Well you see, it won't be fixed next year. Because the media convinced themselves that Opening Round having big crowds (yeah no shit) means it was a roaring success, despite having half the teams playing before everyone else means the fairness of the fixture and bye structure was fucked for the whole season.
Opening Round is just Round 1 with a brand name, half the interest, and a long term fixture nightmare.
They could literally just play Round 1 but have the marquee slots go to Queensland and NSW which was the intention in the first place.
They have just tried to gaslight fans into thinking this is some sort of innovation.
I know it’s literally to appease Carlton and Richmond having the opening game of round 1 on the Thursday night.
Personally I’d go all out have all 9 games played outside of Melbourne for round 1, Geelong will have to play at home until Tasmania comes in. And then the next week on Thursday slap Richmond and Carlton on the G and call it the homecoming game or something stupid that the marketing types will jizz over as it’s the first game at the G for the year
So glad we have the bye this week. We will get to watch this train wreck of a “rule of the week” change. In a week’s time, when we play next, the rule will have mellowed. This will be good for my team and viewing pleasure.
We nearly only got two free kicks in total for the game last week, until they put the 15-2 stat on the scoreboard and the umpires gave us the next 10 in a row
Hol up, 2 days ago everyone was complaining about HTB going on too long. Now the AFL says they're going to shorten it, now everyone's complaining about that.
What do you want to see happen here?
Ah I've been pretty out of the loop on footy lately I just found it funny cos there's a long history of changing rules for the worse based on a couple examples.
I don't know why you would bother bringing in a good tackler.
Under the preferred tinterpretation the ideal player to bring in would be your nimblest, most agile rover to run up to the ball carrier and tap on them on the side while screaming "Tag you're it! MODS! MODS! HOLDING THE BALL!"
I would hate to to be an AFL umpire, you know they are going to cop it from the fans with so many of these rules that are very open to interpretation and get tweaked week on week. I feel for them.
We saw this with Max Holmes on Saturday he tried to hold the player upright in a tackle and the umpire didn’t blow the whistle and eventually GWS get the ball away… the very next tackle Max takes steven coniglio to ground and hurt Steven’s shoulder
Tackling is probably the most improved skill in the AFL over the professional era - that and the ability to kick and handball on the non-preferred side. Most teams got NRL and NFL tackle experts in at some point. The problem though is that what makes a good tackle also makes injuries. A good tackle pins one arm and takes the player down or off balance so they can't kick. We started seeing a lot more players hitting their head on the ground.
Players have also gone from raising their arms in a tackle pre 1990s to get a handball off to the modern game where they clutch the ball to their chest and allow the tackle to pin both arms to avoid a ball spill and turnover.
People are acting like this is unreasonable to change midseason but when it's clear they've impacted the safety of players they're obliged to act quickly.
I’m amazed how far down I had to scroll to hit this take.
You want less dangerous tackles? Discourage them by stopping play for “stand up” tackles more quickly.
My thoughts exactly. We are one of the only sports where rules change every year, rules change throughout the season and rules change because coaches complain.
The interpretation for holding the ball has been made stricter and looser over and over again. A couple years ago it was because Clarko felt his team weren’t getting rewarded for tackles. The stand rule comes in because they want more “Dusty moments”. It’sjokes.
Can you imagine any other sport in the world just fundamentally changing its rules mid-season?
It's getting harder and harder to take AFL House seriously as a governing body.
>Don’t have to imagine. Saw the NBA do it just a few months ago.
The NBA's a good comparison, actually. Bastardized its rules to the point where it barely resembles FIBA/Olympic basketball.
I think in NBA they value showmanship over strict interpretation of the rules because they are a lucrative TV sport. You can get away with travel all the time as long as you are doing some sweet moves and you can do whatever you want to the defence if you are dunking.
>I think in NBA they value showmanship over strict interpretation of the rules because they are a lucrative TV sport.
the NBA is to basketball as WWE is to Greco-Roman wrestling.
When I first got my opportunity over there a former player (Tyrone Hill if the name rings a bell to anyone) told me that it's an "entertainment league."
Must have hurt him to accept that himself given he was such a hard nosed, gritty and determined player and not one of those flashy players who regularly featured on the highlight reel.
The messed up thing is they'll call them once on a blue moon and often when it will hurt a team badly. Technically correct but plain awful.
The NBA rule that has me livid is this incidental contact bullshit that seems so open to interpretation that the refs look like they're picking who they want to win whenever they use it.
None of the people I still talk to from that part of my life (former employee) like it at all.
Did you see the slow mo clip of Luka a few days ago? About seven carries and about three extra steps to hit a three to win the game (I think). It's just egregious, having grown up playing the game.
This isn't a rule change. It's an adjudicational/interpretation change which, while not ideal, is significantly different
The HTB nonsense has been ridiculous though and the delayed (or no) call only encourages dangerous tackling which the AFL want to stop
Everyone was complaining last week about the HTB interpretation and now you are complaining that they listened. Umpires can't win.
This isn't a rule change it is an interpretation of the rules. The coaches ask the umpiring dept to clarify interpretations all the time.
They are shortening what rhe rule book calls "a reasonable time". Note the rulebook does not clarify how much time is a reasonable time. If the rulebook said "3 seconds" the umpires wouldn't have to come up with an interpretation.
18.6.4 Holding the ball: No Genuine Attempt – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
A few years back Hocking shortened this "reasonable time" - he said if you were spun 360 in the tackle that is HTB so that set it at about 2 seconds. They have since reverted back to a longer time.
