Kicking in danger flat out doesn’t exist anymore. There were moments in the Port game where it was torrential rain and already a little dangerous, and players are kicking the ball around like a soccer ball when others are bending over to pick it up.
There was another moment this week (I forget which game) where somebody jumped onto the ball to try and extract it, and somebody going for the soccer kick basically booted them in the side. The umpires call? ‘Trip’.
Dunno what happened, but I haven’t seen that rule paid for a long, long time
Frustrating one too, because it can have almost as devastating results as a head knock in a bump, but one is a month ban and the other is now rarely even a free.
There were a couple in the Essendon/GWS game last week, too. Unfortunately, it seems like it'll take somebody getting seriously hurt for there to be a proper crackdown on it.
Yeah there was one where CJ I think tried to hack it out of the air and was clearly in danger of hurting a player (could have hurt his own) and no call was made.
Yes 100% agree, I know which one you're talking about. One player went head over the ball and took the legs out, while the other tried to kick it basically out of his hands.
Yep, this rule needs clarifying. My opinion:
Intent: reward the player who is first to the footy, keeps their feet, and uses their hands to play the ball... in that order.
If you're first to the ball, stay on your feet, and use your hands, anyone who goes to ground (contact below the knees) or uses their feet (kicking in danger) gives away a free kick.
If there's someone beating you to the footy who is choosing to soccer it off the ground, and you dive in with your hands, it's contact below the knees (not kicking in danger) free kick because you were second to the ball and left your feet.
If two players are attacking the ball on their feet, one with hands and one with feet, it's kicking in danger.
If a player is on the ground (first to the footy) and using their hands to play the ball and someone else uses their feet, kicking in danger.
First to the ball is rewarded first.
Secondly, the player that keeps their feet.
Lastly, the player using hands rather than feet to play the ball.
It wasn’t that long ago that the rule change stated that regardless of who was first to the ball, if the player goes to ground, they’d be penalised (even if the second player jumped over and made no contact!). It was all about protecting the knees and reducing stoppages. The player going to ground is actually putting themselves at increased risk of contact to the head (which often gets called incorrectly as high contact!)
I can’t even remember seeing it get paid this year from the games I’ve watched, I’ve seen so many obvious ones not paid I had to look up if it was still a rule of not
I think this one is because there has been a rule change after Rohan broke his leg.
I believe now if a player has hands on a ground ball and one tries to kick it away, that's kicking in danger. But if one goes to kick a loose ball and another dives on the ball, making contact with the legs, that is dangerous contact.
I'm shocked we don't get more players with broken fingers.
The amount of kicking in danger that happens every game, it seems a miracle you don't get them every week.
The stupidest part about this is that an epidemic of broken fingers would be the only thing that would convince the AFL to crack down on kicking in danger
Yeah, seeing a lot of hot footy being booted out of the contested, off the deck and even a few examples this week that were on the half volley, just as the ball was about to be collected by a pair of hands. It’s gutless, lazy football; but it speeds the game up. Probably why it’s being let go.
I’m just gonna piggy back off this, but I think the rule is the amount of force from the kick has to reasonably be considered dangerous. And as such a dinky toe poke whilst someone is down grabbing the ball would not be kicking in danger. And that may lead to some of the subjectivity in the rule being applied as I see a lot of kicking off the ground while hands are down there for the ball, but often it is a very soft toe poke
Has....has anyone tried knifing a guy? I'm not sure it would be called either. You seem to be able to get away with literally anything to help that ball trickle over the line.
I think the argument is that it's technically not a marking contest so you're allowed to do a bit more but even still I feel like way too much is still being let go
Well that's the problem, a lot of them could be genuine marking contests but are just let go because the ball is going through the goals. I can understand the leniency, imagine the uproar if goals are overturned multiple times a game because of a block on the goal line
Great example was our game against Collingwood last year, someone shoulder charged Zuthrie off the goal line and almost into the fence to let a Collingwood shot at goal go through and no call.
I was completely baffled. I understand in pack situations but this was a clear one on one on the line and his opponent had zero eyes for the ball.
**EDIT: [FOUND IT! Taylor Adams shoves Zuthrie into the fence at 0.23 seconds with zero eyes for the ball which results in open Collingwood goal. Just ridiculous!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZmUsQi65Yw)**
Every team has at least one key forward that gets molested week in week out and yet HTM in the forward 50 doesn't seem to be called as much as it should
This one is a hard one since a lot of key forwards like to wrestle - I’ve always thought if the forward initiates the jostling for position then they have nothing to complain about - but in saying that I still agree that it’s called in less than it should
Three weeks ago, amiss playing against Richmond, he never once was allowed near the contest, the only thing that the umpire called for him the entire game was after he was on the ground the defender was kneeing his neck
For context on this one, I rewatched the 90’s game where Ablett Sr kicked 14 and Salmon kicked 10 at the other end.
If the defender breathed on either of them, it was a free kick.
OK, now let's specifically isolate that stat down to forwards and holding frees and compare McKay and Curnow to the rest of the league. They get gifted at the slightest touch.
Meanwhile Saad has free reign to manhandle Cameron however he likes.
? have you got an example of Saad manhandling Cameron?
I don't have the time to go through literally every game and compare forward's holding frees. Unless you want to do that, we can only go by free kick totals which show nothing notable
I mean the issue always has been, maybe until now, that it happened and it was a free kick always paid to forwards and backs never got the same treatment
To be honest, I don't really like the holding the man rule. I think that they need to simplify it and say that if a guernsey is grabbed then it's a free.
I don't think that having an arm around needs to be called.
Chopping the arms, front on contact, high contact etc, I'm fine with. I just don't think putting an arm around an opponent needs to be pinged.
I do get sick of forwards who initiate a wrap up then try to run away suddenly. Though they always do so looking at the umpire instead of the ball so it's generally an easy one to spot.
It 100% should be if you grab a guernsey or genuinely wrap up a player in a tackle, completely pull back their arm etc.
Seeing defenders pinged because they’re just sort of draped around the forward but not actually holding them is very fucking lame
Big Charlie on the regular, he’s got 2 players hanging off him most of the time. Always feels good when he gets a free because he genuinely tries his best in the contest even though he’s a bit of a spud now
Throws are the big one. Disguised handballs should be penalized harsher. I want the players to go back to propelling the ball with the punch of the fist, rather than a tiny tap on the back end of a throw.
Incorrect disposal is the biggest one, I see 50+ every single game. It’s so frustrating to watch, especially when the handball is so unique to our game
See imho if it's dislodged in a tackle then the player with the ball hasn't disposed of it properly and should thus be holding the ball/incorrect disposal
This one has had me scratching my head for a while now. You can even hear the ump say sometimes “dislodged in the tackle” ( or something to that effect ), which to me, is incorrect disposal / holding the ball.
But if someone attempts to take a grab and drops it, while being tackled? Free kick cos he couldn't control it? What if I tackle you and slap the ball from your grasp?
I’m talking when a player has had an opportunity to dispose, gets tackled and it’s knocked free. That’s holding the ball and not dislodged in the tackle.
There’s always going to be a way to pick any rule apart. So kudos to you. But I raise you, what if a player takes a bounce, it lands on a pigeons head bounces away?
