The "Holding the Ball" Rule

[Dissident]

I'm not sure if this is more for the AFL forum - because it's probably the AFL that I detest this rule in the most. In fact, the SANFL umpires the HTB rule as it should be done.

When I was in under 8's at Modbury West PS, my coach made us gather in a really tight circle, and he'd hold the ball up above our heads and tell us to grab at it all at the same time, telling us it was like a one hundred dollar bill. We were drilled to think that the ball is all we want - and when the opposition have it, we want it back.

The HTB rule these days really gets me down. Some argue that the state of the game has changed a lot and in some ways, it has. But as soon as you change the goal of a player to not ALWAYS get the ball, something is wrong.

One of the beauties of our game is the stalemate. When two more more players want the same ball as much as each other and it gets held up in a tangle of arms, legs and mud. What I detest is that these days, the player most often rewarded is the one who doesn't try to get the ball either at all, or less than his opposition.

Players get dived on by others who stick knees and elbows into all areas almost "stunning" the player with the ball, and if it spills out, proceeds to pull the ball back in with one arm and appeal for a free with the other.

The speed, strength and spur of the moment qualities of our game means bodies are going left right and centre in order to try and get the ball. Being penalised for this is wrong in a lot of cases, and deters people from taking the first posession. If a player on the other hand, intentionally holds up play and causes a bounce then yes, a free should be applied.

The deliberate out of bounds rule also shits me. For years, the boundary line has been used as a friend of players. Why else do most kicks out of full back go towards the flanks? Easy - so that if there's a spillage, there's a reasonable chance the ball will go out of bounds.

When you combine these two rules - you get some of the stupidest decisions possible. I've seen it recently, even this week, where a player is heading towards the boundary line and takes posession of the ball. Another guy on his hammer is about to tackle him so he handballs it in front of himself in order to not get penalised. The speeds he's running, and inertia created, means the ball often goes out of bounds. Deliberate? It gets called - but, not in my eyes.

If someone is realistically trying to avoid one penality, they shouldn't be guilty for another.

Why is it different to backline players, who follow a leading forward to the pockets, and spoil from behind almost always towards the boundary? They are using the boundary, but their goal is to stop the forward getting the ball and therefore escape penalty.

I love watching the SANFL because it's umpired (mostly, apart from mistakes) the way the game is meant to be. Players are given a chance to get the ball - and if they do something wrong, a free is awarded.

Many people forget one thing; that a good tackle that doesn't result in a free kick is a reward in itself.

F%^k I ramble.

[Aerie]

Good post Dissident. Agree with you 100% on the holding the ball rule. As for deliberate out of bounds, I think they penalise it a little too harshly occasionaly, but like that the rule is enforced more strictly than it was in previous years.

I think the SANFL stance on the holding the ball rule is far better than the AFL. Must always encourage and help the player who is willing to go in for the ball!

[Dissident]

Definately have to patrol it more strictly like they have in recent times but I think some decisions are a blight on the game.

[JK]

Fantastic post Diss ... I agree %100!

[-]

All I ask of a woman is to be very delicate when she is holding the ball.

[-]

Good post dissident.

[mal]

DISSIDENT

This post is stupid and a waste of time mate.
You are so right no one is going to dispute
your excellent logic!

[sus]

If Umpires use half a brain then its not an issue. The point of this particular aspect of the HTB rule is that if a player is already on the ground and they drag it in then they will be pinged HTB when some opportunist takes advantage. Under these circumstances the player on the ground deserves to be pinged - why didnt he keep his feet or knock the ball out? Answer - its usually becuase his team doesnt have numbers in support. The problem arises when some stupid umpire wants to ping a bloke desperate for the footy, when he didnt deliberately drag it in and the opposiition jumps on top and waves his hand in the air.

[CENTURION]

If a Central player is doing the tackling, it's PLAY ON!

[JK]

If Umpires use half a brain then its not an issue. The point of this particular aspect of the HTB rule is that if a player is already on the ground and they drag it in then they will be pinged HTB when some opportunist takes advantage. Under these circumstances the player on the ground deserves to be pinged - why didnt he keep his feet or knock the ball out? Answer - its usually becuase his team doesnt have numbers in support. The problem arises when some stupid umpire wants to ping a bloke desperate for the footy, when he didnt deliberately drag it in and the opposiition jumps on top and waves his hand in the air.

Problem is, if the player is already on the deck and the ball is right next to him it virtually leaves him with two options, grab it and dispose of it (and they'll get pinged in attempting to do this if tackled, because there's no prior opportunity involved with this interpretation) or completely leave the ball alone ... Surely something's wrong with the game if a better option, at ANY time, is to deliberately not take possession??

[giffo]

I was always taught to dive on the ball but these days the rule gives advantage to the player who is second to the ball or not quite willing enough to put there body on the line. I even saw one game where the player was pinged because "he was over the ball and made no attempt to get rid of it'", pity he was out cold though!

[Spiritof64]

This raises the question if a player is tackling an opposition player on the ground with the ball, and another opposition player grabs the tackler, probably in an effort to confuse the issue, isn't that holding the man?