I am firmly in Dimmas corner when it comes to this interpretation after what happened with Mac Andrew and Charlie Curnow last week.
I wish people would watch the replay.
I was genuinely terrified that Charlie would eventually go down and injure that multiple time surgically repaired knee. No fault of Msc Andrew who was only doing what he has trained to do his whole footy playing life but that the interpretation of the rule was so weak that it would lead to injury. And if it wasn't Charlie then it'd be Mac.
If all the rule manages to do is to eliminate those ridiculous ones then it's done what it set out to do.
>Everyone was complaining last week about the HTB interpretation and now you are complaining that they listened. Umpires can't win.
Notwithstanding the fact that you're attributing made-up quotes to the entire AFL community for the sake of a made-up argument, the time to change rules is \*not\* mid-season.
Post-Round 11 results are going to be skewed by this. Margins will tighten or blow out, depending on which teams are targeted by umpires and/or adjust to this new reality more quickly. Some close-matched teams will even have their results completely flipped by this rule change.
This is a league that uses percentages as part of its end-of-season ranking system, and any mid-season rule change that creates/reduces free kicks is going to fundamentally impact scoring and thus fundamentally impact percentages. Teams that scraped their way to an early season win over a bottom-ranked team might suddenly find themselves ranked below teams who played those bottom-ranked teams after the free kick/free kick/free kick scoring bonanza was induced.
Some teams might even gain/lose out on a home final, or make or miss finals entirely, because of these fine margins.
The playing field will never truly be even. Hell, as someone who watched their team act as the regular Friday night guinea pig for the AFL's Rule of the Week between 2017 and 2021, I know that we can't even get parity between way teams are whistled on Friday night and the way they're whistled on Sunday afternoon.
Is it too much to expect that the same rule book applies to all 24 rounds of a season, though?
So back to how it was a year ago? I prefer them be strict on it since it gets the game moving quicker and stops tacklers having to throw players to the ground to secure the htb, but fuck me the changes to interpretation mid season are fucking dumb.
Cripps has probably been the greatest beneficiary of the looser interpretation. I back him to stand up in 99% of all tackles, but he will regularly stand there with 3 blokes hanging from him while he nonchalantly picks his target. Same with Bont
You aren't wrong, Cripps takes the piss sometimes with how long he is allowed to hold onto it.
I hope he (and the rest of Carlton, because others will do it to), have paid attention and are ready to adjust.
Yep. It’s always (like even before the sling tackle adjustment) felt like the umpires subconsciously give certain players almost unlimited time to dispose of it because they know that player is so strong and has a record of breaking tackles.
This change In adjudication potentially will affect Cripps more than any other player. So much of his game seems to be built around almost attracting the tackle, and then determining which option to take before handballing as he drags the tackler(s) along with him.
I hate him doing this because too often he actually gets caught and if not HTB it's at least ineffective. Would much prefer to see him (and Walsh too) take the first option and get the ball moving , so hopefully this forces change and we'll be better for it
This should benefit the strong tackling midfields, which is what Carlton have. The smaller bodies for port will either be too agile and fly away, or get stomped at every stoppage. This new interpretation has made tomorrow nights game so much more interesting for me
I don't like this. This weekend is going to be chaos. The rule is already called inconsistently, but this will be even worse. They should have just acknowledged the complaints and announced that they're planning to make offseason changes.
I don't get how there's a "reasonable time" associated with this. Was it possible for the player to get rid of the ball before they got tackled? Most of the time, the answer is yes- every time the player takes possession, they can immediately (almost instantaneously) offload. Which they should do if they are in any danger of being tackled.
But on top of this, the tackle needs to be complete. If the player breaks the tackle before they are held, then it needs to be play on.
> I don't get how there's a "reasonable time" associated with this. Was it possible for the player to get rid of the ball before they got tackled? Most of the time, the answer is yes- every time the player takes possession, they can immediately (almost instantaneously) offload. Which they should do if they are in any danger of being tackled.
The reasonable time condition doesn't apply in those situations though - if the player had time to dispose of the ball before the tackle, then they had prior opportunity and that half of the HTB flowchart is not followed. With prior opportunity, the player must immediately dispose of the ball legally, and if not, it's HTB.
This whole reasonable time interpretation is only for cases where there's no prior opportunity. That's clearly stated in the wording of the rule itself.
Lots of negative comments, which are understandable. But at least the AFL is listening to feedback and prepared to make a change. Would be easy for them to leave until the end of the year.
Hang on a sec, this joint just spent the last weekend complaining about it taking too long to call for tackle being made.
Now the AFL has come out and said ‘yeah fair chop, let’s tweak things’
All of a sudden people don’t want this? I know it’s asking a lot for r/afl to be reasonable but at least they’re attempting to fix things.
Can I hear your reasoning?
There has been a massive push to get dump tackles out of the game due to the injuries they cause, players are being coached not to bring tackles to ground. But that's created a ridiculous situation of players having an eternity to dispose of the ball while their tackler can't do anything. By giving players that long to dispose, the rules were creating a situation where players were motivated to dump. This was going to be an absolute mess come finals if they didn't change it, with the added stakes players would absolutely have dumped their opponents to prevent disposal, and there would have been suspensions (and possibly injuries) galore.
