Monday afternoon:
So, the bloke who has the ball is required to get rid of it when tackled. He must dispose of it legally. That is, a kick or a handball. And in a reasonable time.
Sounds fair. But I’ve seen lots of blokes throwing it?
Umm, yeah. That shouldn’t happen.
So why does it? It’s like watching Melbourne Storm playing sometimes.
Umpires probably can’t see it.
There are four of them!
Yeah. Anyway, the player who is tackled is not penalised if he has no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball.
Right.
So if he grabs it and is immediately tackled without disposing of it there is no free kick.
How long is “prior opportunity”?
The umpire decides that. He takes into account whether the bloke with the ball has actually taken possession, whether he’s had a chance to get rid of it, and whether he disposed of it in a legal fashion. If he takes possession and the ball is knocked clear it can still be a free kick against him.
Because he had prior opportunity?
Exactly. You’re getting it.
A lot to consider!
Agree.
I saw a bloke get tackled on the wing last week. Just here, actually (pointing). He got spun around 360 degrees, fell over, handballed it and the umpire said play on. Was that reasonable time?
Absolutely. He got it, got tackled and then, according to the rules, disposed of it correctly in reasonable time.
But if that same bloke got tackled and the ball spilled free, he would have been penalised, but it didn’t spill free, so he was able to get spun around 360 degrees?
You’re being pedantic.
So, what’s unreasonable time?
OK. This is reasonable time. From here …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. to here.
And this is unreasonable time. From here …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. to here. See the difference?
Well…………………………..?
Pretty clear, really.
Has it always been this way?
No. When the game was slow and terrible, like in the 70s, the players had less time to get rid of it.
Why?
Because there was only one umpire.
What?
It was terrible.
Was it really terrible in the 70s?
TERRIBLE! It wasn’t a product that was going to expand the competition. Something had to be done.
What did they do?
Sped the game up. And brought in coloured shorts.
I see.
Look at it now!! Sooo fast!!
Except for when there’s another stoppage.
Yes, but the speed out of the stoppages is incredible!
Yes, now they collide harder and get concussions. Do soft tissue injuries. Sling tackle. Some big problems.
It’s not perfect yet.
When will it be perfect?
When the Americans like it.
When will that be?
Well, we need 30 teams in Australia first, then one in LA. Then the conferences need to be set up. We’ll have to deal with Port’s inevitable legal action around their jumper, the prison bars one, then the Collingwood action, then the sale of Docklands in Melbourne to a Chinese technology consortium, then the building of a flood wall around the MCG, if the Greenies are right, then……………………………….. Say, 2042?
Crikey. Will there be a NZ team?
Nup. Too many clash jumpers with the All Blacks.
I see. Do they think about the rules a lot?
Are you kidding?? Every Monday morning the Rules Committee meets to discuss rule interpretation.
That’s a lot. What criteria do they work towards?
The criteria is always – how do we make the game better?
Yes, but what’s “better”?
Well, making it a better product. Creating a game that speaks to the strategic pillars. For all the stakeholders; sponsors, advertisers, broadcasters, the marketing department, corporate entertainment, etc etc.
Fans?
What?
Never mind.
So, are you clear on the holding the ball/dropping the ball thing?
Ummm, well…………………………
Great.
Wednesday afternoon.
Forget everything I said about holding the ball on Monday. It’s all changed.
Really? Why?
To make the game better.
Right. How will it make the game better?
Sorry, would love to chat. Must away…………………
To return to our Footy Almanac home page click HERE.
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help things keep ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – click HERE.
About Damian O'Donnell
I'm passionate about breathing. And you should always chase your passions. If I read one more thing about what defines leadership I think I'll go crazy. Go Cats.
John Clarke and Brian Dawe could not have said it any better, old mucker.
I haven’t run the overall numbers yet, but I was at a recent game where about a dozen frees were paid in the first half. Did the four (count ’em, four) umps collectively make as many decisions as the previous gangs of three were making, but now they are decisions to “play on” or “mine – and give it straight to me or else”?
Or were the threesomes awarding lots of erroneous frees that the swarm of four now adjudicate to be not in breach of the rules after all?
And how far is fifteen metres? Is it shorter when run with ball in hand than when measuring a short pass?
At least the crowds are up.
Brilliant. And while you’re on it could you explain “ruck interference” to me. I’ve seen our (undersized) ruckman Bailey Williams jump and push over Sean Darcy one week without penalty one week, then get penalised out of the game against Jarrod Witts, then get away with it again against Max Gawn.
Like Alan Bond or John Elliott what’s legal seems to be what you can get away with.
Having seen footy go from one umpire to four in my 60 years watching (and not looking forward to 5 with the extra hooked into AI/VAR – have a look at the European Football shambles) I reckon 2 was optimal.
Beyond that we get into the law of unintended consequences where every problem fixed creates two new ones.
But it’s all fodder for the media commentariat that pays for the game via their BrokeLads MugBet sponsorship.
Maybe we could have spot betting each time the umpire blows the whistle? A minute’s pause to get your bets on before the decision is shown on the big screen.
Then we can have guards with sub machine guns around the boundary to protect the players and umpires from angry fans/punters like I saw at the football in Barcelona.
Swan Districts WAFL and West Coast Eagles AFL are on at the same time this Saturday afternoon. I’ll be at Leederville watching Swans against Subiaco. I can buy some hard working players a beer after the game and they know my name without scanning the QR code on my membership.
“John Clarke and Brian Dawe could not have said it any better, old mucker.”
Ha, Clarke and Dawe were my first thought as well!
Brilliant Dips
Clarke and Dawe with a sprinkling of Yes Minister thrown in
Agree. Perhaps Hollowmen
Classic. In the tradition of Clarke and Dawe for me.
How’s last night! A few minutes in and the first borderline 360 holding the ball is let go.
I’m not sure whether it’s still written into the law but I recall an umpire explaining why a tackled player who had the ball for an eternity wasn’t penalised when he kept walking forward – the tackelr was not doing enough to retard him. Hence, play on. But that was on ‘What’s your Decision in 1971″.
[And on last night, gong back to 1971, I think Chicken Smallhorn would have said of Port Adelaide: “Too few were asked to do too much”.]
Despite these issues our game is still marvellous to watch. Mostly.
We need to keep the chaos. Umpires are part of the chaos.
Our game is like quantum mechanics. No one can explain it but we know its parts make a magnificent whole.
Well played Dips. I too go along with the Clarke and Dawe caucus.
But we shouldn’t worry too much. As it is with all things the AFL comes to dislike or causes them acute embarrassment, they will just quietly crab-walk away from it as if nothing has happened. Think here, the “umpire dissent” sledgehammer/acorn farce. Remember blokes getting 50 metre penalties for simply looking at the replay on the big screen?!
Interesting thought came to mind in the above comments though. I reckon PB is on the money suggesting two umpires was probably the optimal number. Any more than that and they feel obliged to make decisions to justify their existence and their very highly paid salaries.
RDL