He wasn't tagged, he was tackled by a grab of the jumper which turned into a full on tackle.. He still had the ball as the tackle commenced so it's holding the ball. That's how they've always interpreted it, it's probably one of the clearer, easier interpretations for umpires around. I had no problems with that particular free. Rioli's lack of awareness was more of concern for me.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
He wasn't tagged, he was tackled by a grab of the jumper which turned into a full on tackle.. He still had the ball as the tackle commenced so it's holding the ball. That's how they've always interpreted it, it's probably one of the clearer, easier interpretations for umpires around. I had no problems with that particular free. Rioli's lack of awareness was more of concern for me.
If the ump deemed he was bouncing whilst being tackled its a free kick. If he had completed the bounce it should not have been as he correctly handpassed it immediately after being tackled. Simple. Listen to it explained from AFL website.
Don't get holding the ball? Umps explain complex rule
AFL umpire Robert Findlay joins Nat Edwards to discuss how umpires will be adjudicating tackling, holding the ball and prior opportunity in 2019
www.afl.com.au
Under your strict interpretation anyone tackled after having a bounce is pinged. Or if you fend off and get tackled but still kick it you get pinged. Ridiculous. You still get time to get a disposal off, you just have to make sure it is a correct one.
Hey MD its not after, its during. You can complete a bounce and then get tackled, the rules then are you need to correctly dispose of the ball. If you are tackled then bounce, it is decided that you have not correctly disposed of the ball. No different to throwing the ball and then claiming the ball was not in possession. The same goes for bouncing then getting tackled before regaining the ball. You cant do it, have not been able to for decades.
The rule book still caters for the rule as it has since bartlett was pinged many years ago.
Can't listen atm but does it cover bouncing the ball first? Bouncing the ball is your prior opportunity. You don't get another chance if subsequently tackled. Whether that's to the strict definition of the rule or not I'm not sure, all I know is that is how the umpire has interpreted as long as I can remember, they've always paid the free against someone who has bounced the ball if they're then subsequently tackled.
looking at the replay again, rioli was tackled properly, it started as a jumper hold during the bounce, and awrap around as the ball bounced back into rioli's hands
as soon as the ball gets into riolis hand, he handballs it
to me the intrepretaion of the 2019 rules should be that he correctly disposed of the ball when tackled
i know that is not the umpires interpretation
KB used to look to bounce the ball, then throw his arms out as he was tackled. he never hanballed the ball and claimed 'holding the man'. they changed the rule so that they deemed bouncing the ball to be in possesion, quite rightly. this rioli example is very different to what KB used to do
as soon as the ball gets into riolis hand, he handballs it
to me the intrepretaion of the 2019 rules should be that he correctly disposed of the ball when tackled
i know that is not the umpires interpretation
KB used to look to bounce the ball, then throw his arms out as he was tackled. he never hanballed the ball and claimed 'holding the man'. they changed the rule so that they deemed bouncing the ball to be in possesion, quite rightly. this rioli example is very different to what KB used to do
You got it right Ice. He was tackled during the bounce.
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.
He did not dispose of the ball immediately as he did not have it in his hands but he did have possession. He couldnt follow the rule because he had already been tackled. If the ball had of rolled away from him, whats your call? Holding the man? Or holding the ball? Illegally disposing of the ball etc....
Same reason Bartlett has been mentioned numerous times. Interesting how our collective memory cant remember how Bartlett went about using the old rules to his advantage, hence the rule change.
B
Bill James
Guest
If it does then it also describes the situation where Dusty fends and someone grabs his arm for a microsecond. Clear cut holding the ball on your interpretation.