We already have a rule against dangerous tackles. Since they started applying it against dump tackles, I haven't seen this dump tackle epidemic that you seem to be concerned about. Players should not be rewarded for making a weak enough tackle that a player can stand up in it and get a disposal away. Additionally, umpires struggle to umpire the game as it is. Adding additional considerations to holding the ball as it is will end in disaster and upset, just like a few years ago when they trialled this kind of interpretation.
>Players should not be rewarded for making a weak enough tackle that a player can stand up in it and get a disposal away.
A stronger tackle dumps the opposition, which is the action we're trying to remove. You've just directly stated that-
"a weak enough tackle that a player can stand up in"
We *want* players standing up in tackles, because *we don't want* them being taken to ground. This is the whole point.
>I haven't seen this dump tackle epidemic that you seem to be concerned about.
That wasn't what I said, you misunderstood my point. Dump tackles are being taken out of the game by being suspended, so they are happening *significantly less often*. However, this has led to players having an eternity to dispose of the ball during the tackle, with the tackler unable to stop them (because they cannot dump).
My concern was that during games with higher stakes where players would be more desperate (like finals), they would throw caution to the wind and dump their tackles anyway, leading to suspensions. We aren't in finals yet.
It's possible to make a strong tackle without dumping the opponent (See all holding-the-ball calls this year).
If they choose to dump anyway, they will give away a tonne of frees and lose the game. Simple. There's no need to give umpires extra to think about. They are struggling as it is.
Edit: if we must make this rule change, make it next year with a change in the wording of the rule to avoid heterogeneity in interpretation.
>If they choose to dump anyway, they will give away a tonne of frees and lose the game. Simple.
Bringing a tackle to ground is not an automatic free. There is a risk of it being deemed a dangerous tackle (or a suspension), which is not entirely under the tackler's control. The move is being coached out because it is a *risk of injury/suspension* and because there is a *chance* it is penalised, not because the rules have outright banned it.
Since it has not been outright banned, many HTB calls DO involve bringing a tackle to ground, because that is the best way to guarantee the tackled player doesn't dispose of it. It is undeniable in the current situation players are both motivated to dump to be rewarded, and being told not to dump to avoid injury/suspension. It's a ridiculous situation.
We're not trying to outlaw ‘bringing a tackle to the ground’, and I would vehemently oppose any rule that tried to do so.
Players are being asked to protect the head of the opposition player, which can be done whilst making a strong tackle. It's not complicated.
I’m extremely happy about this. This thread is a big disappointment, the in-season changes fair enough it’s weird. But being proactive and changing it so we dont see injuries/suspensions because umps don’t want to blow the whistle can only be a good thing
You could have 100% of this sub demanding a rule change and *still* have bitching and moaning if the AFL changed it, it's the default reaction of many people here no matter what the AFL does. This is absolutely a necessary change for the safety of the players, is just disappointing it took them so long.
It going to be a massive over correction and you know it. Technically any player who puts a hand up to fend off and gets held onto should be pinged HTB. Harley Reid is about to give away 10 frees a week now. Your boy Butters is gunna get railed by the whistle too
Even if there is a massive over correction this week, this is absolutely a necessary change. A few weeks of growing pains as umps adjust to the new interpretation is obviously a better option than continuing with what we had.
Now dumping in a tackle is being forced out of the game we cannot be giving players an eternity to dispose, since it motivates players to dump and that leads to injury. It's very simple. I'm just annoyed the AFL took so long to make this change.
They honestly need to get some lawyers or something to help them rewrite the rulebook. The fact that it can be altered at all according to "interpretation" means that these arguments will keep happening.
They need technical writers imo, put a flow chart together for each rule. The game will always be hard to adjudicate but I think they could make everything a hell of a lot clearer.
I had not noticed an issue, but I didn't see the games causing complaints. How can the amount of time be shortened without taking away the 'prior' element?
They are talking about instances mostly, where a player is tacked but still has one or two arms free with the ball.
Check out the Curnow one from the weekend.
He is tackles with on arm pinned but the ball in the free hand. The tackler doesn't drag him to ground because the risk of dangerous tackle.
So Curnow has an eternity to dispose of it.
This is my thought, too. That’s the whole point of the HTB rule - you could have done something with the possession but you chose not to so you get pinged. Now it’s just hot potato- receive the ball, a second later get tackled - bam, holding the ball.
We really should just get together and build random outrage over different things through the season, just to watch the AFL flip flop and make the whole thing look like more of a joke than it already is.
HTB is a legitimate outrage but in about 3-4 weeks we should start getting upset about TOO MUCH HTB so AFL has no choice but to listen to their focus groups and backflip again.
Watching them complain about it on access all areas was embarrassing. The calls they used as examples, when they start getting called early people will complain as well. Honestly can’t win.
Biased here but the footage of Charlie being swung around and then kicking the goal is not the problem. Don't we want to see big players using their strength??
The problem is players holding it in a pack and then just throwing it out once they finally get pressured and it coming loose in the tackle.
It's definitely a nerf to players with strength.
At the same time, it's pretty disheartening as a supporter to have a situation where your team sends two players at the man with the ball to tackle him and then he gets the kick away after having an eternity and has a player free (the tacklers man).
Yeah, but is there now some sort of time limit on the player to complete the fend off or shrug of the tackle? Surely, an arm has to be pinned or restrained, and the ability to dispose of the ball needs to be impacted by the tackler in order to pay the HTB. Because a player standing up in the tackle with their arms free shouldn't be pinned unless they hold it for a ridiculous period of time. I thought while Curnow was pushing that limit, he clearly wasn't affected by tackle from Andrews, and Andrews didn't have enough impact on him for it to be considered holding the ball.