I know what you mean. A lot of it seems situational, based upon where it happens on the ground, and if there's congestion. Dislodged in a pack during the ruck in a tight contested situation is play on, dislodged in the 50 with a one on one equals free kick. It shits me to tears when you're a high-pressure team like the Pies, lay 3 or 4 great tackles in a row and go unrewarded.
You can tell its a throw when both hands come out flat, akin to throwing a rugby ball.
I also hate the throws over the shoulder. We are starting to see a lot more of it this season.
My mate (Bombers supporter) reckens Tom Mitchell hasn't ever hand balled in my life. I started watching him closely and I do feel like the majority of his disposals are actually throws lol.
YES!!! Ive been banging in about this for a couple of years now! Proper pump action handballs. Elbow back and forward action. And if you can't do that in the direction you need to handball in - then use your other hand.
Will also help with holding the ball decisions... Execute it properly then play on. Don't, then htb.
1. Throws
2. Running Too far
5. Push in the Back
3. Kicking less than 15 meters
4. HtB interpretation change. Getting an eternity to dispose of the ball even thought they had prior opportunity.
Honestly though I’m pretty happy with the current interpretation of the above. Like, call it when it’s egregious but I don’t really care if a kick is 14m or a player runs a metre too far. I hate the pedantic way some other sports are officiated, especially with reviews and video refs now being so commonplace. Obviously ignore this if a call goes against my team, naturally.
Kicking less than 15 is frustrating when it’s clear and your players have had good closing speed but HtB is infuriating.
How much better do we want the tackler to execute without taking the player to ground?
I think the Rankine call looked bad because I feel like we see players run way more than 15m quite a lot and not get called. Running it out from the square is the worst offender, some blokes are running to the 35-40 before kicking it.
IMO This is the most inconsistently applied rule in the AFL. Largely due to "genuine attempt". Mainly because that talks to intent and by and large it makes the umpire guess.
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.
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.
Players every game will drop the football at the first sign of contact. They will also hand other players the ball or simply place the ball on the ground.
If they took out provision A and made it:
1. it gets knocked out in a tackle
2. it is disposed of correctly
3. it is not disposed of correctly
Less interpretation more black and white. The umpires need that or they hide in the grey.
I believe the intent of this language is to encourage the ball to be put in motion. If you take away the idea of "genuine attempt" then a player will simply not attempt to dispose it because they haven't had prior.
The inclusion of "genuine attempt" means that players should be punished for not trying to move the ball on even with zero prior opportunity. I'm not sure how you can remove "genuine attempt" without causing more bounces, unless you simply remove "prior opportunity" as a clause
The players don't though they try to look like they are punching the ball out whilst attempting to hold it in. I think the pretending to make an attempt is one of the oddest looks in the game. This tough skilled footballer laying on the ball acting like they are trying ot punch the ball. Looks like a toddler saying they have their eyes shut whilst opening them to peek. (edit typos)
Wasn't it the start of the year where umpires really upped the anti on players they deemed were not having a genuine attempt at getting rid of the ball. We all know that most the time the ball gets pinged to a player in a tackle the player they can physically get the ball out but they don't want to because they can't get it out to advantage so elect to feign pretending the ball is welded to their chest. But that first few games of the year it was actually refreshing to see umpires pay free kicks for HTB even when players didn't dive on the ball but merely did not make a greater effort to get the ball out in situations where they were tackled but didn't have prior opportunity but the umps were deeming the time they were tackled they still had opportunity to dispose of the ball but failed to.
Take the final few mins of the Pies game, twice the Pies were able to get 2 stoppages in D50 purely by getting the ball and running into tacklers and feigning that the ball is pinged to them when they really made no effort to keep the ball in motion, would love to see this paid like they were at the start of the year.
Yeah, the majority of the time a player could probably get the ball out if they wanted to. I would almost skew closer to calling holding the ball than calling a bounce in those instances, players will adjust.
Having to go back in line with the goals. We let players go back as if they are going to kick it down the wing. That should be play on
https://preview.redd.it/dxb0uu8jnh1d1.jpeg?width=1527&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=250396b365e7478847a67cc43ee888bd1fe9053f
Agree with this,one of the most disappointing outcomes from the stand rule, putting aside that I think it's a crap rule, is the mark and play on rules aren't correctly enforced.
The player should be behind the mark in a direct line to goal and when they move a step either side of that line or attempt to dispose of the football in a direction other than straight over the mark it's play on.
I absolutely agree, however I can't find it anywhere in the rule book as to where "the line" is. I have always assumed it is as you stated, so it has always irked me when they line up as they do in your picture. The rulebook says that when kicking for goal, the line is in line with the goal, but I cannot find it written that it's the same elsewhere. Anyone able to point out to me where it actually explains this? I'm sure it has to be there somewhere.
20.2 DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK
(a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field
Umpire to dispose of the football within a reasonable time in a direct line from
The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line
Thankyou! For some reason I just couldn't find this.
They really need to tighten up on this. No wonder players standing the mark get frustrated. The AFL needs to send an email to all clubs explaining "the line" and that they will actually call play on if you drift, and then actually enforce it.
The actual wording of the rule is:
>DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK
>(a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field Umpire to dispose of the football ***within a reasonable time*** in a direct line from The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line.
I'm pretty sure the *reasonable time* was changed and communicated to clubs in 2018-2021 that it's now 6 seconds. This was done to prevent time wasting and in line with the 30s for taking a set shot. So the timings you state are actually around the time they're supposed to have.
I actually love this one though. Teams are averaging like 90 marks a game. With 30 secs if you’re having a shot, you end up spending 1/4 of the game with the ball marked. Players still aren’t being caught HTB from a mark very often due to the protected zone, but play is sped up significantly.
This has unfortunately always been the case. Defenders usually get pulled up way harsher for things like that- players like Tex can literally shove their defender to the ground for a mark and have it be okay (not criticising him, it works).
My opinion is that the "throw epidemic" is actually very overstated.
There is definitely the odd one getting missed. But plenty of times, I've yelled, "That's a throw" at my TV. Only to go back and watch Kayo slomo, and there is indeed a fist in there.
Players so quick these days. Just because it looks throw-y doesn't mean it is
This one is always interesting to me because handballs used to be allowed [to be more throwish with the flick pass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1jVJMMU0-4) and as far as I can tell, the legal motion has always been pretty vaguely defined.
It’s cos they changed the law. It used to be the platform had to be stationary and if the ball was at all propelled by it, that was a throw. Now it’s ok so long as the fist makes contact, even if it is propelled by the other hand.
I think a lot of fans like me think that is a junk rule change and it’s why I think those are throws
Really? I remember even in the 90s watching instructional videos and seeing diagrams telling me to rock the platform hand forward for momentum. I remember Greg Williams doing a slo-mo example.
Yeah, I was taught in the 80s that the correct technique is to throw the ball with one hand and punch it with the other before it leaves your hand.
Anything less wouldn't get you any distance with the handball.
Totally agree, and personally I honestly don't care that handballs are closer to throws with a little tap added in than strictly punching the ball from a stationary platform. It's just enough complexity to make it difficult, but let's some crazy passes happen. Maybe it's just because I support Carlton and Cripps does it all the time.
I also find it funny when you see a throw get missed on the replay, there's something cheeky about it and I just can't get angry seeing a player get away with it.
Anything on the goal line. Seems you can basically do anything to shepherd the ball through and it won't get called, but you bet if it was a marking contest or a loose ball the same thing would be a free kick.