There is nothing in the new rules that differentiate between running and bouncing and simply running with the ball in the new rules.
if the ball had rolled away from him definitely the decision should be holding the ball. this is the correct interpretation to what KB used to do. kb bounced the ball on the ground with no intention of it returning, in the meantime being tackled and called holding the man. they changed the rules so that while bouncing the ball you are considered to be still in possession, despite the ball not being in your hands.
they did not change the rule to say that a tackle during a bounce is automatically holding the ball. i appreciated tha umpires have interpreted the rule this way forever, what i am saying it is incorrect interpretation of the rules and the KB change to the rules
the difference between rioli and KB is that the ball did return to Rioli and he immediately disposed of it
another interpretaion - if you dive on the ball, it is considered prior opportunity, so you must legally dispose of the ball. however the player that dives on the ball gets a few seconds to dispose of it. he is not penalised immediately he dives on the ball.
i think this should be applied to bouncing the ball. not a free kick immediately but a few seconds to dispose of the ball correctly. Rioli disposed of the ball correctly by handballing. KB never disposed of the ball correctly
I don't think any of the nitty gritty matters.
If you bounce the ball and an opponent lays a hand on you it's a free.
It's one of the only rules/interpretations that's umpired consistently.
I don't think I've ever seen this paid differently, and I can't think of any other rule I can say that for.
Let it be.
If you bounce the ball and an opponent lays a hand on you it's a free.
It's one of the only rules/interpretations that's umpired consistently.
I don't think I've ever seen this paid differently, and I can't think of any other rule I can say that for.
Let it be.
Exactly, I can't understand all the conjecture. Pretty clear cut as it has always been.
Yes, I agree as well. This is an interpretation of the rule that has been in place for 30 to 40 years. Rioli free kick was consistent and no surprise.
My opinion in summary (and i enjoyed the healthy debate):
1. It is not clear cut in the actual Rules of the game. Its merely an interpretation of the rules, but its been the same intepretation for 30 to 40 years.
2. I dont agree with this interpretation. I believe you should have a chance to correctly disposal of the ball if it comes back to you. If the tackle sticks and the ball doesnt return or you dont correctly dispose of the ball once it returns, absolutely a free kick.
3. What Rioli did is slightly different to what KB used to do.
i doubt the current interpretation will ever change, I just think it is wrong, thats all.
I love the rule (interpretation). If you take the game on by bouncing instead of disposing and you get caught it's holding the ball. BAAWWWLLLLL!!! Nothing more exciting than the big chase and catching your opponent unawares.
Meet ARC: AFL's new review hub gets 'extreme' makeover for finals
More cameras and 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' are a feature of the new AFL Review Centre (ARC)
www.afl.com.au
Now the maggots can get a good slo-mo look at Cameron groping Grimes, Mitch Robinson kidney-punching Martin and Luke Hodge giving JR a reach-around all day. Can't wait. And what a great time to trial a new review system - September! Peak AFL stupidity right here.
Seems like there are three elements to holding the ball (1) player is in possession (2) the player has had prior opportunity to dispose (3) player fails to dispose correctly immediately when they are legally tackled. The first element is satisfied by the bounce. No argument. I would argue that the fact that he chose to run and bounce also satisfies element 2. The only issue can be whether he immediately disposed of the ball when tackled. On a technical read, I guess that’s when Zorko first gets a handful of jumper. Gill would say that’s technically correct. The strange thing is that it wouldn’t be interpreted that way if he had the ball in his hands (players are always allowed a spit second to handball). For that reason I think it was incorrect. The KB rule was for where the ball isn’t recovered from the bounce in which case it’s quite clear that the ball hasn’t been disposed of immediately.
Except that had he not bounced the ball, that would have been an attempted tackle and not even recorded in the statistics.
He didn't "catch him in the real sense", it didn't even restrict him. He Just caught some jumper for a fleeting moment!
Yes probably right but they've never been lenient in this scenario in watching footy for 3 decades or more. Why would it suddenly change just because it was a Tiger? If you take a bounce then any retardation whatsoever will result in a free against. I have more concern about Rioli's lack of awareness in the situation to even attempt a bounce. He has a real lack of confidence about him atm.
I know every little bit helps to win matches, but overtly making this agenda item 1 has really made Brisbane look like a very desperate bunch of whingers...
Maybe they just don't have a plan B against us.... lost a lot of respect for Fagan!
www.foxsports.com.au
Maybe they just don't have a plan B against us.... lost a lot of respect for Fagan!
AFL finals 2019: Chris Fagan reveals umpires chat ahead of Charlie Cameron’s battle with Dylan Grimes
Fagan consults umpires ahead of Cameron’s battle with star Tiger
www.foxsports.com.au