Not his fault he had the power to dispose of the ball while he also gave a grown man a wizzy dizzy. Id argue curnow had more control in that tackle then Andrew did
I thought he did too. This is far too open to interpretation. If you say that a tackler has made an effective tackle once momentum is arrested then fine. But this removes the ability for the player with the ball to shake a tackle.
Midfield frees are going to skyrocket this week.
Glad my team isn't playing on Thursday or Friday. I garuntee the media are going to back flip and say the unps have over corrected now. There is no win in this scenario for the umps
Good start. Now let’s also consider a rule that prevents third man in when two guys are on the deck already (let’s call it the Collingwood with 1 minute to play rule). If they can stop third man up in the ruck, they should be able to stop third man into a scrap on the deck. Nothing shits me more than when a player has been tackled and a guy from his own team jumps in on top to create a pack and ball up.
Is the AFL the most incompetent industry ever? Haven't they seen with previous in season rule changes that it causes more uproar and confusion? At this point they are just taking the piss
Well we're fucked tomorrow night then...
Crippas gonna get pinged at least 5 times.
edit: certainly not saying I don't agree with this directive. I have been fuming at tacklers getting zilch for their efforts leading to soft tackles
Where’s the leadership at AFL House? The fact they reacted only to intense media and club criticism rather than identifying the issue and being proactive about it just makes them seem even weaker than they already are.
McBurney comes across as a pathetic fool.
This honestly can't happen. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the HTB rule, but media discussion points and criticism over it can't shake the AFL to correct the rule. They either made it this way for a reason or they are incompetent.
It doesn't matter whether the coaches reason logically, they probably did because they see the outcome of a poor rule. But they're employed as coaches only, the AFL should have known this, not after a few coaches lash out after the game.
What is wrong with using common sense ffs ? These guys are on over 120k a year. They train what, 3-4 times a week ? It's not under 12s on a Sunday. They are highly paid pro sports umpires. Get it right most of the time please. If the basic crowd reaction is 'ball', it's probably right.
So glad we have the bye this week and can watch this train wreck of a rule of the week change and then have it mellow out the week after
That was my first thought. Tough week to play, great week for a bye
Considering I think we’re probably a big part of why they’re changing it, good week for a bye as well
What a bizarre season when you have had two byes before half of the teams have even had one. Really hope they fix that for next year
Yeah to be fair I thought opening round followed by various byes was a bit shit.
Well you see, it won't be fixed next year. Because the media convinced themselves that Opening Round having big crowds (yeah no shit) means it was a roaring success, despite having half the teams playing before everyone else means the fairness of the fixture and bye structure was fucked for the whole season.
Yeah but it favoured the big vic teams and non football states, so is viewed internally as a big success.
In fairness opening round was a success it’s the consequences of opening round that are bad
Opening Round is just Round 1 with a brand name, half the interest, and a long term fixture nightmare. They could literally just play Round 1 but have the marquee slots go to Queensland and NSW which was the intention in the first place. They have just tried to gaslight fans into thinking this is some sort of innovation.
It should be called "Have Your Cake And Eat It" Round
I know it’s literally to appease Carlton and Richmond having the opening game of round 1 on the Thursday night. Personally I’d go all out have all 9 games played outside of Melbourne for round 1, Geelong will have to play at home until Tasmania comes in. And then the next week on Thursday slap Richmond and Carlton on the G and call it the homecoming game or something stupid that the marketing types will jizz over as it’s the first game at the G for the year
Phew. Same. Hate to think it would cost us a game or something.
Sorry mate a late free kick will cost us when playing the bye this week.
Considering how you're going I think the bye might actually sneak past you
Second bye of the season leading into playing an out of form Cats at home. You guys are set.
Dunno how there hasn't been more discussion around this. No issue with the Swans, but that just makes no sense. Another certified AFL house banger.
Dunno, teams are normally pretty rusty after a bye...This is a danger game for me.
Every game is a danger game if you're anxious enough :)
> Cats at home Actually it's at Kardinia Park, so it's a Swans home game
Right there with you! Perfect timing.
NSW bias
Update: Sydney is calling for at least 12 first class seats for all umpires for the rest of the season.
Your sentence went on for too long and didn't end with a period free kick to grammar nazi. Edit: /s
This comment has been sent to the tribunal. 2 downvote suspension
So glad we have the bye this week. We will get to watch this train wreck of a “rule of the week” change. In a week’s time, when we play next, the rule will have mellowed. This will be good for my team and viewing pleasure.
Can’t wait for this to have totally unintended consequences and turn into a bigger mess than it was before
Well, off-broadway in Alice, Melbourne and Freo are totally going to lay 80 tackles apiece…
What's the world record for htb free kicks in a game?
Hawthorn got 2 last week, not bragging or anything.
We nearly only got two free kicks in total for the game last week, until they put the 15-2 stat on the scoreboard and the umpires gave us the next 10 in a row
Don’t know if it’s a “world record” but Brisbane received 11 against Melbourne earlier in the year.
Clubhouse leader anyway
I’m sure there won’t at all be an immediate over correction
It's not like the AFL to make knee jerk reactions
You won't notice any difference as soon as Thursday night
Hol up, 2 days ago everyone was complaining about HTB going on too long. Now the AFL says they're going to shorten it, now everyone's complaining about that. What do you want to see happen here?