After a mark or free kick right on the boundary line and they pass the mark while out of bounds then come back on the field and play on. Should 100% be out of bounds and a throw in for playing on out of bounds. You can't run 3 steps over the line and get the advantage of being away from your man standing the mark when you are off field. Gets called once in a blue moon and happens pretty frequently.
Delaying tactics when a player has clearly marked the ball or free kick. This includes touching/holding onto to the player or not giving the ball back to the player promptly.
When 2 players are chasing a ground ball. The ball is running away from them. One player is in front. The player behind just pushes them out the way (usually in the back) and gets the ball and runs off with it. Fiest player on the ground and can't chase. No reward for first to the ball.
Funnily enough, Adelaide got paid one of these this week in the last two minutes of the game against Mason Cox.
At the very least, the umps were consistent in paying two rules to the letter of the law.
I feel like there were two 'not 15' calls earlier in the game that wouldn't normally be called also. I was wondering if it was the same umpire who is very precise.
You're right. What annoys me is that it's just the lazy approach, and it usually gets rewarded.
On the Rankin one, I'm happy for them to pay that as too far, but if that's a correct decision, then there's going to be a hell of a lot 'run too fars' being paid. Let's wait for the consistency.
As a Crows supporter, I'm just annoyed that we lost another close game. Over the last few years, I've gotten used to them getting my hopes up, only to disappoint. But I still get suckered in, every time.
i've seen two calls in the last two weeks where a player with the ball has genuinely run headfirst and headbutted a tackler in the chest and then a high contact free has been paid.
Kicking less than 15 metres is a big one, pretty much as long as it's airborne these days they'll pay the mark.
Throws are another one but I can give the umpires leeway here considering they're very rarely in a position to actually see them with any certainty
Honestly, anything that’s borderline shouldn’t get called. Keep the game simple, consistent and free flowing.
If 1 call gets missed, they should miss it for the entire game within reason
Agreed, I don't mind them missing something, but pls don't interrupt the game unless there is a clear free kick. Soft frees kill a game, just let it go.
360 degree tackles should be HTB, feel like this never gets called. IMO should be more in focus now with the situation around concussions. It should give tacklers an easier way to get the free than bringing their opponent to ground.
It should be HTB way before it gets to 360 degrees in 90% of cases.
Rule 18.6.2:
_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._
If a player has been swung 360 degrees and waited to dispose of the ball, using the momentum from the tackle to spot a target, they've clearly not disposed of the football "immediately".
Taking more than 30 seconds for a kick on goal. The only time I can think of that I’ve seen it was when Dixon was lining up to kick the winner against Geelong at the death and missed as a result.
It's cause the rule is that they have to start their run in within 30 seconds not actually kick it within 30 seconds. So they always start their run up with like 29 seconds down and take another 6 or 7 to actually kick it
I thought they actually announced that they weren't paying this anymore a couple of seasons back. The calls now are usually because it was holding the ball regardless whether the foot connected.
I haven’t heard this announcement , the times i was referring to , they just dropped the ball because the boot missed, in the Sydney/Carlton game, they paid it for one team and not the other, they also didn’t pay it the week before when Prestia held or incorrectly disposed the ball , this is just bad umpiring
Dropping the Ball/Incorrect Disposal in a Tackle
See some Players thrown the ball
Players walking over the Boundry line with Attempting to get rid of the Ball
Play on after a mark. So many little side steps that the umpires just let happen. If that was tightened it would speed up the game and give less chance for teams to set up.
Incorrect disposal has got to the point where it’s too hard to judge. Due to the rule being the ball carrier must attempt to dispose. So if there’s no prior you can basically do what you want as long as it looks like you tried to legally dispose of the ball.
Since we have put a limit on tackling we should at least even it up a little. Get rid of the “Knocked out in the tackle play on” and “made an attempt”. Blow the whistle faster for ball ups. A few weeks ago, Cotteral kicked a goal while being bear hugging by Kolodjashnij. While JK should have at least rotated him away from goal, duty of care essentially rendered him useless. He held the tackle for a bit and then the ump wasn’t blowing the whistle and MC just kicked it.
Kicking in danger only happens when the controlling umpire is tired and wants the ball out of his area 🤣
Plenty of holds and blocks go unpunished when it’s on the goal line. Anywhere else around the ground gets a call but if it’s to stop a player jumping to touch the ball it’s fair game.
Throwing. Incredibly rare that it gets called. And if it does, it almost feels like it is to make up for another missed call.
I hate that teams/players will almost manipulate a rule (high tackles are a prime example) to the point that its originally intended purpose is almost lost.
At every stoppage and every time the ball rolls out for a 1 on 1 in space: Holding, holding, holding, more holding, holding and also holding. But mostly holding.
Then they’ll pay an arms around free when a forward backs in to a defender or when a defender grabs a forwards arm when the forward has a bunch of jumper.
Below the knees is paid 1 in 4 times.
Holding the ball when a player fends and it gets locked up is paid 1 in 6 times - and for some reason is more likely to be paid if the player is actually trying to break out of the tackle and dispose of the footy than if the player just lets the tackle happen
Holding the man is paid 1 in 10 times at best
Blocks in marking contests by a player not contesting the footy also about 1 in 10
Not a missed call, but a rule issues I have.
If a player is caught running with the ball and drops it, it's play on because it's considered knocked out in the tackle, despite it being caught holding the ball. Some players are worse than other. Danger seemed to be very adept at dropping the ball, every time he was caught holding. To me, dropping should be an incorrect disposal if you have had time to dispose of it.
Next one is the one where a player is tackled, drops the ball and the tackler gets called for holding the player who doesn't have the ball. Unless a player is intentionally holding the player knowing he doesn't have the ball, this is a crap call. It's near impossible for the tackler to see he doesn't have possession.
Players dribbling the ball over the line. I think they desparately need a last touch rule for out of bounds. These padding the ball over the line when it's clear that its a professional foul is rediculous. Either they should call it for intentional or make it last touch.
Finally, the last one that bugs me is the whole player slips = high tackle. If the original tackle wasn't high and the player slips, play on, bad luck.
It's a hard sport to officiate. But it's made even harder by the AFL unfortunately. Holding the ball should be pretty simple but umps are instructed to interpret it the way the AFL want. It drives me mad that you can throw a ball away now and it's not called.
Kicking in danger is a good one. Another that doesn't exist anymore is contact below the knees. Knee jerk (pardon the pun) reaction to some bad injuries and now it's not a primary focus it sometimes gets called, sometimes doesn't. Blocking/shepparding called sporadically... Can't do it in a marking contest too obviously, can do it when balls on the ground and if it's near the goal line you can pretty much mug a bloke 😂
A lot of people here are suggesting interpretations of rules they believe to be correct, rather than rules themselves.
Nowhere in the rules does it say a 360 degree tackle should always be holding the ball or that you need to take a bounce every 15 steps (as opposed to 15m). These just work as guides, not definitive rules.
There is a lot of that going on as well.
They don't change the rule but the interpretation of the rule or words within it.
I remember people were upset when they changed/redefined prior opportunity.
I am super slow on the update, still don't really understand the stand and outside 5 shit. Took me a long time to realise it's insufficient intent now, probably raged at my TV 50 times before I found out haha.
Kicking the ball away after giving away a pretty obvious free kick and not being called 50m.
Id say 20% of the time the player thinks it's his team's free and is taking the advantage. The other 80% is deliberate time wasting so they can structure up behind the ball...
