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

[bulldogsthru&thru]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/616322/-it-became-blurry-after-16-flag-bevo-s-advice-for-holding-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/-it-became-blurry-after-16-flag-bevo-s-advice-for-holding-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.

[jeemak]

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

I reckon he gets a raw deal sometimes, but other times he bites off more than he can chew.

However, I wish the Selwood rule applied to him. That guy just gets to throw the footy, hang onto it, drop it or whatever.

[Happy Days]

I reckon he gets a raw deal sometimes, but other times he bites off more than he can chew.

However, I wish the Selwood rule applied to him. That guy just gets to throw the footy, hang onto it, drop it or whatever.

He’d have to get caught as much as Selwood for that to happen.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I don’t remember the interpretation before prior op. Thought it was always there.

[bornadog]

I don’t remember the interpretation before prior op. Thought it was always there.

Changed in 1996.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Changed in 1996.

Ok thanks that makes sense then. I wouldn’t have really been old enough at that point to understand such intricacies. Does give me food for thought though.

[Twodogs]

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

Is that the handball that runs along the ground that bounces up to the teammate who is already running in anticipation? Bazlenka was the first one I saw do it and I remember thinking " I hope that we have been practicing that because it's virtually unstoppable and other teams aren't going to have time to catch up to it before the end of the season"

Sure it's not going to work every time and we will look a bit silly but it could win us a flag.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Is that the handball that runs along the ground that bounces up to the teammate who is already running in anticipation? Bazlenka was the first one I saw do it and I remember thinking " I hope that we have been practicing that because it's virtually unstoppable and other teams aren't going to have time to catch up to it before the end of the season"

Sure it's not going to work every time and we will look a bit silly but it could win us a flag.

Yeah it’s basically hand balling into the ground that then bounces up to the receiving player. We’ve used it in close where the opposition is trying to cut off the short handball at a typical handball height. So instead of a looping high handball to avoid the defender, we’re handballing into the ground instead. It’s more efficient and doesn’t result in the receiver having to wait.

[MrMahatma]

Is that the handball that runs along the ground that bounces up to the teammate who is already running in anticipation? Bazlenka was the first one I saw do it and I remember thinking " I hope that we have been practicing that because it's virtually unstoppable and other teams aren't going to have time to catch up to it before the end of the season"

Sure it's not going to work every time and we will look a bit silly but it could win us a flag.
I reckon Hunter has been doing it for a while.

[jeemak]

Having watched the game from ground level at Mars the looped handball is extremely prevalent within our repertoire, with the under the defender's arm a nice little bonus.

[Happy Days]

Is that the handball that runs along the ground that bounces up to the teammate who is already running in anticipation? Bazlenka was the first one I saw do it and I remember thinking " I hope that we have been practicing that because it's virtually unstoppable and other teams aren't going to have time to catch up to it before the end of the season"

Sure it's not going to work every time and we will look a bit silly but it could win us a flag.

Underground handballing? We definitely didn’t invent that.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Underground handballing? We definitely didn’t invent that.

maybe not, but I am fairly certain that Robert Groenewegen invented Wifi and pretty sure Danny DelRe invented the spork...

[mjp]

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.

I don't completely disagree, but "prior opportunity" is not a 'VIRTUAL' thing. It is actually defined in the rules:

Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:
(a) is balanced and steady; or
(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or
(c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or
(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent.

Basically if you grab the ball and run (the umpires OPENLY admit 3-steps is the gauge they are told to use), change direction or fend off, have actually taken a mark or free kick OR ducked then you are G-O-N-E.

The umpires simply don't apply the rules.

I agree with Fredi's comments in the main but prior opportunity is not a hard concept to get your head around - just remember that when the commentators crap on about whether a player did or didn't have 'prior' they don't actually know the rule and therefore have absolutely no idea whether the definition of prior opportunity applies.

[Rocco Jones]

just remember that when the commentators crap on about whether a player did or didn't have 'prior' they don't actually know the rule and therefore have absolutely no idea whether the definition of prior opportunity applies.

This is way, way too common. Far too rare to hear commentators who are around the rules. The lack of professionalism in footy media is astounding.

[hujsh]

This is way, way too common. Far too rare to hear commentators who are around the rules. The lack of professionalism in footy media is astounding.

I dunno BT seems pretty across them (https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/n6v7zi/bt_learns_what_an_intercept_mark_is/)...

[bornadog]

No prior, no problems: Dimma's simple fix for holding-the-ball debate (https://www.afl.com.au/news/616507/no-prior-no-problems-dimma-s-simple-fix-for-holding-the-ball-debate)

RICHMOND coach Damien Hardwick has called for the AFL to scrap prior opportunity as a way to remove the confusion regarding holding-the-ball.

