Adelaide

[Eagles2014]

Not disagreeing but I thought i read somewhere that the 'definition' of what constitutes a tackle statistically has changed dramatically over the years.

Well; there used to be this thing called "prior opportunity" and "incorrect disposal"
Both of those have gone

Example: Cameron's tackle on Jaspa Fletcher
No reward (from the umpires) for the outstanding chase and tackle
Fortunately, the football Gods stepped in and awarded Geelong a goal out of it

No need to show the 20 examples per game of players just dropping the ball when tackled

The Cameron tackle where Fletcher got a handball away

[am Bays]

The HTB law hasn't changed, it's just the interpretation

They just dont pay it unless it's major and obvious with respect to prior opportunity like Fletchers.

The AFL want the ball in motion and most HTBs result in a break in play that allows for defensive set up to prevent that.

So many HTBs that should be paid (especially with respect to incorrect disposal) are simply called play on.

[Jimmy_041]

Not disagreeing but I thought i read somewhere that the 'definition' of what constitutes a tackle statistically has changed dramatically over the years.

Well; there used to be this thing called "prior opportunity" and "incorrect disposal"
Both of those have gone

Example: Cameron's tackle on Jaspa Fletcher
No reward (from the umpires) for the outstanding chase and tackle
Fortunately, the football Gods stepped in and awarded Geelong a goal out of it

No need to show the 20 examples per game of players just dropping the ball when tackled

The Cameron tackle where Fletcher got a handball away

I am well aware of what the Rule is.
Rule 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

However, in direct contravention of the Rule, the players are given a "reasonable" amount of time to dispose of the ball once tackled
https://www.afl.com.au/news/1140579/hol ... rification

Is "reasonable time" the same as immediately? No

Immediately: This term suggests an instantaneous or immediate action, with no time gap or delay whatsoever.

Reasonable Time: This concept is context-dependent. It means the amount of time that is fairly and conveniently needed to do what is required, considering the nature of the task and any relevant circumstances, as soon as possible.

In summary, while "immediately" implies no delay, "reasonable time" allows for delays as long as they are necessary and justified by the particular situation.

In my opinion, Fletcher didn't immediately get rid of the ball

Same as the Collingwood v Hawthorn game in the last 2 minutes where the Collingwood took him 360 degrees in the tackle in the centre but let go.
There was no immediate disposal as per the Law.

The Law says "immediately" That means immediately not "oh this is exciting - let it go because its exciting"

Either change the Law to "reasonable" or police the actual Law

[Booney]

Petracca in Adelaide to tour facilities and look at Thebarton I'd imagine.

[am Bays]

The Cameron tackle where Fletcher got a handball away

I am well aware of what the Rule is.
Rule 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

However, in direct contravention of the Rule, the players are given a "reasonable" amount of time to dispose of the ball once tackled
https://www.afl.com.au/news/1140579/hol ... rification

Is "reasonable time" the same as immediately? No

Immediately: This term suggests an instantaneous or immediate action, with no time gap or delay whatsoever.

Reasonable Time: This concept is context-dependent. It means the amount of time that is fairly and conveniently needed to do what is required, considering the nature of the task and any relevant circumstances, as soon as possible.

In summary, while "immediately" implies no delay, "reasonable time" allows for delays as long as they are necessary and justified by the particular situation.

In my opinion, Fletcher didn't immediately get rid of the ball

Same as the Collingwood v Hawthorn game in the last 2 minutes where the Collingwood took him 360 degrees in the tackle in the centre but let go.
There was no immediate disposal as per the Law.

The Law says "immediately" That means immediately not "oh this is exciting - let it go because its exciting"

Either change the Law to "reasonable" or police the actual Law

Prior opportunity is defined at beginning of the law book. Under the definition of prior opportunity Fletcher was clearly "balanced and steady" given the number of bounces he had after he took permission.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2025/03/21/19a8bff6-8f49-45b9-b686-83a64db02fe0/LEGAL_2025_150532_Laws-of-the-Game_Booklet_Digital_FA.pdf

[Booney]

Adelaide have picks 14, 41, 48, 50, 66, 68 in this years draft.