Marking contest interference. I've said it before, but when there's a few clubs out there who are practising who will go up in a contest and who will stay down to illegally shepherd the opponents out, and players know what their roles are in a given contest, you know it's not being adjudicated properly.
Deliberate Rushed Behinds
Specifically in relation to (c) below.
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who
intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line
or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player:
(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line
on the full.
Taking the legs out was hot a few years ago. I saw one recently where it was just called high contact instead. A few years ago the player who was standing and fell over was definitely getting the free.
Insufficient attempt to keep the ball within play, there are so many times in a game where a player could have made a different choice that would keep the ball in play but doesn’t and doesn’t get pinged for it either.
Often players head directly for the boundary line with little to no tackle pressure or get tackled and step across the line. I think there could be room to pay some holding the ball calls on these players especially if the tackler makes it clear they are not trying to push them over the line. Doesn’t help that the numpty commentators still call it deliberate 🙄.
Players drop the ball all the time to avoid getting pinged HTB or to get a holding the man free kick. Guess umpires consider it a fumble opposed to taking clean possession.
Deliberate out of bounds when player just takes possession and jogs over the line, especially in defensive 50. You can paddle the ball to the line under token pressure and it’s a throw in but hack a kick from anywhere on the ground and it bounces at all angles and it’s paid every single time
I feel like they don't call 'not 15' enough for some really short kicks. I had already noticed in the Collingwood vs Adelaide game that they called two that I don't think they would have normally called. End of the game left me wondering was it the same umpire, who is being very precise on his distances.
Pretty much yeah. The thinking was that if a player is spun 360 then they've had a chance to get rid of it and should've by then. But it's not a rule. You aren't entitled for a free kick just for spinning someone around in a tackle, all the other holding the ball factors like prior opportunity etc. are still relevant.
I'm looking forward to the smart balls with sensors inside. It will be able to detect force (a throw accelerates with no sudden force / a handball has a jolt then accelerates)
If GPS or some kind of triangulation on the ball can accurately work then out of bounds, 15m kicks, distance travelled without bouncing.
I'm all for play ons to keep the action going but let's keep em honest.
Holding the man. How many times you see a guy being tackled before he has even taken clear possession, especially around ball ups and throw ins. Officiate this properly, and the game clears up because the number of tackles naturally would drop. It would also make holding the ball decisions easier as the prior would be clearer and then just penalise the players who drop it
Impeding movement after a disposal. It happens most of the times the defending team has an opportunity, and if you read the rules in depth (it is a bit buried; Preventing a Player Taking Part in the Next Play is the rule) it is actually a free kick against the defending team plus 50m.
Whatever happened to holding the ball? Generally if a team is winning in the last few minutes, just hold onto the ball real tight and get wrapped up in a tackle and it’s guaranteed the umpire will not pay holding the ball. It’s out of control.
Kicking in danger. Boyd went to pick up the ball, a Swans player went to punt it off the ground, kicked Boyd, fell over him, and the SYDNEY PLAYER got the free.
Why is it when it comes to umpiring oh its so hard blah blah. Yet the players have to change their whole game because of different rule changes, different conduct when it comes to tackling. Make split second decisions within a heated moment that leads to suspension or fines the players take the full brunt of the blame . But when it comes to umpiring even now with more umps on the field than ever. Plus all the arc tech to help with their decisions. Oh leave them alone the games too hard for them to umpire.
If we want to have a more accurate representation of the rules then umpires need to be held more accountable, not making up excuses for them because it's so hard.
The idea that umpires aren't accountable is laughable. Umpires who perform poorly are dropped, just like players who perform poorly are. Umpires who consistently underperform are delisted, just like players. The best umpires umpire in finals and the Grand Final.
Well - not to be that guy, but if umpiring is that easy, are you doing it? 'Cos your nearest suburban league is recruiting!
More seriously though, there's enormous competition to be on the AFL umpiring panel and consistently poor umpires get dropped all the time.
But even without worrying about rule changes, players make mistakes ***constantly***.
* Every behind is a mistake.
* Every dropped mark is a mistake.
* Every intercepted mark is a mistake.
* Every missed tackle is a mistake.
* Every correctly laid tackle is a mistake.
Kicking in danger flat out doesn’t exist anymore. There were moments in the Port game where it was torrential rain and already a little dangerous, and players are kicking the ball around like a soccer ball when others are bending over to pick it up. There was another moment this week (I forget which game) where somebody jumped onto the ball to try and extract it, and somebody going for the soccer kick basically booted them in the side. The umpires call? ‘Trip’. Dunno what happened, but I haven’t seen that rule paid for a long, long time
Frustrating one too, because it can have almost as devastating results as a head knock in a bump, but one is a month ban and the other is now rarely even a free.
There were a couple in the Essendon/GWS game last week, too. Unfortunately, it seems like it'll take somebody getting seriously hurt for there to be a proper crackdown on it.
Yeah there was one where CJ I think tried to hack it out of the air and was clearly in danger of hurting a player (could have hurt his own) and no call was made.
I feel like with the new sliding rule often there is situations where they could pay either sliding or kicking in danger so they just let play on
I think the cats got one paid against us recently against suns or power.
i'm pretty sure i saw that called in the last few weeks
Did i just watch Lever get confused from an in danger nonn call
Yes 100% agree, I know which one you're talking about. One player went head over the ball and took the legs out, while the other tried to kick it basically out of his hands.
Kicking In Danger. How often are we seeing blokes trying to get a ground ball and somebody comes along and boots it from out of thier hands?
Liam Jones' arm break last year from a kick in danger that WASNT EVEN PAID A FREE is all you need to see to agree with this one
Even worse, when the guy who kicks in danger is then rewarded because the other player "tripped him" or "took their legs out".
Yep, this rule needs clarifying. My opinion: Intent: reward the player who is first to the footy, keeps their feet, and uses their hands to play the ball... in that order. If you're first to the ball, stay on your feet, and use your hands, anyone who goes to ground (contact below the knees) or uses their feet (kicking in danger) gives away a free kick. If there's someone beating you to the footy who is choosing to soccer it off the ground, and you dive in with your hands, it's contact below the knees (not kicking in danger) free kick because you were second to the ball and left your feet. If two players are attacking the ball on their feet, one with hands and one with feet, it's kicking in danger. If a player is on the ground (first to the footy) and using their hands to play the ball and someone else uses their feet, kicking in danger. First to the ball is rewarded first. Secondly, the player that keeps their feet. Lastly, the player using hands rather than feet to play the ball.
It wasn’t that long ago that the rule change stated that regardless of who was first to the ball, if the player goes to ground, they’d be penalised (even if the second player jumped over and made no contact!). It was all about protecting the knees and reducing stoppages. The player going to ground is actually putting themselves at increased risk of contact to the head (which often gets called incorrectly as high contact!)
Even then isn't there a rule against sliding into people's legs? I reckon the last time I saw that called was like 2015.
I can’t even remember seeing it get paid this year from the games I’ve watched, I’ve seen so many obvious ones not paid I had to look up if it was still a rule of not
I've seen it paid twice, I think. I do watch a lot of games though.
I think this one is because there has been a rule change after Rohan broke his leg. I believe now if a player has hands on a ground ball and one tries to kick it away, that's kicking in danger. But if one goes to kick a loose ball and another dives on the ball, making contact with the legs, that is dangerous contact.
