'It became blurry after '16 flag': Bevo's advice for holding the ball rule

[bulldogsthru&thru]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/616322/-...-the-ball-rule

WESTERN Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge says backlash to his club's handballing tactics in its 2016 premiership year has blurred the holding the ball rule and has advocated for its interpretation to be simplified to help umpires.

His counterpart for this week's clash against St Kilda, coach Brett Ratten, last week put a lack of holding the ball free kicks on the agenda following his side's defeat to Geelong, questioning the worth of tackling without being rewarded.

Beveridge supported a change of the rule, saying that it had become difficult for the umpires to officiate the complex rule given the speed of the game. And he said the noise about the change had started following the Dogs' breakthrough flag five years ago and remained clouded.

"Unfortunately it became blurry after '16 when a couple of clubs whinged about us and they tried to pay more free kicks and by round three they knew it wasn't working so they tried to go back to what it was," the Dogs coach said on Tuesday.

"It's just an example of flinching on the run so let's just get back to prior opportunity and incorrect disposals – just give the umpires a chance. It's still going to be hard, the game has probably never been quicker so sometimes it's hard to work out whether a player has had prior opportunity.

"It’s a really fine line. I get why the umpires find it hard in certain circumstances but just keep it simple for them and it'll give them every chance."

The Bulldogs will be searching to continue their stellar start to the season on Saturday night, with the club monitoring some sore bodies after last week's ballistic contest against the Power.

Beveridge said ruckman Tim English (concussion) and midfielder Lachie Hunter (hand) still needed to prove their fitness at Thursday's main training session, and confirmed that last week's substitute Hayden Crozier would likely replace Easton Wood (hamstring) in the starting 22 this week.

A number of other players, Beveridge said, had pulled up sore from the win over Port Adelaide, with Patrick Lipinski (who had his thigh strapped), Mitch Hannan, Jordon Sweet, Aaron Naughton and Josh Bruce among those on light duties on Tuesday.

"We've got to make sure by Thursday we're really moving and primed to play the Saints," Beveridge said.

"I don't think there's significant doubt over many of them. Some are managed early in the week at times and that's part of their weekly program but there are others who have some corkies here and there and things that have flared up. We'll monitor that this week."

No.1 draft pick Jamarra Ugle-Hagan won't be available for the VFL this week as he continues his recovery from concussion.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/616322/-...-the-ball-rule

WESTERN Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge says backlash to his club's handballing tactics in its 2016 premiership year has blurred the holding the ball rule and has advocated for its interpretation to be simplified to help umpires.

His counterpart for this week's clash against St Kilda, coach Brett Ratten, last week put a lack of holding the ball free kicks on the agenda following his side's defeat to Geelong, questioning the worth of tackling without being rewarded.

Beveridge supported a change of the rule, saying that it had become difficult for the umpires to officiate the complex rule given the speed of the game. And he said the noise about the change had started following the Dogs' breakthrough flag five years ago and remained clouded.

"Unfortunately it became blurry after '16 when a couple of clubs whinged about us and they tried to pay more free kicks and by round three they knew it wasn't working so they tried to go back to what it was," the Dogs coach said on Tuesday.

Any ideas on which clubs? I know one would have been Hawthorn.

[Grantysghost]

Any ideas on which clubs? I know one would have been Hawthorn.

Surely the Swans. They're still expelling copious rivers of salt.

[mjp]

Surely the Swans. They're still expelling copious rivers of salt.

Hawthorn.

Clarkson was fuming after the semi and his whole "101 tackles for 3x holding the ball decisions" comments got a lot of press.

[bulldogtragic]

Wasn’t Chris Scott very, very outspoken about it? That and Bevo shouldn’t have won Best Coach back to back.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Wasn’t Chris Scott very, very outspoken about it? That and Bevo shouldn’t have won Best Coach back to back.

Yeah I remember that too. Cats were my other guess. I'm sure it comes down to Hawks, Swans and Cats.

I love how AFL coaches can be so swayed by stats. Just because you tackle heaps doesn't automatically mean more HTB have to be paid. Saints v Cats was an example where that should have been the case but our semi against the hawks was pure sour grapes from Clarko.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

On the topic, has anyone noticed our new handball tactic this season? The football equivalent of the basketball bounce pass? I love it.

