Holding the man rule

[PhatBoy]

I’ve made it clear for a while that I think the in the back rule in afl is among the stupidest rules in contact sport. I kind of get why it exists but really if you just punish blokes for driving opponents head first into the dirt dangerously and leave other tackles alone there shouldn’t even need to be a rule.

Anyway, I digress as this is a bugbear of mine.

Can someone clarify the holding the man rule?
This isn’t a whinge as I see it paid all the time for and against my team and in all neutral games as well it was just that an example stuck out last night

Stoppage in the centre square, ball bobbles around for a while and a pies player attacks it at 100 miles an hour, with a cats player coming the other way. Late in the contest it becomes clear the pies player will JUST beat the cats player to the ball, so the cats player prepares both for contact and to make the tackle. Simultaneously the Pies player gets hand to ball and the cats player wraps his midriff. Pies player doesn’t take possession and goes immediately to ground because of the tackle.

I’m full aware this is how they adjudicate it so again I’m not moaning as it has been ruled that way as long as I can remember.

But does anyone know why? If a player is touching the ball or has touched it and is juggling it, why are they not fair game for the opposition?

 

[Wallaby]

Possession is defined as 'holding or in control of the ball'. If a player chooses to tap the ball to a teammate or to his own advantage, he can't be legally tackled because he never has had control.

If he tries to take possession, but fumbles, he hasn't got possession until he is in control.

 

[PhatBoy]

Possession is defined as 'holding or in control of the ball'. If a player chooses to tap the ball to a teammate or to his own advantage, he can't be legally tackled because he never has had control.

If he tries to take possession, but fumbles, he hasn't got possession until he is in control.

Fair enough thank you for clearing it up

 

[catstorm]

Possession is defined as 'holding or in control of the ball'. If a player chooses to tap the ball to a teammate or to his own advantage, he can't be legally tackled because he never has had control.

If he tries to take possession, but fumbles, he hasn't got possession until he is in control.

But that is the murky point, often a player has clear possession feels contact so drops the ball cold (incorrectly) and then the opposing player finish the tackle and gets penalized.

I think holding the man is actually a big issue at the moment and is payed too often in favor of players illegally disposing of the ball and getting rewarded.

This isn't a Geelong thing either as we do it as well.

 

[Maddo11]

But that is the murky point, often a player has clear possession feels contact so drops the ball cold (incorrectly) and then the opposing player finish the tackle and gets penalized.

I think holding the man is actually a big issue at the moment and is payed too often in favor of players illegally disposing of the ball and getting rewarded.

This isn't a Geelong thing either as we do it as well.

It definitely is at the moment. But if you look at rounds 1 2 and 3 this year the games were plagued with players deliberately dropping the pill to win the holding free. I think the interpretation has swung too far the other way and you'll constantly see players trying to get near the pill get tackled without it and play on is called. There's a sweet spot for sure and how it currently is isn't it

 

[Fadge]

I'd like to help, but I currently have no idea as to the holding the man/holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule.

It is simply a raffle.

 

[Falcon3518]

I’ve made it clear for a while that I think the in the back rule in afl is among the stupidest rules in contact sport. I kind of get why it exists but really if you just punish blokes for driving opponents head first into the dirt dangerously and leave other tackles alone there shouldn’t even need to be a rule.

Anyway, I digress as this is a bugbear of mine.

Can someone clarify the holding the man rule?
This isn’t a whinge as I see it paid all the time for and against my team and in all neutral games as well it was just that an example stuck out last night

Stoppage in the centre square, ball bobbles around for a while and a pies player attacks it at 100 miles an hour, with a cats player coming the other way. Late in the contest it becomes clear the pies player will JUST beat the cats player to the ball, so the cats player prepares both for contact and to make the tackle. Simultaneously the Pies player gets hand to ball and the cats player wraps his midriff. Pies player doesn’t take possession and goes immediately to ground because of the tackle.

I’m full aware this is how they adjudicate it so again I’m not moaning as it has been ruled that way as long as I can remember.

But does anyone know why? If a player is touching the ball or has touched it and is juggling it, why are they not fair game for the opposition?

Yep, imo in the back is fine how it is in marking contests. However in tackles they need to change it/be more lenient. Unless the arms are fully extended it is not in the back. So what if he falls on his back in a tackle. Tacklers can’t help it and sometimes it’s the only thing they can do. I don’t think it is really a ‘push’ when it’s in a tackled it’s really just a fall or something. Hence I think they should be judged differently.