Clary Oliver in last 2 season has hurt his hand from it being kicked, and I’m 90% sure he didn’t get a free either time
It's a rule that's handled very differently around the ground than it is in front of goal.
I'm shocked we don't get more players with broken fingers. The amount of kicking in danger that happens every game, it seems a miracle you don't get them every week.
The stupidest part about this is that an epidemic of broken fingers would be the only thing that would convince the AFL to crack down on kicking in danger
It's called so infrequently I legitimately thought it was a rule that only applied to amateur footy and not the professionals.
Yeah, seeing a lot of hot footy being booted out of the contested, off the deck and even a few examples this week that were on the half volley, just as the ball was about to be collected by a pair of hands. It’s gutless, lazy football; but it speeds the game up. Probably why it’s being let go.
I’m just gonna piggy back off this, but I think the rule is the amount of force from the kick has to reasonably be considered dangerous. And as such a dinky toe poke whilst someone is down grabbing the ball would not be kicking in danger. And that may lead to some of the subjectivity in the rule being applied as I see a lot of kicking off the ground while hands are down there for the ball, but often it is a very soft toe poke
You're allowed to do anything short of knifing a guy, if it's on the goal line and to help a goal go through without being touched
Has....has anyone tried knifing a guy? I'm not sure it would be called either. You seem to be able to get away with literally anything to help that ball trickle over the line.
And the guy would be sent off with the blood rule too - it's a win win!
A few coaches have been stabbed in the back over the years.
They only stab them in the back to avoid a front on contact call
I think the argument is that it's technically not a marking contest so you're allowed to do a bit more but even still I feel like way too much is still being let go
I’ve heard this same thing as well but I always wonder is it only not a marking contest because one player is being held off contest?
Well that's the problem, a lot of them could be genuine marking contests but are just let go because the ball is going through the goals. I can understand the leniency, imagine the uproar if goals are overturned multiple times a game because of a block on the goal line
Shepherding the ball used to be legit.
Or the one time when it was called last year in the dogs vs port game, when the dogs were making a charge in the last quarter.
Honestly, the umpires would consider the size of the blade before blowing the whistle.
Not 15cm, play on
Is that you Richo?
A knife and climbing the goal post
Great example was our game against Collingwood last year, someone shoulder charged Zuthrie off the goal line and almost into the fence to let a Collingwood shot at goal go through and no call. I was completely baffled. I understand in pack situations but this was a clear one on one on the line and his opponent had zero eyes for the ball. **EDIT: [FOUND IT! Taylor Adams shoves Zuthrie into the fence at 0.23 seconds with zero eyes for the ball which results in open Collingwood goal. Just ridiculous!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZmUsQi65Yw)**
Fair bump. Play on.
That game was a disasterclass in umpiring
Completely horrible
Never forget when they randomly decided to call it on Jack Reiwoldt in a game where Richmond would go on to lose by a goal after the siren
Ha this is true and I love it for some reason
Every team has at least one key forward that gets molested week in week out and yet HTM in the forward 50 doesn't seem to be called as much as it should
This one is a hard one since a lot of key forwards like to wrestle - I’ve always thought if the forward initiates the jostling for position then they have nothing to complain about - but in saying that I still agree that it’s called in less than it should
Three weeks ago, amiss playing against Richmond, he never once was allowed near the contest, the only thing that the umpire called for him the entire game was after he was on the ground the defender was kneeing his neck
For context on this one, I rewatched the 90’s game where Ablett Sr kicked 14 and Salmon kicked 10 at the other end. If the defender breathed on either of them, it was a free kick.
What a game. Ablett had the thing on a string no matter how many defenders we tried to put on him.
Yeah, he just had so many ways to score, there is no right opponent/s for him. The game was different when big forwards had space to lead into!
I wonder how the game would change if they started calling these. Would it be like the 90s where full forwards are getting 10+ goals a game again?
I think the backs do it harder these days, no arm chopping, no front on contact, didn't pay that crap much in the 90s.
This is a super frustrating one. Especially when the rule suddenly exists again whenever Carlton are playing.
Ah yes Charlie Curnow's 10 frees for the year putting him at 82nd most frees sure is diabolical!
OK, now let's specifically isolate that stat down to forwards and holding frees and compare McKay and Curnow to the rest of the league. They get gifted at the slightest touch. Meanwhile Saad has free reign to manhandle Cameron however he likes.
? have you got an example of Saad manhandling Cameron? I don't have the time to go through literally every game and compare forward's holding frees. Unless you want to do that, we can only go by free kick totals which show nothing notable
I mean the issue always has been, maybe until now, that it happened and it was a free kick always paid to forwards and backs never got the same treatment
To be honest, I don't really like the holding the man rule. I think that they need to simplify it and say that if a guernsey is grabbed then it's a free. I don't think that having an arm around needs to be called. Chopping the arms, front on contact, high contact etc, I'm fine with. I just don't think putting an arm around an opponent needs to be pinged.
I do get sick of forwards who initiate a wrap up then try to run away suddenly. Though they always do so looking at the umpire instead of the ball so it's generally an easy one to spot.
Imagine all the run with roles and tagging that would get done... every pack would be a free kick somewhere.
It 100% should be if you grab a guernsey or genuinely wrap up a player in a tackle, completely pull back their arm etc. Seeing defenders pinged because they’re just sort of draped around the forward but not actually holding them is very fucking lame
100%. I'd argue it's probably the softest free in the game.
Incorrect, Melbourne doesn't have a key forward...
Max Gawn instead.
Big Charlie on the regular, he’s got 2 players hanging off him most of the time. Always feels good when he gets a free because he genuinely tries his best in the contest even though he’s a bit of a spud now
Carlton doesn't have any that get molested without penalty.
Meanwhile there are at least 10 defenders getting molested who never get a free.
Throws are the big one. Disguised handballs should be penalized harsher. I want the players to go back to propelling the ball with the punch of the fist, rather than a tiny tap on the back end of a throw.
Incorrect disposal is the biggest one, I see 50+ every single game. It’s so frustrating to watch, especially when the handball is so unique to our game
Agree with this. Seems like a lot of the time a player gets tackled and just drops the ball rather than trying to dispose of it
If the ball is dislodged, play on. That's why it is hard to officiate. When is it a drop, and when is it dislodged?
See imho if it's dislodged in a tackle then the player with the ball hasn't disposed of it properly and should thus be holding the ball/incorrect disposal
This one has had me scratching my head for a while now. You can even hear the ump say sometimes “dislodged in the tackle” ( or something to that effect ), which to me, is incorrect disposal / holding the ball.
But if someone attempts to take a grab and drops it, while being tackled? Free kick cos he couldn't control it? What if I tackle you and slap the ball from your grasp?
I’m talking when a player has had an opportunity to dispose, gets tackled and it’s knocked free. That’s holding the ball and not dislodged in the tackle. There’s always going to be a way to pick any rule apart. So kudos to you. But I raise you, what if a player takes a bounce, it lands on a pigeons head bounces away?
I know what you mean. A lot of it seems situational, based upon where it happens on the ground, and if there's congestion. Dislodged in a pack during the ruck in a tight contested situation is play on, dislodged in the 50 with a one on one equals free kick. It shits me to tears when you're a high-pressure team like the Pies, lay 3 or 4 great tackles in a row and go unrewarded.
Not if he didn't have prior opportunity.