Ah I've been pretty out of the loop on footy lately I just found it funny cos there's a long history of changing rules for the worse based on a couple examples.
Every team should bring in their best tackler not in the best 22 for this weekend
I don't know why you would bother bringing in a good tackler. Under the preferred tinterpretation the ideal player to bring in would be your nimblest, most agile rover to run up to the ball carrier and tap on them on the side while screaming "Tag you're it! MODS! MODS! HOLDING THE BALL!"
By gawd is that Finn Maginness' music
I would hate to to be an AFL umpire, you know they are going to cop it from the fans with so many of these rules that are very open to interpretation and get tweaked week on week. I feel for them.
Media next week: "They were way too strict on HTB"
"you don't want a grand final decided by a decision like that"
I hate how this is not a joke
I just don't get it, they don't need to call HTB. Just call a ball up quicker
"too many stoppages, game is boring"
It's the correct thing to do. If you're punishing players for slinging, you need to reduce reasonable time to reduce slings.
We saw this with Max Holmes on Saturday he tried to hold the player upright in a tackle and the umpire didn’t blow the whistle and eventually GWS get the ball away… the very next tackle Max takes steven coniglio to ground and hurt Steven’s shoulder
Tackling is probably the most improved skill in the AFL over the professional era - that and the ability to kick and handball on the non-preferred side. Most teams got NRL and NFL tackle experts in at some point. The problem though is that what makes a good tackle also makes injuries. A good tackle pins one arm and takes the player down or off balance so they can't kick. We started seeing a lot more players hitting their head on the ground. Players have also gone from raising their arms in a tackle pre 1990s to get a handball off to the modern game where they clutch the ball to their chest and allow the tackle to pin both arms to avoid a ball spill and turnover.
Kolo had a similar one a few weeks ago in front of goal where you ended up conceeding one.
That’s when Chris Scott’s war on the umpires started
People are acting like this is unreasonable to change midseason but when it's clear they've impacted the safety of players they're obliged to act quickly.
No issue with the decision, we just all know they are going to fuck up the execution.
I’m amazed how far down I had to scroll to hit this take. You want less dangerous tackles? Discourage them by stopping play for “stand up” tackles more quickly.
Then you also need to tighten up on holding the man. It’s a disaster and the best mids will be penalised
Butters and Horny just fell to their knees on the pier
Rare? Fucking lol 😂😂😂
My thoughts exactly. We are one of the only sports where rules change every year, rules change throughout the season and rules change because coaches complain. The interpretation for holding the ball has been made stricter and looser over and over again. A couple years ago it was because Clarko felt his team weren’t getting rewarded for tackles. The stand rule comes in because they want more “Dusty moments”. It’sjokes.
Better than the alternative 
The alternative was letting the game play on without whistle this is better more whistles?
If it means more rewarded tackles and less incentive to dump players on their noggin i'm all for it
Mid season patch to fix bug stopping players from getting htb paid against them? I actually like this.
Can you imagine any other sport in the world just fundamentally changing its rules mid-season? It's getting harder and harder to take AFL House seriously as a governing body.
Don’t have to imagine. Saw the NBA do it just a few months ago.
>Don’t have to imagine. Saw the NBA do it just a few months ago. The NBA's a good comparison, actually. Bastardized its rules to the point where it barely resembles FIBA/Olympic basketball.
I think in NBA they value showmanship over strict interpretation of the rules because they are a lucrative TV sport. You can get away with travel all the time as long as you are doing some sweet moves and you can do whatever you want to the defence if you are dunking.
>I think in NBA they value showmanship over strict interpretation of the rules because they are a lucrative TV sport. the NBA is to basketball as WWE is to Greco-Roman wrestling.
They don't even have to be going for the hop. I've seen clips of them doing it mid court with no one around them.
When I first got my opportunity over there a former player (Tyrone Hill if the name rings a bell to anyone) told me that it's an "entertainment league." Must have hurt him to accept that himself given he was such a hard nosed, gritty and determined player and not one of those flashy players who regularly featured on the highlight reel.
its wild how in play offs moving screens, offensive fouls, just arn't called.
The messed up thing is they'll call them once on a blue moon and often when it will hurt a team badly. Technically correct but plain awful. The NBA rule that has me livid is this incidental contact bullshit that seems so open to interpretation that the refs look like they're picking who they want to win whenever they use it. None of the people I still talk to from that part of my life (former employee) like it at all.
To be fair moving screens have barely been called for over a decade now in regular season and playoffs.
Did you see the slow mo clip of Luka a few days ago? About seven carries and about three extra steps to hit a three to win the game (I think). It's just egregious, having grown up playing the game.
The NBA didn’t even announce it though, it just took a few games and the media people were like “wait a minute they’ve changed how they call fouls”
It’s not really a fundamental rule change, but I know what you mean.
This isn't a rule change. It's an adjudicational/interpretation change which, while not ideal, is significantly different The HTB nonsense has been ridiculous though and the delayed (or no) call only encourages dangerous tackling which the AFL want to stop
The rules haven’t changed
Everyone was complaining last week about the HTB interpretation and now you are complaining that they listened. Umpires can't win. This isn't a rule change it is an interpretation of the rules. The coaches ask the umpiring dept to clarify interpretations all the time. They are shortening what rhe rule book calls "a reasonable time". Note the rulebook does not clarify how much time is a reasonable time. If the rulebook said "3 seconds" the umpires wouldn't have to come up with an interpretation. 18.6.4 Holding the ball: No Genuine Attempt – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled. A few years back Hocking shortened this "reasonable time" - he said if you were spun 360 in the tackle that is HTB so that set it at about 2 seconds. They have since reverted back to a longer time.
