Ray Chamberlain is a c..............

[DavidSSS]

No it’s knocked out in the tackle

According to the very badly worded rule above, the player in possession still has to elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball. Again, makes no sense, if the ball is knocked out in the tackle then the player in possession has not elected to do anything as it was not their choice to have the ball knocked out in the tackle.

What a stupid rule, very very badly written. If I was interpreting that I doubt I could ever give a holding the ball free when a player is tackled, it calls for contradictory events to occur or at the very least contradictory intent on the part of the player in possession.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

here's the full quote from the rule book... makes a bit more sense.

17.6.3
Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:

(a)
the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b)
the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.

 

[Giardiasis]

Lol, point a) seems rather superfluous.

 

[graystar1]

You people having a moan this week, wait til next week!

Exactly TTT. If we win the free kick count on Friday night it will be headline news in every newspaper in the land.

In particular, look for the frees for the Mudpies in the forward line.

 

[TigerMasochist]

here's the full quote from the rule book... makes a bit more sense.

17.6.3
Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:

(a)
the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b)
the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.

Guess that means if you throw the ball or........................................... just let it drop out eventually after being tackled, you get pinged for incorrect disposal. HAAAARRRRGGGH What a crock.

More player get pinged when they are attempting to correctly kick or hand pass and miss because of the tackle being executed at the point of disposal ( which should be play on ) than ever get pinged for incorrectly pretending the disposal.
Maybe someone should send the maggots a rule book n read it out loud for them.

 

[DavidSSS]

here's the full quote from the rule book... makes a bit more sense.

17.6.3
Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:

(a)
the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b)
the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.

Well, putting that sentence in there changes everything. I did wonder how they could end up with such a contradictory rule.

But it certainly condemns the umpires. Players who make an attempt to dispose correctly, ie: do not elect to incorrectly dispose of the football when legally tackled, are pinged all the time. Plenty of players who just hold on to, or drop, the ball don't give away a free. Have the umpires read this?

I see no mention of drop kicks, if you can't drop kick when tackled I presume you can't drop kick when not being tackled. Otherwise they are not applying the rule as written. If a drop kick while being tackled is not a correct disposal then bloody well say so.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Well, putting that sentence in there changes everything. I did wonder how they could end up with such a contradictory rule.

But it certainly condemns the umpires. Players who make an attempt to dispose correctly, ie: do not elect to incorrectly dispose of the football when legally tackled, are pinged all the time. Plenty of players who just hold on to, or drop, the ball don't give away a free. Have the umpires read this?

I see no mention of drop kicks, if you can't drop kick when tackled I presume you can't drop kick when not being tackled. Otherwise they are not applying the rule as written. If a drop kick while being tackled is not a correct disposal then bloody well say so.

DS

Yep. Although, I'd argue we never see drop kicks in the game today so is it still a valid disposal? There's no law against it of course. And if I try to kick it, drop the ball and get a toe to it after it hits the deck then clearly I've made a "genuine attempt" right? So Brandon Ellis, I was wrong.

For me the "electing to incorrectly"/"genuinely attempting" to correctly dispose of the ball thing sucks. I could have arms pinned and have no chance of "correct disposal" but I could still "genuinely attempt" to dispose correctly right? Unless I very deliberately throw the ball a la Treloar, why would I "deliberately elect to dispose of the ball incorrectly"? To me it's another one like Deliberate OOB - the umpire must interpret the intent of the player.

To me, they should take intent out of it. No prior, ball locked in, ball up. No prior, ball jarred loose, play on. Prior opportunity, tackled and you don't release the ball OR dispose of it correctly, free kick for the tackler. Simple. no need for mind reading on the part of the poor confused umpire.

 

[craig]

Hopefully none of Fisher, O Gorman or Chamberpot are doing us v the skunks this week.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yep. Although, I'd argue we never see drop kicks in the game today so is it still a valid disposal? There's no law against it of course. And if I try to kick it, drop the ball and get a toe to it after it hits the deck then clearly I've made a "genuine attempt" right? So Brandon Ellis, I was wrong.

For me the "electing to incorrectly"/"genuinely attempting" to correctly dispose of the ball thing sucks. I could have arms pinned and have no chance of "correct disposal" but I could still "genuinely attempt" to dispose correctly right? Unless I very deliberately throw the ball a la Treloar, why would I "deliberately elect to dispose of the ball incorrectly"? To me it's another one like Deliberate OOB - the umpire must interpret the intent of the player.

To me, they should take intent out of it. No prior, ball locked in, ball up. No prior, ball jarred loose, play on. Prior opportunity, tackled and you don't release the ball OR dispose of it correctly, free kick for the tackler. Simple. no need for mind reading on the part of the poor confused umpire.

Wow, simplify the holding the man/ball rule? Somehow I can't see the AFL doing that. What you say makes sense and we've had so much faffing around with this rule over the years that it should be a lot better. They should make it crystal clear like you suggest.

Big Richo, to some extent I agree with you, but I have a big problem with what this means. What we see is that those sides who don't give away a lot of frees are teams who, when a player is tackled, they hold it in rather than making an effort to dispose of the ball properly. What Richmond players seem to do is to try and dispose correctly, when it doesn't work as planned they concede a free. Doesn't actually fit with the rules as written, rather with the rules as adjudicated.