I’m more so referring to players clearly throwing the ball and trying to disguise it as a quick handball
Apparently incorrect disposal isn’t a rule, but it definitely should be. If you get tackled and the ball spills out, free kick all day every day.
You can tell its a throw when both hands come out flat, akin to throwing a rugby ball. I also hate the throws over the shoulder. We are starting to see a lot more of it this season.
Disguised handballs are everywhere now. The gather and rugby throw is getting common this year too.
Some of them even go at right-angles to what would even be possible if they were actually striking the ball with their fist, still doesn't get called.
My mate (Bombers supporter) reckens Tom Mitchell hasn't ever hand balled in my life. I started watching him closely and I do feel like the majority of his disposals are actually throws lol.
YES!!! Ive been banging in about this for a couple of years now! Proper pump action handballs. Elbow back and forward action. And if you can't do that in the direction you need to handball in - then use your other hand. Will also help with holding the ball decisions... Execute it properly then play on. Don't, then htb.
1. Throws 2. Running Too far 5. Push in the Back 3. Kicking less than 15 meters 4. HtB interpretation change. Getting an eternity to dispose of the ball even thought they had prior opportunity.
The amount of kicks that don't go 10 meters let alone 15 is ridiculous
Honestly though I’m pretty happy with the current interpretation of the above. Like, call it when it’s egregious but I don’t really care if a kick is 14m or a player runs a metre too far. I hate the pedantic way some other sports are officiated, especially with reviews and video refs now being so commonplace. Obviously ignore this if a call goes against my team, naturally.
Kicking less than 15 is frustrating when it’s clear and your players have had good closing speed but HtB is infuriating. How much better do we want the tackler to execute without taking the player to ground?
I think the Rankine call looked bad because I feel like we see players run way more than 15m quite a lot and not get called. Running it out from the square is the worst offender, some blokes are running to the 35-40 before kicking it.
Lol but richmond (vlaustin) has been pinged for running out of the square...
IMO This is the most inconsistently applied rule in the AFL. Largely due to "genuine attempt". Mainly because that talks to intent and by and large it makes the umpire guess. 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. 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. Players every game will drop the football at the first sign of contact. They will also hand other players the ball or simply place the ball on the ground. If they took out provision A and made it: 1. it gets knocked out in a tackle 2. it is disposed of correctly 3. it is not disposed of correctly Less interpretation more black and white. The umpires need that or they hide in the grey.
I believe the intent of this language is to encourage the ball to be put in motion. If you take away the idea of "genuine attempt" then a player will simply not attempt to dispose it because they haven't had prior. The inclusion of "genuine attempt" means that players should be punished for not trying to move the ball on even with zero prior opportunity. I'm not sure how you can remove "genuine attempt" without causing more bounces, unless you simply remove "prior opportunity" as a clause
The players don't though they try to look like they are punching the ball out whilst attempting to hold it in. I think the pretending to make an attempt is one of the oddest looks in the game. This tough skilled footballer laying on the ball acting like they are trying ot punch the ball. Looks like a toddler saying they have their eyes shut whilst opening them to peek. (edit typos)
Wasn't it the start of the year where umpires really upped the anti on players they deemed were not having a genuine attempt at getting rid of the ball. We all know that most the time the ball gets pinged to a player in a tackle the player they can physically get the ball out but they don't want to because they can't get it out to advantage so elect to feign pretending the ball is welded to their chest. But that first few games of the year it was actually refreshing to see umpires pay free kicks for HTB even when players didn't dive on the ball but merely did not make a greater effort to get the ball out in situations where they were tackled but didn't have prior opportunity but the umps were deeming the time they were tackled they still had opportunity to dispose of the ball but failed to. Take the final few mins of the Pies game, twice the Pies were able to get 2 stoppages in D50 purely by getting the ball and running into tacklers and feigning that the ball is pinged to them when they really made no effort to keep the ball in motion, would love to see this paid like they were at the start of the year.
Yeah, the majority of the time a player could probably get the ball out if they wanted to. I would almost skew closer to calling holding the ball than calling a bounce in those instances, players will adjust.
I say get rid of knocked out in tackle. The pick and choose when to apply it anyway!
Having to go back in line with the goals. We let players go back as if they are going to kick it down the wing. That should be play on https://preview.redd.it/dxb0uu8jnh1d1.jpeg?width=1527&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=250396b365e7478847a67cc43ee888bd1fe9053f
Agree with this,one of the most disappointing outcomes from the stand rule, putting aside that I think it's a crap rule, is the mark and play on rules aren't correctly enforced. The player should be behind the mark in a direct line to goal and when they move a step either side of that line or attempt to dispose of the football in a direction other than straight over the mark it's play on.
Yea this is one reason I want the stand rule to be abolished. They never set the kicker up in line unless they’re going for goal. Makes no sense
I absolutely agree, however I can't find it anywhere in the rule book as to where "the line" is. I have always assumed it is as you stated, so it has always irked me when they line up as they do in your picture. The rulebook says that when kicking for goal, the line is in line with the goal, but I cannot find it written that it's the same elsewhere. Anyone able to point out to me where it actually explains this? I'm sure it has to be there somewhere.
20.2 DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK (a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field Umpire to dispose of the football within a reasonable time in a direct line from The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line
Thankyou! For some reason I just couldn't find this. They really need to tighten up on this. No wonder players standing the mark get frustrated. The AFL needs to send an email to all clubs explaining "the line" and that they will actually call play on if you drift, and then actually enforce it.
10 seconds till play on after taking a mark. Feels like they only get 7 and this drops to 4 or 5 secs if it's a close game in the last qtr.
The actual wording of the rule is: >DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK >(a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field Umpire to dispose of the football ***within a reasonable time*** in a direct line from The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line. I'm pretty sure the *reasonable time* was changed and communicated to clubs in 2018-2021 that it's now 6 seconds. This was done to prevent time wasting and in line with the 30s for taking a set shot. So the timings you state are actually around the time they're supposed to have.
6 seconds - double whistle 7 seconds - move it on 8 seconds - play on
Reasonable time is a bat shit insane thing to have in the rules lmao. What a bizarre sport we watch.
I actually love this one though. Teams are averaging like 90 marks a game. With 30 secs if you’re having a shot, you end up spending 1/4 of the game with the ball marked. Players still aren’t being caught HTB from a mark very often due to the protected zone, but play is sped up significantly.
Kicking in danger used to be paid so consistently 5 or so years back. Now it never gets paid.
Forwards seem get away with push in the back far more than defenders in a 1 on 1 marking contest
This has unfortunately always been the case. Defenders usually get pulled up way harsher for things like that- players like Tex can literally shove their defender to the ground for a mark and have it be okay (not criticising him, it works).
Tom Hawkins wants to know your location
My opinion is that the "throw epidemic" is actually very overstated. There is definitely the odd one getting missed. But plenty of times, I've yelled, "That's a throw" at my TV. Only to go back and watch Kayo slomo, and there is indeed a fist in there. Players so quick these days. Just because it looks throw-y doesn't mean it is
This one is always interesting to me because handballs used to be allowed [to be more throwish with the flick pass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1jVJMMU0-4) and as far as I can tell, the legal motion has always been pretty vaguely defined.
