in possession (in bouncing the ball he was not attempting to dispose of the ball which would have been an illegal disposal, he was bouncing the ball with no intent to dispose of the ball), then he handballed it, thus legally disposing of the ball.

DS

I 100% agree with you DS. If the ball was back in his hands before being tackled then I cannot understand how that is a free against you. Once tackled he needs to dispose of it correctly as he has had his prior opportunity. If he handballs or kicks it after being tackled then it should be play on.

 

[MD Jazz]

Except if you bounce the ball, then the rule is applied differently. You only then have to be tackled, you have no further opportunity to dispose of the ball. I guess the contention is was he actually tackled? I haven't seen the replay of this yet. It's a bit like the old 'ruck' rule (which has now changed). If you grabbed the ball out of the ruck you lost your opportunity to dispose of it and if you were tackled it was an automatic free against.

Can you please provide the rule stating this?

And you are incorrect, it was not an automtice free against if tackled, it was only a free if you did not dispose of it correctly. Did you actually watch the game when this was the rule? It's not a free against you ever if after being tackled you dispose of the ball correctly.

 

[Ice]

HOLDING THE BALL
17.6.1 Spirit and Intention The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity (a) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

Possession of the Football: a designation to a Player who: (a) is holding or otherwise has control of the football; or (b) is in the act of bouncing the football

Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled: a tackle by a Player where: (a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and (b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees. For the avoidance of doubt, a Legal Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.


There is no doubt Rioli had prior opportunity and was in possession of the football, and he was tackled. So technically correct decision. But I wonder if he had not bounced the ball, would that rather flimsy tackle be rewarded with a free kick? Most of the time, those brief tackles are not rewarded, and you are given some time to correctly dispose of the ball.

Bartlett used to bounce the ball just prior to being tackled, and get a free kick for holding the man. He never disposed of it legally. They changed the rule so that his bounce was deemed to be still in possession, and therefore not a free kick for holding the man.

Like many rule amendments, they have been interpreted differently to their original intention.

 

[DavidSSS]

Ice, I understand what you are saying, but Rioli handballed once he was tackled, that's where our interpretations differ. Yes, he had prior opportunity, no dispute there, but he legally disposed of the ball when tackled. My argument is that his bounce might have been prior opportunity, but it was not an attempt to dispose of the ball, and when he was tackled and did dispose of the ball, it was a legal handpass.

Bartlett did dispose of the ball sort of legally, by the rules of his day. Hence, he got the free kicks. Bouncing the ball is legal, bouncing it and not taking possession when it comes back to you means that you effectively just lost control of the ball you bounced - not so much legal as "not illegal". Hence was not in possession when tackled. It was a reasonable rule change as players, especially Bartlett, exploited the technicality.

DS

 

[tigerlove]

And you are incorrect, it was not an automtice free against if tackled, it was only a free if you did not dispose of it correctly. Did you actually watch the game when this was the rule? It's not a free against you ever if after being tackled you dispose of the ball correctly.

Sorry that is not the case. I suggest maybe you weren't watching games properly. Last year (and years before until changed this year) if a ruckman grabbed the ball out of the ruck they were pinged if tackled regardless of whether they disposed of it correctly or it was just held in. As I said the prior opportunity was not given.

This was the change as announced by the AFL for this year:

A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.

 

[TigerMasochist]

HOLDING THE BALL

17.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity (a) Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

Daniel correctly disposed of the ball immediately he felt contact, play on. Problem is like all rules the umpires are permitted / encouraged to fudge their own interpretation and the suits at AFL H.Q. simply rubber stamp all but the most blatantly obvious *smile* ups.

 

[tigerlove]

Ice, I understand what you are saying, but Rioli handballed once he was tackled, that's where our interpretations differ. Yes, he had prior opportunity, no dispute there, but he legally disposed of the ball when tackled. My argument is that his bounce might have been prior opportunity, but it was not an attempt to dispose of the ball, and when he was tackled and did dispose of the ball, it was a legal handpass.

Doesn't matter. The bouncing of the ball represents prior opportunity ie you could have disposed of it instead so once you've been tackled it is deemed you ha prior opportunity and didn't take it so when tackled the free is paid against you even if you subsequently handballed it away. You only get one prior opportunity.