[westdog54]

Hawthorn.

Clarkson was fuming after the semi and his whole "101 tackles for 3x holding the ball decisions" comments got a lot of press.

You tend not to get pinged for Holding the Ball if you dispose of the football properly.

That's the whole concept behind the tactic.

The notion of 'rewarding the tackler' is simplistic claptrap.

[Ghost Dog]

Waving my imaginary 2016 cup at Alistair 'Knuckles'.

[josie]

On the topic, has anyone noticed our new handball tactic this season? The football equivalent of the basketball bounce pass? I love it.

Sure have-Harlem globetrotter type finesse & totally within rules. Just watch other clubs adopt this soon. You have to agree that Bevo is an innovator. That innovation & flexible playing position mantra working ok so far for us this year.

[FrediKanoute]

You tend not to get pinged for Holding the Ball if you dispose of the football properly.

That's the whole concept behind the tactic.

The notion of 'rewarding the tackler' is simplistic claptrap.

Not sure I agree with that. The whole nonsense of "prior opportunity" was introduce relatively recently (ie last 20 years) and mainly designed to stop players bouncing of two or three tacklers and encourage release of the footy. What it took away though was the concept that if you were caught and couldn't get rid of the ball then you were guilty of "holding the ball". The roar of ball is not just for "dropping the ball", but also holding the ball. Prior opportunity gave an out to a player who took possession and was tackled and couldn't get rid of it because the tackle was good.

Personally prior opportunity is the nonsense. Umpires had an out with holding the ball they could call "held to him", so a perfect tackle where there was no opportunity to get rid of the ball because it was pulled in and held onto the player by the tackler wouldn't get pinged. There is no need for priori opportunity, it complicates the situation and requires a judgment call from the umpire about the circumstances leading up to the tackle rather than just focusing on the act of the tackle itself.

If you took away prior opportunity the decision process is:

1) was the player tackled
2) was the ball released
3) If yes was the ball released legally (handball/kick) - if yes play on,; if no free kick
4) If no to ball release - then its a question of was ball pinned - if yes ball up; if no free kick

The umpire is adjudicating on actual actions rather than intent or perception.

[jeemak]

Fredi that's a really good post, and I don't think I've read prior opportunity and associated issues broken down/ articulated as well as you have.

[I'm Not Bitter Anymore!]

Surely the Swans. They're still expelling copious rivers of salt.

Longmire mentions it at every opportunity

[bornadog]

Not sure I agree with that. The whole nonsense of "prior opportunity" was introduce relatively recently (ie last 20 years) and mainly designed to stop players bouncing of two or three tacklers and encourage release of the footy. What it took away though was the concept that if you were caught and couldn't get rid of the ball then you were guilty of "holding the ball". The roar of ball is not just for "dropping the ball", but also holding the ball. Prior opportunity gave an out to a player who took possession and was tackled and couldn't get rid of it because the tackle was good.

Personally prior opportunity is the nonsense. Umpires had an out with holding the ball they could call "held to him", so a perfect tackle where there was no opportunity to get rid of the ball because it was pulled in and held onto the player by the tackler wouldn't get pinged. There is no need for priori opportunity, it complicates the situation and requires a judgment call from the umpire about the circumstances leading up to the tackle rather than just focusing on the act of the tackle itself.

If you took away prior opportunity the decision process is:

1) was the player tackled
2) was the ball released
3) If yes was the ball released legally (handball/kick) - if yes play on,; if no free kick
4) If no to ball release - then its a question of was ball pinned - if yes ball up; if no free kick

The umpire is adjudicating on actual actions rather than intent or perception.

The other thing the current system encourages is players to hold on to the ball and create a stoppage. This of course creates congestion and that has lead to a number of rule changes which don't work.

Before prior opportunity was introduced, players would either dish the ball off quicker, or not take possession but rather tap the ball on and try and use their pace to get away from the tackler.

Now, players knowing they are going to be tackled, time it, so they can grab the ball at the same time they are going to be tackled with the knowledge there won't be a free kick due to no prior. It is an art form and encouraged by coaches, especially for teams that are good at stoppage clearances (eg us).

[Hotdog60]

I saying all this the Bont gets pinged a lot without prior opportunity.