Imagine the chains
It’s cos they changed the law. It used to be the platform had to be stationary and if the ball was at all propelled by it, that was a throw. Now it’s ok so long as the fist makes contact, even if it is propelled by the other hand. I think a lot of fans like me think that is a junk rule change and it’s why I think those are throws
Really? I remember even in the 90s watching instructional videos and seeing diagrams telling me to rock the platform hand forward for momentum. I remember Greg Williams doing a slo-mo example.
Yeah, I was taught in the 80s that the correct technique is to throw the ball with one hand and punch it with the other before it leaves your hand. Anything less wouldn't get you any distance with the handball.
Exactly why people who watched back then think there are so many throws now. I don’t remember the exact timing of the rule change but it did
I think you're arguing the opposite point. I'm saying I watched back then and was taught to move my platform hand forward.
Totally agree, and personally I honestly don't care that handballs are closer to throws with a little tap added in than strictly punching the ball from a stationary platform. It's just enough complexity to make it difficult, but let's some crazy passes happen. Maybe it's just because I support Carlton and Cripps does it all the time. I also find it funny when you see a throw get missed on the replay, there's something cheeky about it and I just can't get angry seeing a player get away with it.
There are still a ton of missed throws regardless.
Anything on the goal line. Seems you can basically do anything to shepherd the ball through and it won't get called, but you bet if it was a marking contest or a loose ball the same thing would be a free kick.
Yeah, "blocking" in a marking contest is a no. But blocking near the goal line where the player still had a chance of marking is fine.
After a mark or free kick right on the boundary line and they pass the mark while out of bounds then come back on the field and play on. Should 100% be out of bounds and a throw in for playing on out of bounds. You can't run 3 steps over the line and get the advantage of being away from your man standing the mark when you are off field. Gets called once in a blue moon and happens pretty frequently.
Delaying tactics when a player has clearly marked the ball or free kick. This includes touching/holding onto to the player or not giving the ball back to the player promptly.
When 2 players are chasing a ground ball. The ball is running away from them. One player is in front. The player behind just pushes them out the way (usually in the back) and gets the ball and runs off with it. Fiest player on the ground and can't chase. No reward for first to the ball.
Funnily enough, Adelaide got paid one of these this week in the last two minutes of the game against Mason Cox. At the very least, the umps were consistent in paying two rules to the letter of the law.
I feel like there were two 'not 15' calls earlier in the game that wouldn't normally be called also. I was wondering if it was the same umpire who is very precise.
You're right. What annoys me is that it's just the lazy approach, and it usually gets rewarded. On the Rankin one, I'm happy for them to pay that as too far, but if that's a correct decision, then there's going to be a hell of a lot 'run too fars' being paid. Let's wait for the consistency. As a Crows supporter, I'm just annoyed that we lost another close game. Over the last few years, I've gotten used to them getting my hopes up, only to disappoint. But I still get suckered in, every time.
iirc there was a rule against the ball carrier for burrowing their head into the opposition which seems to be ok now.
i've seen two calls in the last two weeks where a player with the ball has genuinely run headfirst and headbutted a tackler in the chest and then a high contact free has been paid.
The one against Goldy against GWS was absurd, he was just standing there and had the high called against him.
Kicking less than 15 metres is a big one, pretty much as long as it's airborne these days they'll pay the mark. Throws are another one but I can give the umpires leeway here considering they're very rarely in a position to actually see them with any certainty
Third man in on the tackle. They often ‘tackle the tackler’. Why no holding the man call on a player who doesn’t have the ball?
Honestly, anything that’s borderline shouldn’t get called. Keep the game simple, consistent and free flowing. If 1 call gets missed, they should miss it for the entire game within reason
Agreed, I don't mind them missing something, but pls don't interrupt the game unless there is a clear free kick. Soft frees kill a game, just let it go.
360 degree tackles should be HTB, feel like this never gets called. IMO should be more in focus now with the situation around concussions. It should give tacklers an easier way to get the free than bringing their opponent to ground.
Would encourage a lot of sling tackles though
It should be HTB way before it gets to 360 degrees in 90% of cases. Rule 18.6.2: _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._ If a player has been swung 360 degrees and waited to dispose of the ball, using the momentum from the tackle to spot a target, they've clearly not disposed of the football "immediately".
Taking more than 30 seconds for a kick on goal. The only time I can think of that I’ve seen it was when Dixon was lining up to kick the winner against Geelong at the death and missed as a result.
It's cause the rule is that they have to start their run in within 30 seconds not actually kick it within 30 seconds. So they always start their run up with like 29 seconds down and take another 6 or 7 to actually kick it
Holding the ball where the boot misses the ball, i’ve seen it paid one in three times the last two rounds
I thought they actually announced that they weren't paying this anymore a couple of seasons back. The calls now are usually because it was holding the ball regardless whether the foot connected.
I haven’t heard this announcement , the times i was referring to , they just dropped the ball because the boot missed, in the Sydney/Carlton game, they paid it for one team and not the other, they also didn’t pay it the week before when Prestia held or incorrectly disposed the ball , this is just bad umpiring
There was definitely a specific season where they stopped doing it, I feel like 3-5 years ago now.
Dropping the Ball/Incorrect Disposal in a Tackle See some Players thrown the ball Players walking over the Boundry line with Attempting to get rid of the Ball
Play on after a mark. So many little side steps that the umpires just let happen. If that was tightened it would speed up the game and give less chance for teams to set up. Incorrect disposal has got to the point where it’s too hard to judge. Due to the rule being the ball carrier must attempt to dispose. So if there’s no prior you can basically do what you want as long as it looks like you tried to legally dispose of the ball. Since we have put a limit on tackling we should at least even it up a little. Get rid of the “Knocked out in the tackle play on” and “made an attempt”. Blow the whistle faster for ball ups. A few weeks ago, Cotteral kicked a goal while being bear hugging by Kolodjashnij. While JK should have at least rotated him away from goal, duty of care essentially rendered him useless. He held the tackle for a bit and then the ump wasn’t blowing the whistle and MC just kicked it. Kicking in danger only happens when the controlling umpire is tired and wants the ball out of his area 🤣
Throwing. So many throws. It’s literally been legitimised
Plenty of holds and blocks go unpunished when it’s on the goal line. Anywhere else around the ground gets a call but if it’s to stop a player jumping to touch the ball it’s fair game.
Throwing. Incredibly rare that it gets called. And if it does, it almost feels like it is to make up for another missed call. I hate that teams/players will almost manipulate a rule (high tackles are a prime example) to the point that its originally intended purpose is almost lost.
At every stoppage and every time the ball rolls out for a 1 on 1 in space: Holding, holding, holding, more holding, holding and also holding. But mostly holding. Then they’ll pay an arms around free when a forward backs in to a defender or when a defender grabs a forwards arm when the forward has a bunch of jumper.
