Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

[Axe Man]

Re: Western Bulldogs Membership 2018 - Operation 50,000

It's cause and effect Axe Man. Prior opportunity creates the increased congestion and therefore the increased tackling and ball-ups. By removing the incentive to hatch the ball, teams will structure up to create space so that when they win the ball they have time and space to get rid of it.

I hate prior opportunity and I reckon it is the most significant reason why pricks like Paul Roos have destroyed the essence of the game with their cynical set-ups and emphasis on repeat stoppages.

Hatching the ball, sure penalise the player. But to penalise the ball winner who has no chance to dispose of the ball legally is madness.

I guess it would appease the brain dead masses that scream BALL every time a tackle is laid though.

[boydogs]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

Don't think we need a rule change, but would like to see HTB paid more often for illegal disposal. Letting the ball go doesn't equal knocked out in the tackle

[The Underdog]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

You have to reward someone, not everyone gets a prize.

Capitalist

[hujsh]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

Sure getting rid of prior opportunity could mean teams spread out from the contest more. Or it gives them more reason to crowd the contest to make sure they tackle the guy who does get the ball.

As an ethos I'd lean towards rewarding the person making the play and going the ball over rewarding the tackler.

[Twodogs]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

Capitalist

Menshevik

[SonofScray]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

I looked up Wiki, because there are a few elements of the rule historically that I wasn't certain around. I can remember watching an instructional video as a junior, prior to the introduction of 'prior opportunity' which promoted winning the ball and if tackled, taking measures to dispose of the ball via hand pass, or kick immediately. I wasn't aware that at one point you could just drop the ball on the ground. Probably as a precursor to the "prior op"(this video must have been early 90s, late 80s, they did reference an example where if you were taken "ball and all" while contesting the loose ball you wouldn't be penalised. However, if you tried to barge through with the ball, it was a certain free kick.

While I hate tinkering with the rules, there are three points i would consider:
1. roll back prior op as BAD has raised.
2. Pay holding the man more frequently.

and one I am not certain about but thought was appropriate in the Irish games:

3. Can't take possession of the ball unless you are on your feet. i.e if you dive on the ball you have to punch it or kick it on. It'd need to be thought through carefully, in an era where head clashes etc and below the knees etc generate mass hysteria.

[Bornadog]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

Bevo's view:

THE HOLDING-THE-BALL RULE AND RIVALS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DOGS 2016 TACTICS:

“I think it’s been blown out of proportion. I sat in a room at the end of 2016 and listened to a room full of coaches lose their heads over free kicks that should have been paid the previous year.
“Then we went too far the other way, started to pay all those free kicks in 2017 and realised we had gone too far and now we are back where we should be.
“If it’s a good tackle, someone’s had enough time, pay the free kick. I they get dispossessed and they’ve only just got the ball, pay play-on.
“I don’t like the ones where the players are pinned on the ground, and can’t move it. Just ball it up. We’ve got to look after the player that’s actually grabbed the ball.”

[Twodogs]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

originally posted by BAD


Bevo's view:

THE HOLDING-THE-BALL RULE AND RIVALS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DOGS 2016 TACTICS:

“I think it’s been blown out of proportion. I sat in a room at the end of 2016 and listened to a room full of coaches lose their heads over free kicks that should have been paid the previous year.
“Then we went too far the other way, started to pay all those free kicks in 2017 and realised we had gone too far and now we are back where we should be.
“If it’s a good tackle, someone’s had enough time, pay the free kick. I they get dispossessed and they’ve only just got the ball, pay play-on.
“I don’t like the ones where the players are pinned on the ground, and can’t move it. Just ball it up. We’ve got to look after the player that’s actually grabbed the ball.”

It'd be the highlight of my year being locked in a room full of afl senior coaches forced to watch umpiring decisions. Oh the joy!

[LostDoggy]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

One aspect of the rule I think is plain wrong is when a player is deemed to have no prior opportunity when receiving a pass from a teammate. If a player delivers a pass to a teammate who is immediately tackled and can't effect a disposal, I think the team should concede a free kick.

[soupman]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

I'm generally happy with the prior opportunity rule as is, however I would like players that fail to dispose of it correctly penalised.

ie. Often a player is tackled and the ball is knocked out in the tackle and it is called play on, I think the player with the ball should be responsible to dispose of it correctly so if it is knocked out after they have had opportunity to dispose of it then its ball.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

The biggest issue with prior opportunity, is that players are given far too much leeway.

Opportunity requires only a split second and in most cases there is opportunity unless the tackle is simultaneous. Even then unless the tackle is perfect there is still generally opportunity to dispose of the ball

Where a player simply takes possession to force a stoppage, the free should be paid. They should not be just taking the ball and merely pretending to try and handball, or simply allowing the pack to descend.

[hujsh]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

A lot of people here seem to dislike the Richmond forward setup. Any concerns that further rewarding the tackler will just move everyone closer to that setup?

[Twodogs]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

A lot of people here seem to dislike the Richmond forward setup. Any concerns that further rewarding the tackler will just move everyone closer to that setup?

I love how the AFL didn't neutralise all of Richmond's strengths before this season started. With is they stopped third man up (God knows why, it clears congestion. Actually I know exactly why because the AFL hates our guts, they still want to close us down because we embarrassed City Hall in 1989 and they have never forgiven us for it.). and they started to call fair handballs 'throws'. I wouldn't have minded but the fair handball rule only seems to apply to us. The Geelong game in particular was a farce. The umpires were penalising us for properly conducted handballs and Geelong (Dangerfield and especially Selwood) were just throwing the ball to each other all night, they didn't even try to disguise it in the end.

[GVGjr]

Re: Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

A lot of people here seem to dislike the Richmond forward setup. Any concerns that further rewarding the tackler will just move everyone closer to that setup?

It could easily result in that. I didn't mind the way Richmond went about it as they adjusted to some injuries and got a winning formula out of it.