Holding the man rule should not apply to players juggling the ball. If you are juggling the ball during a tackle it should be holding the ball. I think umpires can make a clear distinction between a purposeful tap and juggling so no issues there imo.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sky]

i’m leaving this thread because something has gone terribly wrong in this timeline. I see Falcon and PhatBoy liking each other’s posts. Goodbye

 

[PhilX]

I too find it very frustrating when someone is tackled as they grab the ball, the ball flies out of their hands, and it's holding the man because apparently they didn't technically have possession. The tackler is essentially being penalised for not reaching the contest a second or two later, and bumping is discouraged now, so what are they meant to do?

On the other hand, it doesn't happen that often, and it does seem to be ruled reasonably consistently, at least.

 

[RonnieRaven]

There is no rules.
Rules are black and white.
Umpires more like a boxing judge.
They are not officiating the game they are judging the game and it’s contests.
Interpretation is dependent on the club, the umpire and what the media/coaches have said in the lead up.
Holding the ball
Holding the man
Legal disposal
Deliberate out of bounds are all variables dependent on judgement.

 

[Pie eyed]

Possession is defined as 'holding or in control of the ball'. If a player chooses to tap the ball to a teammate or to his own advantage, he can't be legally tackled because he never has had control.

If he tries to take possession, but fumbles, he hasn't got possession until he is in control.

So the example where the player takes clear possession of the ball take 3 steps into a tackle, tries to spin past the tackler, but is tackled, swung around 360 degrees and simply lets to ball spill free.
Here the player clearly controlled to ball until he dropped it like a hotcake, after a few seconds, and after it was clear he could not break free of the tackle or dispose properly.


The stupid cnut in a yellow shirt called play on like th stupid inbred halfwit knob smoker that he is.
Lucky he lives in Oz and not Pakistan or it would be tyrefire time campaigner.

 

[Soggy2112]

One of my biggest pet hates is when a player grabs the ball, is tackled immediately and the ball is knocked loose. The tackler is understandably unaware of this and continues the tackle, and the player who had the ball throws their arms up and is usually awarded a free, despite not disposing of the ball correctly.

I agree that if a player has not had prior opportunity and the ball is legitimately knocked out in a tackle then it shouldn’t be holding the ball, however I do think that in that situation the umpires should give the tackler more leeway, and provided the tackle is one continuous action, should not be penalised.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Sometimes dropping the ball/incorrect disposal is legitimately not penalised because the rules state that if you have not had prior opportunity and you are attempting but fail to dispose of it correctly that is play on. Supporters get up in arms about this regardless.

My bugbear with holding the man is the inconsistency with which it is applied. The commentators always mention when a forward gets paid the free kick "As soon as the umpire sees the tug of the jumper ...". Yet you will see jumper tugs on defenders, and anywhere outside the 50m arc let go time and time again. Not to mention that you can do just about anything short of anal penetration to shepherd through a goal.
To be clear the rule is mentioned in two places- hold a player not in possession of the football in general play (18.3 prohibited contact), and also in a marking contest (18.5 marking contests).

 

[Soggy2112]

Sometimes dropping the ball/incorrect disposal is legitimately not penalised because the rules state that if you have not had prior opportunity and you are attempting but fail to dispose of it correctly that is play on. Supporters get up in arms about this regardless.

This is correct, although I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that a lot of the time the ball has not been forced out, or knocked away during a legitimate handball or kick attempt, but rather the player just lets the ball drop once they feel contact. Often if the tackle continues that payer is then rewarded with a holding the man free kick. The way this rule is often interpreted rewards players for doing so.

Which is why I think the tackler should be given more time to release the tackle if the ball is not handballed or kicked.

 

[PieLebo87]

The fact we even need to have this thread is a bugbear of mine.

The AFL have ruined the game/original rules with all these adjustments and all it has done is confused the F out of players and coaches, so they’ve found different loopholes to these new interpretations and the AFL, smug as ever, create new rules to counter the coaches and clubs.

End result - all these stupid rule adjustments that umpires can’t officiate and frustrated fans who can’t understand the game they’ve watched and played their entire lives.

 

[Wallaby]

Watch some old film of games from the early 70s. Holding the ball /incorrect disposal was far more inconsistent. No one was happy.

