-
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
Can't resist this one, it's a perfect example of angst with umpiring being caused by not being clear about the rules.
That's not a clear holding the ball, it's not holding the ball at all. The player hasn't had prior opportunity, attempts to handball and the tackle causes the ball to spill out. It's correctly play on. A textbook application of no prior opportunity in holding the ball.
The holding the man is more subjective. Personally I feel the tackle lasts too long but you could equally argue it is just ok.
But one of the worst decisions in recent memory? It wouldn't make the top 1000.
With respect, I'm not sure you're all that clear on the rules.
18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
This is exactly what Oliver did. You do not need prior when you dispose incorrectly. Oliver had possession, was tackled, threw the ball, and then Graham let go.
It is a horrible decision.
No, but he doesn't have to without prior opportunity. He only needs to attempt to dispose of it.
If he had run three steps with the ball before the tackle, then yes he must dispose of it correctly and that would be holding the ball.
With no prior opportunity it can only be a free kick for incorrect disposal if he deliberately just throws it away, or makes no genuine attempt to dispose of it.
Given he clearly attempts to handball and the ball spills out in the tackle, neither of those things apply. It's play on, no prior, without question.
Add the next paragraph and you'll have the reason why it isn't a free kick.
Here's the next paragraph:
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.
Both those things apply, he makes a handball motion with his right arm and Graham pinning his left arm causes the ball to spill. The key word here is 'elect'. It isn't did he dispose of it incorrectly, it is did he elect to dispose of it incorrectly.
There's no argument that he didn't correctly dispose of the ball but without prior opportunity that isn't a free kick unless he chooses to do it, for example one arm is pinned so he throws it with the other.
In this case he had no prior, attempted to handball, ball spilled in tackle so the incorrect disposal is allowed.
I understand what you're saying. But I think why the general discontent arises is that he couldn't dispose by hand, and disposed by throwing it. 'Elect' has a lot of grey area.
He preferred to get the ball off illegally to keep it moving, rather than hold on to it. It wasn't knocked out by the tackle, it was disposed by his intention to no longer be holding it, so that he could throw out his arms and get another free kick. He didn't care whether he made contact with that fist, which is why he was nowhere near it.
Apart from the ball not being knocked out in the tackle, I don't disagree with much of that.
He's a smart player who understands the rules and how they protect him when he wins the ball, and he uses that knowledge to not give away a free kick and advantage his team.
Which is why some players and teams do better in free kick counts, but that's another story.
I dont actually think he is even playing for a free when he tried to handball it, Petracca is clearly in his vision. ball spills out, play on. he then throws himself backward onto Graham. should have been play on.Apart from the ball not being knocked out in the tackle, I don't disagree with much of that.
He's a smart player who understands the rules and how they protect him when he wins the ball, and he uses that knowledge to not give away a free kick and advantage his team.
Which is why some players and teams do better in free kick counts, but that's another story.
Good to have you back and I agree with you 100%. No prior and legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball. Play on. The tackle didn't really linger too long, Oliver made it appear that way with the accentuated arms going back.
I like the prioropportunity rule. It favours players going attacking the ball. As long as they attempt a legitimnate disposal it should always be play on.
He clearly attempted to handball and because his fist missed the ball that could easily and quite correctly be deemed incorrect disposal. There is no way the tackle lingered too long, it was in slow motion !!
This is the beef I have, it’s a lottery.
I thought the umpires worked on 15 steps for 15 metres as a general guide. Clearly not an accurate measurement but that is what I’ve always believed.
I think the emotional issue is an illegal disposal leading to holding the man for the player with the illegal Disposal. It just feels wrong.
I think if the rule was changed so that any legal tackle applied to someone who Incorrectly disposes the ball can only be holding the ball (prior) or play on (no prior and genuine attempt) would be better. Reward tacklers and play makers.
It would however probably lead to more lingering and dangerous tackles or even deliberately knocking the ball lose then tackling the player.
Thoughts?
I think if the rule was changed so that any legal tackle applied to someone who Incorrectly disposes the ball can only be holding the ball (prior) or play on (no prior and genuine attempt) would be better. Reward tacklers and play makers.
It would however probably lead to more lingering and dangerous tackles or even deliberately knocking the ball lose then tackling the player.
Thoughts?
It was "incorrect" disposal in that he didn't make contact. But that is irrelevant if you have no prior and make a legitimate attempt. Which he clearly did and the umpire assessed it as such.
The crowd call "ball" every time a player is tackled. Many clearly do not understand the rule. Its actually a pretty simple rule.
That's the misunderstanding, without prior opportunity, those two things (an attempt and incorrect disposal) cannot go together.
If they do they are morons. Measure 15m and run and count your steps. If you take 1m each step you either run like barbie or tinkerbell or have very short legs.
Even on a slow jog (6min km) my average stride is around 1.05m. An AFL player running in a straightish line will cover at least 1.4-1.5m each step IMO.
The Mansell one he was called for he took more than 15 steps after leaving the square. Most were proper strides, he ended up about 20m from the 50m mark. He has run at leat 20m, likely 22-25m.