The rule and its application have come under scrutiny since St Kilda coach Brett Ratten lamented his side earning just three free kicks from 86 tackles against Geelong on Friday night.

Hardwick said it was up the AFL to make life easier for umpires.

"Prior opportunity just makes the umpires' job harder," he said on Wednesday.

"Put the pressure on the players, the players adjust really quickly.

"We've seen how quickly they've adjusted to the man on the mark rule.

"If we put the rule in place that the players have to get rid of it, they'll start tapping it, they'll start kicking."

Hardwick referenced Essendon great and former teammate Michael Long as a great exponent of keeping the ball alive.

"The amount of handballs we see now – if we go back in the course of time and look at history, the players used to kick it. Now, under pressure, they will handball," the three-time premiership coach said.

"If we take away prior opportunity, [it] probably reduces congestion around that.

"Back in the old days you knew you were going to get tackled and knock it on.

"You tap the ball to your advantage, you kick it off the ground, or you kick it long.

"The really smart players will become smarter."
Chris Fagan, whose Brisbane Lions the Tigers will face at the Gabba on Friday night, had similar thoughts.

Fagan said players who did not handball or kick the ball after they were tackled should be immediately penalised.

"Sometimes the tackler knocks the ball out and that's the thing the umpire has to assess but if that's not the case I think that's the simplest way to look at it," Fagan told 3AW.

[Grantysghost]

I'm sure all of these coaches are completely altruistic when commenting on rule changes yeah?

[bornadog]

I'm sure all of these coaches are completely altruistic when commenting on rule changes yeah?

Of course :D

A few posters led by Sedat have taken the view on getting rid of Prior Opportunity many years ago. Finally it is being discussed.

[hujsh]

A handball heavy team like ours would surely be killed by such a rule.

In fact wouldn't the new best form of ball movement become slow methodical movement by kicking the ball?

[jeemak]

Of course :D

A few posters led by Sedat have taken the view on getting rid of Prior Opportunity many years ago. Finally it is being discussed.

I've never heard Sedat mention it...........

[jeemak]

A handball heavy team like ours would surely be killed by such a rule.

In fact wouldn't the new best form of ball movement become slow methodical movement by kicking the ball?

Yes, and further encouragement to sit numbers behind the ball.

[Happy Days]

Yeah getting rid of prior opportunity would remove the HTB issue but would also totally disincentivise being first to the ball.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I'm going to even guess a different interpretation of HTB this week, such is the level of amateurish organisation from the AFEL.

By the way, what ever happened to the different interpretation of HTB that was implemented half-way through last year? It just suddenly vanished towards the end of the season. It was essentially no prior opportunity wasn't it? It didn't at all help the spectacle either. Like HD said it simply disincentivised players to go first for the ball and led to massive swarms to tackle first and get the free kick.

[jeemak]

Yeah getting rid of prior opportunity would remove the HTB issue but would also totally disincentivise being first to the ball.

It's tricky because tackling technique and standards have increased fifty fold since 1996, so players will be getting pinged left right and centre.

[Happy Days]

It's tricky because tackling technique and standards have increased fifty fold since 1996, so players will be getting pinged left right and centre.

Is it honestly an issue? Like I know the coaches like to complain about the rules as a dog whistley way to complain about the umpiring when things don’t go their way, but is it really detracting from the game? Stoppages kinda are the game.

[bornadog]

Is it honestly an issue? Like I know the coaches like to complain about the rules as a dog whistley way to complain about the umpiring when things don’t go their way, but is it really detracting from the game? Stoppages kinda are the game.

the fewer stoppages, the less the congestion.

[Grantysghost]

It's tricky because tackling technique and standards have increased fifty fold since 1996, so players will be getting pinged left right and centre.

Will it force players not to take possession? They'll just knock it on, move it forward by foot without taking possession, scrap dump kicks etc.

You'd think modern defences would lap it up. It would totally kill our game style I reckon.

[bornadog]

Will it force players not to take possession? They'll just knock it on, move it forward by foot without taking possession, scrap dump kicks etc.

You'd think modern defences would lap it up. It would totally kill our game style I reckon.

Players will never not try and get possession.

Getting rid of prior opportunity doesn't stop the umpire allowing opportunity for the player to get rid of it. It is already a rule.

What I don't like is players grabbing the ball, knowing they will be tackled and they just hold it against their chest while the tackler wraps their arm around them. This is coached so a stoppage is created. The player should either grab the ball and use their pace to get away, or dish off a quick handball, or just knock it on to another player free.

[jeemak]

Is it honestly an issue? Like I know the coaches like to complain about the rules as a dog whistley way to complain about the umpiring when things don’t go their way, but is it really detracting from the game? Stoppages kinda are the game.