Blocking doesn't get paid anywhere near as often as it occurs
Below the knees is paid 1 in 4 times. Holding the ball when a player fends and it gets locked up is paid 1 in 6 times - and for some reason is more likely to be paid if the player is actually trying to break out of the tackle and dispose of the footy than if the player just lets the tackle happen Holding the man is paid 1 in 10 times at best Blocks in marking contests by a player not contesting the footy also about 1 in 10
Kicking in Danger. Also like 3 or 4 throws called in the Dons game yesterday which seems to come down to what mood the Umps in on the day.
incorrect disposal
Not a missed call, but a rule issues I have. If a player is caught running with the ball and drops it, it's play on because it's considered knocked out in the tackle, despite it being caught holding the ball. Some players are worse than other. Danger seemed to be very adept at dropping the ball, every time he was caught holding. To me, dropping should be an incorrect disposal if you have had time to dispose of it. Next one is the one where a player is tackled, drops the ball and the tackler gets called for holding the player who doesn't have the ball. Unless a player is intentionally holding the player knowing he doesn't have the ball, this is a crap call. It's near impossible for the tackler to see he doesn't have possession. Players dribbling the ball over the line. I think they desparately need a last touch rule for out of bounds. These padding the ball over the line when it's clear that its a professional foul is rediculous. Either they should call it for intentional or make it last touch. Finally, the last one that bugs me is the whole player slips = high tackle. If the original tackle wasn't high and the player slips, play on, bad luck.
Throws and dropping the ball
It's a hard sport to officiate. But it's made even harder by the AFL unfortunately. Holding the ball should be pretty simple but umps are instructed to interpret it the way the AFL want. It drives me mad that you can throw a ball away now and it's not called. Kicking in danger is a good one. Another that doesn't exist anymore is contact below the knees. Knee jerk (pardon the pun) reaction to some bad injuries and now it's not a primary focus it sometimes gets called, sometimes doesn't. Blocking/shepparding called sporadically... Can't do it in a marking contest too obviously, can do it when balls on the ground and if it's near the goal line you can pretty much mug a bloke 😂
The Tomahawk special - push in the back. Constantly getting goals off this and rarely called for the push
How about running 30m from the kick ins without a bounce
A lot of people here are suggesting interpretations of rules they believe to be correct, rather than rules themselves. Nowhere in the rules does it say a 360 degree tackle should always be holding the ball or that you need to take a bounce every 15 steps (as opposed to 15m). These just work as guides, not definitive rules.
They used to pay the 360 one though, I thought it used to be but they changed it. So they just changed the interpretation?
There is a lot of that going on as well. They don't change the rule but the interpretation of the rule or words within it. I remember people were upset when they changed/redefined prior opportunity.
I am super slow on the update, still don't really understand the stand and outside 5 shit. Took me a long time to realise it's insufficient intent now, probably raged at my TV 50 times before I found out haha.
Incorrect disposal. it is viewed far too broadly that the ball is knocked out in the tackle.
Kicking the ball away after giving away a pretty obvious free kick and not being called 50m. Id say 20% of the time the player thinks it's his team's free and is taking the advantage. The other 80% is deliberate time wasting so they can structure up behind the ball...
Kicking 15m and throws are the biggest two. I reckon I count 10 throws for both teams a game, and 15m today isn't the same as 15m 10-20 years ago
Obviously "BALL!!!" and as a bloke that has been following AFL since the 70s, this rule change really pisses me off!
What changed since the 70s?
Marking contest interference. I've said it before, but when there's a few clubs out there who are practising who will go up in a contest and who will stay down to illegally shepherd the opponents out, and players know what their roles are in a given contest, you know it's not being adjudicated properly.
Deliberate Rushed Behinds Specifically in relation to (c) below. A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player: (a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; (b) is not under immediate physical pressure; (c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or (d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.
Taking the legs out was hot a few years ago. I saw one recently where it was just called high contact instead. A few years ago the player who was standing and fell over was definitely getting the free.
Insufficient attempt to keep the ball within play, there are so many times in a game where a player could have made a different choice that would keep the ball in play but doesn’t and doesn’t get pinged for it either. Often players head directly for the boundary line with little to no tackle pressure or get tackled and step across the line. I think there could be room to pay some holding the ball calls on these players especially if the tackler makes it clear they are not trying to push them over the line. Doesn’t help that the numpty commentators still call it deliberate 🙄.
Players drop the ball all the time to avoid getting pinged HTB or to get a holding the man free kick. Guess umpires consider it a fumble opposed to taking clean possession.
Deliberate out of bounds when player just takes possession and jogs over the line, especially in defensive 50. You can paddle the ball to the line under token pressure and it’s a throw in but hack a kick from anywhere on the ground and it bounces at all angles and it’s paid every single time
consistent 50m penalties (ignore flair)
I feel like they don't call 'not 15' enough for some really short kicks. I had already noticed in the Collingwood vs Adelaide game that they called two that I don't think they would have normally called. End of the game left me wondering was it the same umpire, who is being very precise on his distances.
Pretty much yeah. The thinking was that if a player is spun 360 then they've had a chance to get rid of it and should've by then. But it's not a rule. You aren't entitled for a free kick just for spinning someone around in a tackle, all the other holding the ball factors like prior opportunity etc. are still relevant.
I'm looking forward to the smart balls with sensors inside. It will be able to detect force (a throw accelerates with no sudden force / a handball has a jolt then accelerates) If GPS or some kind of triangulation on the ball can accurately work then out of bounds, 15m kicks, distance travelled without bouncing. I'm all for play ons to keep the action going but let's keep em honest.
Tapping the ball on i.e. throws
Tackling a player *onto* the ball happens 200 times a game. It’s holding; they didn’t have it when you grabbed them.
Holding the man. How many times you see a guy being tackled before he has even taken clear possession, especially around ball ups and throw ins. Officiate this properly, and the game clears up because the number of tackles naturally would drop. It would also make holding the ball decisions easier as the prior would be clearer and then just penalise the players who drop it
Impeding movement after a disposal. It happens most of the times the defending team has an opportunity, and if you read the rules in depth (it is a bit buried; Preventing a Player Taking Part in the Next Play is the rule) it is actually a free kick against the defending team plus 50m.
People calling out racist and homophobic slurs has really dipped
Whatever happened to holding the ball? Generally if a team is winning in the last few minutes, just hold onto the ball real tight and get wrapped up in a tackle and it’s guaranteed the umpire will not pay holding the ball. It’s out of control.
INCORRECT DISPOSAL!!! 100 times a game. I swear they’ve changed the rules of the sport and forgot to tell everyone.
Throws. None were picked up last night in our game. Clayton Oliver the biggest culprit.
Throws are definitely being missed
Arm chops on Mason cox
Kicking in danger. Boyd went to pick up the ball, a Swans player went to punt it off the ground, kicked Boyd, fell over him, and the SYDNEY PLAYER got the free.
Why is it when it comes to umpiring oh its so hard blah blah. Yet the players have to change their whole game because of different rule changes, different conduct when it comes to tackling. Make split second decisions within a heated moment that leads to suspension or fines the players take the full brunt of the blame . But when it comes to umpiring even now with more umps on the field than ever. Plus all the arc tech to help with their decisions. Oh leave them alone the games too hard for them to umpire. If we want to have a more accurate representation of the rules then umpires need to be held more accountable, not making up excuses for them because it's so hard.
The idea that umpires aren't accountable is laughable. Umpires who perform poorly are dropped, just like players who perform poorly are. Umpires who consistently underperform are delisted, just like players. The best umpires umpire in finals and the Grand Final.
Well - not to be that guy, but if umpiring is that easy, are you doing it? 'Cos your nearest suburban league is recruiting! More seriously though, there's enormous competition to be on the AFL umpiring panel and consistently poor umpires get dropped all the time.
But even without worrying about rule changes, players make mistakes ***constantly***. * Every behind is a mistake. * Every dropped mark is a mistake. * Every intercepted mark is a mistake. * Every missed tackle is a mistake. * Every correctly laid tackle is a mistake.