Sides like Gold Coast (6, 13, 16, 31, 56, 67), Brisbane (18, 37, 40, 46, 49, 61, 72) , Sydney (9, 27, 45, 63) and GWS (12, 30, 32) aren't too interested in the 40-50 picks for points, so do Adelaide give up this year and next years first for Petracca?

[wenchbarwer]

Petracca in Adelaide to tour facilities and look at Thebarton I'd imagine.

Take him out for a couple of sushi rolls, watch out for his shoes though

[Brodlach]

Adelaide have picks 14, 41, 48, 50, 66, 68 in this years draft.

Sides like Gold Coast (6, 13, 16, 31, 56, 67), Brisbane (18, 37, 40, 46, 49, 61, 72) , Sydney (9, 27, 45, 63) and GWS (12, 30, 32) aren't too interested in the 40-50 picks for points, so do Adelaide give up this year and next years first for Petracca?

They’ll have to. Maybe get something back like a R3

[am Bays]

generally speaking based on the reported quality of this years draft players of Petraccas ilk (and Curnow, etc) this years first year pick just isnt going to cut it (at late 1st this year is going to be the equivalent of a 2nd rounder in past years.

[wenchbarwer]

Isn't next year's considered to be quite good?

[Booney]

Isn't next year's considered to be quite good?

Very.

14 this year becomes 18-19 but given Melbourne have no hand this year ( 23, 54, 59 ) it might be attractive. So may the rest of Adelaide's picks ( 14, 41, 48, 50, 66, 68 ) if they can bundle up, move up and get someone they really want.

I don't see sides giving up picks in the top 10 this year for multiple latter picks though so this year, for Adelaide, is a tough sell.

If they expect to be top 4-6 next year then that's pick 12-18 to Melbourne.

If you said 18 and 16 for Petracca I'd say no.

[Lightning McQueen]

Isn't next year's considered to be quite good?

I find it hilarious how they can make these calls. How many high picks end up being duds and how many low picks become superstars.

Apart from the odd exceptional standout at an early age you can't tell who is going to develop better, become quicker, read the play at elite level, improve their aerobic capacity, avoid injury plus many more facets of the unknown.

18-22 are the most developmental years for a young bloke.

[wenchbarwer]

Salary dump would also be a factor, no? Melbourne have Gawn, Pickett, Oliver and Petracca on massive coin.

Crows take on more dollars for less in the way of picks

[wenchbarwer]

Isn't next year's considered to be quite good?

I find it hilarious how they can make these calls. How many high picks end up being duds and how many low picks become superstars.

Apart from the odd exceptional standout at an early age you can't tell who is going to develop better, become quicker, read the play at elite level, improve their aerobic capacity, avoid injury plus many more facets of the unknown.

18-22 are the most developmental years for a young bloke.

Yes and no. My eldest went through the system with the 2018 kids, and they were long touted as a brilliant draft. Whilst there's a couple of busts, the quality from that year really stands the test of time.

[Brodlach]

I’m not fussed if we get him or not but I just hope we don’t offer/give too much/over pay.

[Lightning McQueen]

Yes and no. My eldest went through the system with the 2018 kids, and they were long touted as a brilliant draft. Whilst there's a couple of busts, the quality from that year really stands the test of time.

Happy to stand corrected from someone more learned.

[Lightning McQueen]

I’m not fussed if we get him or not but I just hope we don’t offer/give too much/over pay.

You will, everyone does. I don't think he's what you need but certainly worth the punt, he's got time up forward after he's finished in the middle.

[wenchbarwer]

Yes and no. My eldest went through the system with the 2018 kids, and they were long touted as a brilliant draft. Whilst there's a couple of busts, the quality from that year really stands the test of time.

Happy to stand corrected from someone more learned.

I had a vested interest and saw a heap of that cohort pretty much from U12 footy, both here and interstate.

From U16s it was pretty obvious there were going to be some bloody good footballers coming through.