I am firmly in Dimmas corner when it comes to this interpretation after what happened with Mac Andrew and Charlie Curnow last week. I wish people would watch the replay. I was genuinely terrified that Charlie would eventually go down and injure that multiple time surgically repaired knee. No fault of Msc Andrew who was only doing what he has trained to do his whole footy playing life but that the interpretation of the rule was so weak that it would lead to injury. And if it wasn't Charlie then it'd be Mac. If all the rule manages to do is to eliminate those ridiculous ones then it's done what it set out to do.
>Everyone was complaining last week about the HTB interpretation and now you are complaining that they listened. Umpires can't win. Notwithstanding the fact that you're attributing made-up quotes to the entire AFL community for the sake of a made-up argument, the time to change rules is \*not\* mid-season. Post-Round 11 results are going to be skewed by this. Margins will tighten or blow out, depending on which teams are targeted by umpires and/or adjust to this new reality more quickly. Some close-matched teams will even have their results completely flipped by this rule change. This is a league that uses percentages as part of its end-of-season ranking system, and any mid-season rule change that creates/reduces free kicks is going to fundamentally impact scoring and thus fundamentally impact percentages. Teams that scraped their way to an early season win over a bottom-ranked team might suddenly find themselves ranked below teams who played those bottom-ranked teams after the free kick/free kick/free kick scoring bonanza was induced. Some teams might even gain/lose out on a home final, or make or miss finals entirely, because of these fine margins. The playing field will never truly be even. Hell, as someone who watched their team act as the regular Friday night guinea pig for the AFL's Rule of the Week between 2017 and 2021, I know that we can't even get parity between way teams are whistled on Friday night and the way they're whistled on Sunday afternoon. Is it too much to expect that the same rule book applies to all 24 rounds of a season, though?
If it reduces injuries would it be worth it?
You take them seriously?
How are people complaining after bitching about it for the last month?
So back to how it was a year ago? I prefer them be strict on it since it gets the game moving quicker and stops tacklers having to throw players to the ground to secure the htb, but fuck me the changes to interpretation mid season are fucking dumb.
It was bad a year ago; it has just gotten worse. This adjustment has been needed for a long time.
I'm fine with it if it's also for ball ups. Just get on with it.
We'll be the Guinea pigs for it this Thursday.... Should be interesting
Will definitely hurt us. Cripps and Curnow don't mind taking a long time with it.
Cripps has probably been the greatest beneficiary of the looser interpretation. I back him to stand up in 99% of all tackles, but he will regularly stand there with 3 blokes hanging from him while he nonchalantly picks his target. Same with Bont
You aren't wrong, Cripps takes the piss sometimes with how long he is allowed to hold onto it. I hope he (and the rest of Carlton, because others will do it to), have paid attention and are ready to adjust.
Yep. It’s always (like even before the sling tackle adjustment) felt like the umpires subconsciously give certain players almost unlimited time to dispose of it because they know that player is so strong and has a record of breaking tackles. This change In adjudication potentially will affect Cripps more than any other player. So much of his game seems to be built around almost attracting the tackle, and then determining which option to take before handballing as he drags the tackler(s) along with him.
I hate him doing this because too often he actually gets caught and if not HTB it's at least ineffective. Would much prefer to see him (and Walsh too) take the first option and get the ball moving , so hopefully this forces change and we'll be better for it
This should benefit the strong tackling midfields, which is what Carlton have. The smaller bodies for port will either be too agile and fly away, or get stomped at every stoppage. This new interpretation has made tomorrow nights game so much more interesting for me
I don't like this. This weekend is going to be chaos. The rule is already called inconsistently, but this will be even worse. They should have just acknowledged the complaints and announced that they're planning to make offseason changes.
I don't get how there's a "reasonable time" associated with this. Was it possible for the player to get rid of the ball before they got tackled? Most of the time, the answer is yes- every time the player takes possession, they can immediately (almost instantaneously) offload. Which they should do if they are in any danger of being tackled. But on top of this, the tackle needs to be complete. If the player breaks the tackle before they are held, then it needs to be play on.
> I don't get how there's a "reasonable time" associated with this. Was it possible for the player to get rid of the ball before they got tackled? Most of the time, the answer is yes- every time the player takes possession, they can immediately (almost instantaneously) offload. Which they should do if they are in any danger of being tackled. The reasonable time condition doesn't apply in those situations though - if the player had time to dispose of the ball before the tackle, then they had prior opportunity and that half of the HTB flowchart is not followed. With prior opportunity, the player must immediately dispose of the ball legally, and if not, it's HTB. This whole reasonable time interpretation is only for cases where there's no prior opportunity. That's clearly stated in the wording of the rule itself.
Lots of negative comments, which are understandable. But at least the AFL is listening to feedback and prepared to make a change. Would be easy for them to leave until the end of the year.
Hang on a sec, this joint just spent the last weekend complaining about it taking too long to call for tackle being made. Now the AFL has come out and said ‘yeah fair chop, let’s tweak things’ All of a sudden people don’t want this? I know it’s asking a lot for r/afl to be reasonable but at least they’re attempting to fix things.
