Discussion: Should the Prior Opportunity Rule be reversed back.

[bornadog]

Looking back at that era there sure were a lot of high scoring games. The umpiring though - 46 frees to 37 in this match - must have been constant whistles and frustrating to watch?

Cleared the rolling mauls and kept the game going. There was no such thing as prior opportunity which is another rule where the AFL didn't think it out as players just grab the ball and wait to be tackled, so they pretend they didn't have an opportunity to get rid of the ball. This just creates packs, one after another.

[Axe Man]

Cleared the rolling mauls and kept the game going. There was no such thing as prior opportunity which is another rule where the AFL didn't think it out as players just grab the ball and wait to be tackled, so they pretend they didn't have an opportunity to get rid of the ball. This just creates packs, one after another.

If there was no prior opportunity rule then it would penalise players winning the ball. Everybody would just sit back and wait for someone else to get it so they can tackle and win a free.

[Bulldog4life]

Looking back at that era there sure were a lot of high scoring games. The umpiring though - 46 frees to 37 in this match - must have been constant whistles and frustrating to watch?

Can't remember the umpiring Axe. Winning by 100 points who does:)

[bornadog]

If there was no prior opportunity rule then it would penalise players winning the ball. Everybody would just sit back and wait for someone else to get it so they can tackle and win a free.

I don't believe that will happen. Players will still go for the ball and if tackled, they will have time to get rid of it and if they don't they will be holding the ball. Currently they don't have to get rid of it as it is deemed they had no opportunity to.

[Axe Man]

Going off topic here, but I don't believe that will happen. Players will still go for the ball and if tackled, they will have time to get rid of it and if they don't they will be holding the ball. Currently they don't have to get rid of it as it is deemed they had no opportunity to.

I was exaggerating, obviously players will still attack the ball, but to penalise a player who wins the ball and is immediately tackled with no chance to dispose of it legally would be a horrible rule change and completely against the spirit of the game. Beating your opponent to the ball is what it's all about, rewarding the bloke who gets there second makes no sense.

[bornadog]

I was exaggerating, obviously players will still attack the ball, but to penalise a player who wins the ball and is immediately tackled with no chance to dispose of it legally would be a horrible rule change and completely against the spirit of the game. Beating your opponent to the ball is what it's all about, rewarding the bloke who gets there second makes no sense.

It worked for over 100 years and then the AFL created the rolling maul.

I never said to reward the bloke who is second to the ball, the player going for the ball must have every chance. Currently as soon as a player knows they are going to be tackled, they grab the ball and just hold it and a ball up is created. The rule has created this.

Under the old rule, the player would not grab the ball if they knew they were going to be tackled, they would either knock it on or quickly dispose of it.

[bornadog]

The major change to the holding the ball rule was the introduction of the 'prior opportunity' rule. The rule was initially introduced in 1986 and known as the "perfect tackle rule": tackling a player who had an opportunity to dispose of the ball before being tackled was defined as a perfect tackle, and the provision for a perfectly tackled player to have a reasonable time to dispose of the ball before being penalised was eliminated.

The rule was introduced to speed up the game.[37] This later became the modern 'prior opportunity' rule in 1996,[38] and it was the first time that different holding the ball interpretations had been applied on the basis of what had taken place before the tackle was laid.

Since then, only small adjustments have been made to the holding the ball rules. The rule under which a player who catches the ball on the full in a ruck contest is considered to have had prior opportunity was introduced in 2003,[38] and the rule under which a player ducking and driving his head into an opponent is considered to have had a prior opportunity was introduced in 2015

I personally believe this rule has contributed to the rolling mauls. Players no longer try to dispose the ball quickly or punch it on, they grab the ball as they are being tackled and force a ball up. Another example of a rule change that the AFL did not think out properly.

[Axe Man]

It worked for over 100 years and then the AFL created the rolling maul.

I never said to reward the bloke who is second to the ball, the player going for the ball must have every chance. Currently as soon as a player knows they are going to be tackled, they grab the ball and just hold it and a ball up is created. The rule has created this.

Under the old rule, the player would not grab the ball if they knew they were going to be tackled, they would either knock it on or quickly dispose of it.

When did the interpretation change? I have no memory of it being adjudicated the way you are suggesting but perhaps I'm not old enough. In contrast I can remember when you could just dive on the ball, a pack would form and it would be a ball up. Now that's a clear holding the ball.

[bornadog]

When did the interpretation change? I have no memory of it being adjudicated the way you are suggesting but perhaps I'm not old enough. In contrast I can remember when you could just dive on the ball, a pack would form and it would be a ball up. Now that's a clear holding the ball.

Major change in 1996

[jeemak]

Tackling technique is to blame more than anything else.

To be clear, how would it work in your eyes if it was reversed?

[bornadog]

Tackling technique is to blame more than anything else.

To be clear, how would it work in your eyes if it was reversed?

It would force players to not grab the ball when they know they are going to be tackled, or handballing to a player already surrounded by opposition players. The players do this because they want to force a stoppage. There was nothing wrong with the rule prior to 1996.

Guess what has happened in the time since. Scoring is down, stoppages are up and rolling mauls ruin the game. Instead of trying to tinker with interchange, just change the rule back.

[jeemak]

It would force players to not grab the ball when they know they are going to be tackled, or handballing to a player already surrounded by opposition players. The players do this because they want to force a stoppage. There was nothing wrong with the rule prior to 1996.

Guess what has happened in the time since. Scoring is down, stoppages are up and rolling mauls ruin the game. Instead of trying to tinker with interchange, just change the rule back.

So are you saying any tackle that results in a player not being able to dispose of the ball legally would be rewarded with a free kick for holding the ball?

[bornadog]

So are you saying any tackle that results in a player not being able to dispose of the ball legally would be rewarded with a free kick for holding the ball?

I guess it would be holding the ball.

There are exceptions to the rule, like a tackle knocking the ball out of a players arms.

I know you are going to say that is just rewarding the tackler, well it might be, but players will adapt to get rid of the ball quicker and not to just grab the ball and hold it in with the tacklers ams around them. The play will flow better.

[Twodogs]

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

[Sedat]

I was exaggerating, obviously players will still attack the ball, but to penalise a player who wins the ball and is immediately tackled with no chance to dispose of it legally would be a horrible rule change and completely against the spirit of the game. Beating your opponent to the ball is what it's all about, rewarding the bloke who gets there second makes no sense.
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.

[Axe Man]

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]

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]

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

Capitalist

[hujsh]

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]

Capitalist

Menshevik

[SonofScray]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.