I still think we get a raw deal from the maggots, I still maintain that the free kick differential is an indication there is a problem, especially when I can't see how Collingwood are so different to us and that they get away with chucking the ball week after week. That free given against Cotchin (for incorrect disposal/throwing) last week at the Punt Rd end might have been reasonable if we didn't see other teams get away with worse disposals week after week after week.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Yep good take David. I think its part of our game to get the ball forward at all costs and keep it moving, if that means more frees conceded, so be it. We are backing ourselves to get the ball out and run it.

I agree with the BR too - I think the reasons we give away more frees than other teams because of how we play, except TBR thinks its because we are not coached properly in this regard, whereas I see at it (as above) as part of our game style. It's an occupational hazard that our coaches are happy to accept.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Not always

True, sometimes the ump says "he tried to kick it". That isn't in the rule so far as I know. It's not how hard you try to dispose of it, just whether you do it legally.

 

[Bill James]

True, sometimes the ump says "he tried to kick it". That isn't in the rule so far as I know. It's not how hard you try to dispose of it, just whether you do it legally.

It comes down to prior opportunity. With prior opportunity a genuine attempt that results in illegal disposal results in a free kick. If there is no prior opportunity then a genuine attempt that results in an illegal disposal is ok.

here's the full quote from the rule book... makes a bit more sense.

17.6.3
Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity,
a Free Kick shall be awarded if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of
the football when Legally Tackled.

For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose
of the football when:

(a)
the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football;
(b)
the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the
Player’s possession.

 

[Willo]

True, sometimes the ump says "he tried to kick it". That isn't in the rule so far as I know. It's not how hard you try to dispose of it, just whether you do it legally.

Probably instructions form HQ to keep the game flowing. Bugger the rule book, it's the "optics" that take precedence thanks to the gospel of Gil and his disciples.

 

[AngryAnt]

True, sometimes the ump says "he tried to kick it". That isn't in the rule so far as I know. It's not how hard you try to dispose of it, just whether you do it legally.

Nope, it is in the rule. If the player makes a "genuine attempt" then it's play on. This is BS in my opinion, calls for the umpire to decide if the player is "genuine" or not. It should be as you say - prior, illegal disposal, free kick. But it's not.

So now we get the situation where umpires decide the free kick based on mood, vibe, atmosphere etc which results in the absolute lottery that you see before us.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Nope, it is in the rule. If the player makes a "genuine attempt" then it's play on. This is BS in my opinion, calls for the umpire to decide if the player is "genuine" or not. It should be as you say - prior, illegal disposal, free kick. But it's not.

So now we get the situation where umpires decide the free kick based on mood, vibe, atmosphere etc which results in the absolute lottery that you see before us.

Right....right, *nods knowingly* I didn't know that. I though the old "dropping the ball" was subsumed by "incorrect disposal" with time for good behaviour AKA "prior opportunity". I reckon "attempting to kick it" it is pretty much dropping the ball, you didn't handball it or kick, you droppped it. Intent shouldn't matter.

 

[AngryAnt]

Right....right, *nods knowingly* I didn't know that. I though the old "dropping the ball" was subsumed by "incorrect disposal" with time for good behaviour AKA "prior opportunity". I reckon "attempting to kick it" it is pretty much dropping the ball, you didn't handball it or kick, you droppped it. Intent shouldn't matter.

Yeah, no probs KR. I didn't know about the "genuine attempt" stuff until the rule was quoted earlier in thread. For me the prior opportunity thing is fine, fair enough. But the intent thing is just nuts.

 

[Bill James]

Yeah, no probs KR. I didn't know about the "genuine attempt" stuff until the rule was quoted earlier in thread. For me the prior opportunity thing is fine, fair enough. But the intent thing is just nuts.

Funny I prefer genuine attempt to prior opportunity. Either way it’s a subjective judgement by the umpire. I’d prefer we returned to the days when there was no prior and you either attempted to dispose of the ball or you didn’t.. play on or free kick and less stoppages.

 

[MD Jazz]

I've said this before but generally get drowned out in the obsession that the umpires are against us.

As a collection, our players are not smart at knowing what to do when tackled. We give away a huge amount of holding the ball free kicks in situations when other teams would create a stoppage.

I agree with this. You see other teams elect to take the tackle and make it seem like they didn't want to create a stoppage. We are so caught up in moving the ball on we try and either avoid the tackle or get our hands free to get rid of it when the smart thing is to simply take the tackle.

Would be interesting to see if we are in fact leading the holding the ball frees against stats?

 

[AngryAnt]

Funny I prefer genuine attempt to prior opportunity. Either way it’s a subjective judgement by the umpire. I’d prefer we returned to the days when there was no prior and you either attempted to dispose of the ball or you didn’t.. play on or free kick and less stoppages.

Fair enough Bill - I think prior opportunity is not subjective. It's holding the ball with time to release it or not. "Genuine attempt" or "attempts to dispose of ball incorrectly" are highly subjective.

But I'd be happy with the old way than the current mess too.

 

[AngryAnt]

I agree with this. You see other teams elect to take the tackle and make it seem like they didn't want to create a stoppage. We are so caught up in moving the ball on we try and either avoid the tackle or get our hands free to get rid of it when the smart thing is to simply take the tackle.

Would be interesting to see if we are in fact leading the holding the ball frees against stats?

I disagree. Our style is keep the ball moving, and it works. We back ourselves to win the ball again once it goes loose. I can live with the free kicks against for incorrect disposal, they aren't that frequent and we are the kings of setting up behind the ball to defend a free kick anyway.

It's conscious and strategic IMO. If other teams want to slow it down and create a stoppage good for them, but we have a way that works better for us.