It depends what you want from the game. There's a very powerful set of folks who won't be happy until muddy footballs are helicopter punted end to end between teams, and they seem to be dominating feedback on the state of the game and influencing rule changes.

You can't trust the coaches because they're self-interested. I mean a guy like Hardwick built a system on pressure, forcing errant disposal to defenders and surging forward off the turnover. Of course he wants players slamming the ball onto the boot, just like we did in Q3 in our game against them this year.

My preference is for the game to evolve strategically and tactically without much intervention through adaptation/ changes in rules. I'd like to see open and scoring play incentivised but that won't happen because it's the farthest thing from the minds of folks at HQ and thus the most likely to work.

[jeemak]

Will it force players not to take possession? They'll just knock it on, move it forward by foot without taking possession, scrap dump kicks etc.

You'd think modern defences would lap it up. It would totally kill our game style I reckon.


Players will never not try and get possession.

Getting rid of prior opportunity doesn't stop the umpire allowing opportunity for the player to get rid of it. It is already a rule.

What I don't like is players grabbing the ball, knowing they will be tackled and they just hold it against their chest while the tackler wraps their arm around them. This is coached so a stoppage is created. The player should either grab the ball and use their pace to get away, or dish off a quick handball, or just knock it on to another player free.

BAD have you not seen what happens sometimes when players happen to be on the ground and the ball comes to them?

[Grantysghost]

BAD have you not seen what happens sometimes when players happen to be on the ground and the ball comes to them?

Very Rugby Union they just push it out in front of them.

[bornadog]

BAD have you not seen what happens sometimes when players happen to be on the ground and the ball comes to them?

Players lying down on the ground is a different story

[bornadog]

My preference is for the game to evolve strategically and tactically without much intervention through adaptation/ changes in rules.

Me too :D

The current situation has evolved because the Prior Opportunity rule was brought in.

the knock on effect has been AFL trying to introduce more rules to counteract congestion (created by the current POR). 6.6.6., STAND, STAND, STAND, kickouts from goal square, reduction of interchange.

What they are doing is destroying the basic fabric of the game.

[comrade]

If Saints kicked straight, I doubt Ratten whinges in the press conference. Blaming the rules, umpiring etc is the fall back for a struggling coach.

[Grantysghost]

Me too :D

The current situation has evolved because the Prior Opportunity rule was brought in.

the knock on effect has been AFL trying to introduce more rules to counteract congestion (created by the current POR). 6.6.6., STAND, STAND, STAND, kickouts from goal square, reduction of interchange.

What they are doing is destroying the basic fabric of the game.

Was it that bad after they brought it in? I don't remember the game immediately being congested, I also don't believe it will de-congest the game if removed. Coaches will find a way.

[bornadog]

If Saints kicked straight, I doubt Ratten whinges in the press conference. Blaming the rules, umpiring etc is the fall back for a struggling coach.

Even if they kicked straight in the first, doesn't mean they win. Anything can happen in the next three quarters, and they did. Geelong outplayed them.

I know there is scoreboard pressure, what we don't know is what Geelong would have done if they were say 5 goals behind?

[bornadog]

Was it that bad after they brought it in? I don't remember the game immediately being congested, I also don't believe it will de-congest the game if removed. Coaches will find a way.

No, not straight away, it has slowly evolved as coaches exploit the rules. They create stoppages, which increases congestion, when their team is good at stoppage work - like us. We love a stoppage.

[FrediKanoute]

Yeah getting rid of prior opportunity would remove the HTB issue but would also totally disincentivise being first to the ball.

Not really, because it would incentivise tackling properly.

[Go_Dogs]

If Saints kicked straight, I doubt Ratten whinges in the press conference. Blaming the rules, umpiring etc is the fall back for a struggling coach.

A brilliant deflection.




Also I agree with mjp. Rules are there - seem pretty straight forward. Coaches, commentators and fans just need to educate themselves. And umpires need to follow the rules. Speed of game definitely a factor, but ball it up when in doubt.

[Grantysghost]

Percentage of tackles rewarded with free kicks top and bottom 4.
No surprise to see which coaches are whinging.


The Crows (11) are followed by Carlton (9.6), Melbourne (9.5) and Port Adelaide (9.3) in the top four.

At the bottom end, Richmond is the hardest done by, with only 5.9 per cent of the Tigers' tackles rewarded with a free kick. Fremantle (6.9) and Sydney (6.2) also rank low.

The other club in the bottom four? St Kilda, with 6.3 per cent of the Saints' tackles drawing a free kick. It is likely Rutten's frustration last Friday night was more than a one-week gripe.