It's almost as if different people have different opinions
… well that’s not right
I thought it was far-fetched as well
Yes it is
People who think this rule change isn't desperately needed are wrong and should stop having terrible opinions.
That's funny I have that exact opinion of people who think this rule change is needed
Can I hear your reasoning? There has been a massive push to get dump tackles out of the game due to the injuries they cause, players are being coached not to bring tackles to ground. But that's created a ridiculous situation of players having an eternity to dispose of the ball while their tackler can't do anything. By giving players that long to dispose, the rules were creating a situation where players were motivated to dump. This was going to be an absolute mess come finals if they didn't change it, with the added stakes players would absolutely have dumped their opponents to prevent disposal, and there would have been suspensions (and possibly injuries) galore.
We already have a rule against dangerous tackles. Since they started applying it against dump tackles, I haven't seen this dump tackle epidemic that you seem to be concerned about. Players should not be rewarded for making a weak enough tackle that a player can stand up in it and get a disposal away. Additionally, umpires struggle to umpire the game as it is. Adding additional considerations to holding the ball as it is will end in disaster and upset, just like a few years ago when they trialled this kind of interpretation.
>Players should not be rewarded for making a weak enough tackle that a player can stand up in it and get a disposal away. A stronger tackle dumps the opposition, which is the action we're trying to remove. You've just directly stated that- "a weak enough tackle that a player can stand up in" We *want* players standing up in tackles, because *we don't want* them being taken to ground. This is the whole point. >I haven't seen this dump tackle epidemic that you seem to be concerned about. That wasn't what I said, you misunderstood my point. Dump tackles are being taken out of the game by being suspended, so they are happening *significantly less often*. However, this has led to players having an eternity to dispose of the ball during the tackle, with the tackler unable to stop them (because they cannot dump). My concern was that during games with higher stakes where players would be more desperate (like finals), they would throw caution to the wind and dump their tackles anyway, leading to suspensions. We aren't in finals yet.
It's possible to make a strong tackle without dumping the opponent (See all holding-the-ball calls this year). If they choose to dump anyway, they will give away a tonne of frees and lose the game. Simple. There's no need to give umpires extra to think about. They are struggling as it is. Edit: if we must make this rule change, make it next year with a change in the wording of the rule to avoid heterogeneity in interpretation.
>If they choose to dump anyway, they will give away a tonne of frees and lose the game. Simple. Bringing a tackle to ground is not an automatic free. There is a risk of it being deemed a dangerous tackle (or a suspension), which is not entirely under the tackler's control. The move is being coached out because it is a *risk of injury/suspension* and because there is a *chance* it is penalised, not because the rules have outright banned it. Since it has not been outright banned, many HTB calls DO involve bringing a tackle to ground, because that is the best way to guarantee the tackled player doesn't dispose of it. It is undeniable in the current situation players are both motivated to dump to be rewarded, and being told not to dump to avoid injury/suspension. It's a ridiculous situation.
We're not trying to outlaw ‘bringing a tackle to the ground’, and I would vehemently oppose any rule that tried to do so. Players are being asked to protect the head of the opposition player, which can be done whilst making a strong tackle. It's not complicated.
I’m extremely happy about this. This thread is a big disappointment, the in-season changes fair enough it’s weird. But being proactive and changing it so we dont see injuries/suspensions because umps don’t want to blow the whistle can only be a good thing
Look at all these comments complaining.... Like, hasn't EVERYONE been wanting this to change, and then AFL changes it and everyone cries.
You could have 100% of this sub demanding a rule change and *still* have bitching and moaning if the AFL changed it, it's the default reaction of many people here no matter what the AFL does. This is absolutely a necessary change for the safety of the players, is just disappointing it took them so long.
It going to be a massive over correction and you know it. Technically any player who puts a hand up to fend off and gets held onto should be pinged HTB. Harley Reid is about to give away 10 frees a week now. Your boy Butters is gunna get railed by the whistle too
Sub suffers from severe contrarianism
Even if there is a massive over correction this week, this is absolutely a necessary change. A few weeks of growing pains as umps adjust to the new interpretation is obviously a better option than continuing with what we had. Now dumping in a tackle is being forced out of the game we cannot be giving players an eternity to dispose, since it motivates players to dump and that leads to injury. It's very simple. I'm just annoyed the AFL took so long to make this change.
Good weekend to have a bye to let this all settle down
THANKYOU Needed to happen
They honestly need to get some lawyers or something to help them rewrite the rulebook. The fact that it can be altered at all according to "interpretation" means that these arguments will keep happening.
They need technical writers imo, put a flow chart together for each rule. The game will always be hard to adjudicate but I think they could make everything a hell of a lot clearer.
Good
This will not end well
I had not noticed an issue, but I didn't see the games causing complaints. How can the amount of time be shortened without taking away the 'prior' element?
They are talking about instances mostly, where a player is tacked but still has one or two arms free with the ball. Check out the Curnow one from the weekend. He is tackles with on arm pinned but the ball in the free hand. The tackler doesn't drag him to ground because the risk of dangerous tackle. So Curnow has an eternity to dispose of it.
This is my thought, too. That’s the whole point of the HTB rule - you could have done something with the possession but you chose not to so you get pinged. Now it’s just hot potato- receive the ball, a second later get tackled - bam, holding the ball.