[Squawk]

Quote - Dasher

All I ask of a woman is to be very delicate when she is holding the ball.
_________________
Never give a sucker an even break

Looks like your statement AND your signature are hand in glove with one another! LOL

[doggies4eva]

After watching the Central V Eagles game on Saturday I was very frustrated with this aspect of the umpiring. Let me make it clear that this is not a whinge - the Eagles deserved to win, but it detracted from what was a great game to watch.

The tackle is also a skill of the game and a player who is tacked must quickly get rid of it in a legal manner. What I see is a variance in the amount of "prior opportunity" given and a player who dives forward (in the back) or ducks down into the tackle (too high) is often rewarded.

[Dissident]

One other big problem I have with the rule is when someone is tackled without prior opportunity and ONE arm is pinned (without the ball in it). The player is then in no mans land and often get's pinged for HBT.

I don't like that at all. If you don't have prior opportunity, and then one arm is pinned - you are DENIED ALL CHANCE to dispose of the ball apart from attempting a kick which is very hard (in modern day football). In my eyes, a tackle that pins one arm and leaves the ball and the other arm free should be considered the same as a tackle that pins BOTH arms.

Therefore, ball up.

[sus]

One other big problem I have with the rule is when someone is tackled without prior opportunity and ONE arm is pinned (without the ball in it). The player is then in no mans land and often get's pinged for HBT.

I don't like that at all. If you don't have prior opportunity, and then one arm is pinned - you are DENIED ALL CHANCE to dispose of the ball apart from attempting a kick which is very hard (in modern day football). In my eyes, a tackle that pins one arm and leaves the ball and the other arm free should be considered the same as a tackle that pins BOTH arms.

Therefore, ball up.

Disagree - reward the tackler!

[Dissident]

One other big problem I have with the rule is when someone is tackled without prior opportunity and ONE arm is pinned (without the ball in it). The player is then in no mans land and often get's pinged for HBT.

I don't like that at all. If you don't have prior opportunity, and then one arm is pinned - you are DENIED ALL CHANCE to dispose of the ball apart from attempting a kick which is very hard (in modern day football). In my eyes, a tackle that pins one arm and leaves the ball and the other arm free should be considered the same as a tackle that pins BOTH arms.

Therefore, ball up.

Disagree - reward the tackler!

That is my earlier point, sus. People forgot that a good tackle that holds up play and makes another 50/50 contest is a reward in itself.

The fact remains - if you retard the other player and they don't have ANY opportunity to dispose of the ball, you should NOT be called for holding the ball.

[doggies4eva]

I agree with the above - the question is what is prior opportunity?

In my view the current pace of footy means that about 2 seconds is long enough to take possession and dispose of it - some of the skillful players can get a ball out of a pack faster than that.

After that once a tackle is laid a player must dispose of it by either a handball or kick - if an arm is pinned reward the tackler.

If the ball is jarred free by the tackle play on.

This all seems straightforward. Why does it not appear to happen on a consistent basis?

[sus]

One other big problem I have with the rule is when someone is tackled without prior opportunity and ONE arm is pinned (without the ball in it). The player is then in no mans land and often get's pinged for HBT.

I don't like that at all. If you don't have prior opportunity, and then one arm is pinned - you are DENIED ALL CHANCE to dispose of the ball apart from attempting a kick which is very hard (in modern day football). In my eyes, a tackle that pins one arm and leaves the ball and the other arm free should be considered the same as a tackle that pins BOTH arms.

Therefore, ball up.

Disagree - reward the tackler!

That is my earlier point, sus. People forgot that a good tackle that holds up play and makes another 50/50 contest is a reward in itself.

The fact remains - if you retard the other player and they don't have ANY opportunity to dispose of the ball, you should NOT be called for holding the ball.

The situation you described, where the ball is carried in one arm and the other is pinned, means that either:

- there usually is an opportunity to kick or
- an attempt to kick where the ball spills or
- disguises the real situation by holding the ball in.

In all these situations I reckon its play-on or ball up. But what can happen is that a players arm is pinged, they carry it in the other arm for a few seconds and then just drop it or spill it without attempt to kick - that's the one I reckon where the tackler should be rewarded and the carrier penalised. Its one of those many grey areas where you need an umpire with half a brain in the right spot - eaiser said than done.

[Dissident]

I agree with the above - the question is what is prior opportunity?

In my view the current pace of footy means that about 2 seconds is long enough to take possession and dispose of it - some of the skillful players can get a ball out of a pack faster than that.

After that once a tackle is laid a player must dispose of it by either a handball or kick - if an arm is pinned reward the tackler.

If the ball is jarred free by the tackle play on.

This all seems straightforward. Why does it not appear to happen on a consistent basis?

I don't agree with rewarding the tackler if one arm is pinned. Maybe that's just the way I look at it though? As I said before - if you have no opportunity before the tackle and then one arm is pinned (thereofre still creating no opportunity) then how can a free kick be given. I'm all for rewarding a tackle - but you have to remember that you're *penalising* the person being tackled who, in that instance, would have none nothing wrong.

As for the pace of the game - well I don't think that affects what prior opportunity is. For every bit faster that a person can get rid of the ball, the person chasing to tackle is that little bit faster too. It's all relative.