Then in the late 70s to 80s, there was a shift where hodling the ball/incorrect disposal was very rarely paid - the game became a festival of ballups.

And no one was happy then, either.

BUT - we didn't have endless tv and radio heads arguing about it. We didn't have endless internet discussions on football forums. It was just 'Well, the umpire called it - get on with it'. Winge for half an hour after the game and - that was it.

Umpiring is no worse than it was 50 years ago. It's probably better with multiple umpires, and better training (via video analysis). It's just the whinging that's worse.

 

[PhatBoy]

One of my biggest pet hates is when a player grabs the ball, is tackled immediately and the ball is knocked loose. The tackler is understandably unaware of this and continues the tackle, and the player who had the ball throws their arms up and is usually awarded a free, despite not disposing of the ball correctly.

I agree that if a player has not had prior opportunity and the ball is legitimately knocked out in a tackle then it shouldn’t be holding the ball, however I do think that in that situation the umpires should give the tackler more leeway, and provided the tackle is one continuous action, should not be penalised.

Exactly. It’s not his job to stop halfway through the tackle to check if the opponent has the ball

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Then in the late 70s to 80s, there was a shift where hodling the ball/incorrect disposal was very rarely paid - the game became a festival of ballups.

Yeah that was the worst. For all we complain these days, paying more HTB was a change for the better after that.

 

[Sector 7G]

Yeah that was the worst. For all we complain these days, paying more HTB was a change for the better after that.

Back in the day if the ball was held to you it was ball up. Perfect tackles were not rewarded. Then they introduced prior opportunity and having to make an effort to dispose of the ball ( not so sure about the farce of having to pretend to get rid of it)

 

[99cents]

It's just the whinging that's worse.

Never a truer word said- the whinging is absolutely out of control- even from coaches!

 

[biggiemediums]

Yep, imo in the back is fine how it is in marking contests. However in tackles they need to change it/be more lenient. Unless the arms are fully extended it is not in the back. So what if he falls on his back in a tackle. Tacklers can’t help it and sometimes it’s the only thing they can do. I don’t think it is really a ‘push’ when it’s in a tackled it’s really just a fall or something. Hence I think they should be judged differently.

Holding the man rule should not apply to players juggling the ball. If you are juggling the ball during a tackle it should be holding the ball. I think umpires can make a clear distinction between a purposeful tap and juggling so no issues there imo.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I'm 300% with you on that one mate, according to half the umpires - players have some sort of magical power over the laws of physics.

 

[Falcon3518]

I'm 300% with you on that one mate, according to half the umpires - players have some sort of magical power over the laws of physics.

Yeah bad. Most of the time they can’t see where the ball is so they can’t tell if the person they are tackling has let go of it or not. On top of that they are expected to stop tackling in midair or something. Dumbest rule in the game imo. No control over what happens, I don’t think any other rule does that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[beerbandit]

I’ve made it clear for a while that I think the in the back rule in afl is among the stupidest rules in contact sport. I kind of get why it exists but really if you just punish blokes for driving opponents head first into the dirt dangerously and leave other tackles alone there shouldn’t even need to be a rule.

Anyway, I digress as this is a bugbear of mine.

Can someone clarify the holding the man rule?
This isn’t a whinge as I see it paid all the time for and against my team and in all neutral games as well it was just that an example stuck out last night

Stoppage in the centre square, ball bobbles around for a while and a pies player attacks it at 100 miles an hour, with a cats player coming the other way. Late in the contest it becomes clear the pies player will JUST beat the cats player to the ball, so the cats player prepares both for contact and to make the tackle. Simultaneously the Pies player gets hand to ball and the cats player wraps his midriff. Pies player doesn’t take possession and goes immediately to ground because of the tackle.

I’m full aware this is how they adjudicate it so again I’m not moaning as it has been ruled that way as long as I can remember.

But does anyone know why? If a player is touching the ball or has touched it and is juggling it, why are they not fair game for the opposition?

This rule hasn’t applied to Geelong especially there forwards for some time now

 

[PhatBoy]

This rule hasn’t applied to Geelong especially there forwards for some time now

Yes our forwards are noted for running down midfielders and tackling them into the turf from behind

 

[beerbandit]

Yes our forwards are noted for running down midfielders and tackling them into the turf from behind

Yes your forwards are noted for standing still and pushing there opponent straight in the back and taking the mark.