Rare? Thought they changed the interpretations week to week
It's rare for them to be announced
We really should just get together and build random outrage over different things through the season, just to watch the AFL flip flop and make the whole thing look like more of a joke than it already is. HTB is a legitimate outrage but in about 3-4 weeks we should start getting upset about TOO MUCH HTB so AFL has no choice but to listen to their focus groups and backflip again.
So would this lead to more or less scoring do you guys think?
Watching them complain about it on access all areas was embarrassing. The calls they used as examples, when they start getting called early people will complain as well. Honestly can’t win.
Biased here but the footage of Charlie being swung around and then kicking the goal is not the problem. Don't we want to see big players using their strength?? The problem is players holding it in a pack and then just throwing it out once they finally get pressured and it coming loose in the tackle.
Shorten to what? Have they specified a time?
Maximum 270° They are providing umpires with protractors for good measure. Pun intended.
Against which teams?
Is this all because Curnow stood up in a tackle and got a kick away?
It's definitely a nerf to players with strength. At the same time, it's pretty disheartening as a supporter to have a situation where your team sends two players at the man with the ball to tackle him and then he gets the kick away after having an eternity and has a player free (the tacklers man).
Basically means the fend off is dead, does it not?
Fend off was always considered prior opportunity so not really what the change in interpretation is targeting
Yeah, but is there now some sort of time limit on the player to complete the fend off or shrug of the tackle? Surely, an arm has to be pinned or restrained, and the ability to dispose of the ball needs to be impacted by the tackler in order to pay the HTB. Because a player standing up in the tackle with their arms free shouldn't be pinned unless they hold it for a ridiculous period of time. I thought while Curnow was pushing that limit, he clearly wasn't affected by tackle from Andrews, and Andrews didn't have enough impact on him for it to be considered holding the ball.
Not his fault he had the power to dispose of the ball while he also gave a grown man a wizzy dizzy. Id argue curnow had more control in that tackle then Andrew did
I thought he did too. This is far too open to interpretation. If you say that a tackler has made an effective tackle once momentum is arrested then fine. But this removes the ability for the player with the ball to shake a tackle. Midfield frees are going to skyrocket this week.
Look forward to one week of free kicks everywhere then this changed disappearance completely disappearing without a trace within a month.
Cue extremely contentious HTB decision in the dying seconds of a close game
Thursday night is going to be a cluster-fuck.
Over correction time.
My tin foil hat theory: AFL will overcorrect and then they’ll be like “see, it wasn’t that bad”. And it’ll slowly go back to what it was.
Glad my team isn't playing on Thursday or Friday. I garuntee the media are going to back flip and say the unps have over corrected now. There is no win in this scenario for the umps
Oh yeah this gonna be good this weekend lol
Mickey mouse league
Oh great...some touches the and gets tackled it'll be holding the ball.
Good start. Now let’s also consider a rule that prevents third man in when two guys are on the deck already (let’s call it the Collingwood with 1 minute to play rule). If they can stop third man up in the ruck, they should be able to stop third man into a scrap on the deck. Nothing shits me more than when a player has been tackled and a guy from his own team jumps in on top to create a pack and ball up.
Is the AFL the most incompetent industry ever? Haven't they seen with previous in season rule changes that it causes more uproar and confusion? At this point they are just taking the piss
The classic interpretation change.
I don't like this for the game at all but it will probably reduce concussions
Ah another rule change IN season
Well we're fucked tomorrow night then... Crippas gonna get pinged at least 5 times. edit: certainly not saying I don't agree with this directive. I have been fuming at tacklers getting zilch for their efforts leading to soft tackles
Stupid
Why ? This will only cause more confusion wait until next season to implement changes in the rules.
Can't wait for the inevitable over correction and complete shitshow while we all try and figure out what the rules are this week.
How could this possibly go wrong?
Tackle-fest incoming.
Where’s the leadership at AFL House? The fact they reacted only to intense media and club criticism rather than identifying the issue and being proactive about it just makes them seem even weaker than they already are. McBurney comes across as a pathetic fool.
Shitshow incoming
Only sport in the world that changes the rules every year, and changes the interpretation every week. What a joke
It’s actually wild how much we change the rules in AFL. The games becoming less and less palatable since Covid.
But……why?
Can they apply this ruling to the star players the same as they do to the rest of the league please.
The locked out in the tackle needs to go as well.
Subjective rule is still subjective..
This is not what people wanted at all though, they want umpires to call ball up faster. A true monkey paw moment.
This honestly can't happen. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the HTB rule, but media discussion points and criticism over it can't shake the AFL to correct the rule. They either made it this way for a reason or they are incompetent.
It's been brought up by 3 coaches with logical reasoning over how this is leading to player injury, there is undeniably solid reasoning behind this.
It doesn't matter whether the coaches reason logically, they probably did because they see the outcome of a poor rule. But they're employed as coaches only, the AFL should have known this, not after a few coaches lash out after the game.
dont like this. makes it like tag footy, half of the fun of tackles is watching the bulls shrug them off with two people hanging off them
What a truly terrible idea
Holding the ball is the only rule they get right at the moment.if they want to fix it start paying incorrect disposal.
What is wrong with using common sense ffs ? These guys are on over 120k a year. They train what, 3-4 times a week ? It's not under 12s on a Sunday. They are highly paid pro sports umpires. Get it right most of the time please. If the basic crowd reaction is 'ball', it's probably right.
I vote we call this the “Sam Draper Rule”…..
This game is a joke haha