Anyone know when this event happened, I wanna see it again?

 

[tigerlove]

Daniel correctly disposed of the ball immediately he felt contact, play on. Problem is like all rules the umpires are permitted / encouraged to fudge their own interpretation and the suits at AFL H.Q. simply rubber stamp all but the most blatantly obvious **** ups.

Yes exactly, with opportunity to dispose comes a timeframe. What is the timeframe? I have seen players whizzed around 3 times and still allowed to get a handball out. Then I've seen others get tackled within milliseconds of getting it and paid a free against them. I don't think I have ever seen a player who has bounced the ball not get a free against them once tackled regardless of whether they have then dispose of it correctly or not. Just more of that grey area interpretation. There's too many of these types of rules in the AFL.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Yes exactly, with opportunity to dispose comes a timeframe. What is the timeframe? I have seen players whizzed around 3 times and still allowed to get a handball out. Then I've seen others get tackled within milliseconds of getting it and paid a free against them. I don't think I have ever seen a player who has bounced the ball not get a free against them once tackled regardless of whether they have then dispose of it correctly or not. Just more of that grey area interpretation. There's too many of these types of rules in the AFL.

Totally agree TL, that's why it's beyond time that the rules were completely rewritten in plain English. Without the *smile* legal jargon that turns every rule into a three hour dot point presentation.

 

[HR]

Yep, simple it is. Rioli bounced the ball, effectively still in possession (in bouncing the ball he was not attempting to dispose of the ball which would have been an illegal disposal, he was bouncing the ball with no intent to dispose of the ball), then he handballed it, thus legally disposing of the ball.

DS

Running bounces and handpasses to oneself
Law 15.2.2 specifies that a player who is executing a running bounce or is handpassing to himself without the ball touching the ground is still considered to be in possession of the ball, even when it is not in his hands.[2] The practical consequence of this law is that a player who executes either of these skills while being tackled is automatically considered to be holding the ball under the prior opportunity rule.[5]

The way i saw it was the same as the umpire, he was part way through bouncing the ball and the Lion grabbed his jumper. Not a tackle as we know it just a grabbed jumper. Game over. HTB. Correct interpretation. What happened before and after this exect moment are irrelevant to the decision for holding the ball against Rioli.
You cannot do it, it has been a part of the game since the 70s and it is probably the easiest decision in our game for umpires to adjudicate.
Rioli didnt argue, no tigers argued, didnt raise a mention in the commentary box.

 

[Ice]

Running bounces and handpasses to oneself
Law 15.2.2 specifies that a player who is executing a running bounce or is handpassing to himself without the ball touching the ground is still considered to be in possession of the ball, even when it is not in his hands.[2] The practical consequence of this law is that a player who executes either of these skills while being tackled is automatically considered to be holding the ball under the prior opportunity rule.[5]

i cant find that clause in the 2019 rules

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2019%20Laws%20of%20Australian%20Football.pdf

looks like it is from from wikipedia which refers to the rule in 2018. the actual clause was

15.2.2 Remaining in Possession and Bouncing the Football (a) A Player may remain in possession of the football for any length of time: (i) unless the Player is Correctly Tackled by an opponent; (ii) provided the Player complies with Law 15.2.2(b). (b) Where a Player is moving whilst in possession of the football, the Player must bounce or touch the football on the ground at least once every 15 metres, irrespective of whether such Player is running in a straight line or otherwise. For the purposes of this Law, a Player shall be deemed to be in possession of the football during the period when the Player handballs the football to themself and

the practical consequence comment was not in the 2018 rules

this clause is not in the 2019 rules.

 

[Ice]

Yes exactly, with opportunity to dispose comes a timeframe. What is the timeframe? I have seen players whizzed around 3 times and still allowed to get a handball out. Then I've seen others get tackled within milliseconds of getting it and paid a free against them. I don't think I have ever seen a player who has bounced the ball not get a free against them once tackled regardless of whether they have then dispose of it correctly or not. Just more of that grey area interpretation. There's too many of these types of rules in the AFL.

i agree with this. the rule says to dispose of it immediately. some players do 360 whizz while dusty gets a millisecond...