Love how the afl stated incorrect disposal and dropping the ball doesnt matter at all, all you need to do is make an "attempt" for it not to be ball now. Absolute joke of a state the afl is in
100% why is there a rule called incorrect disposal if they don't use it when someone drops the ball just because you are tackled why should you be given a pass just because you attempted to correctly dispose of it? so dumb. It's like if a player attempted to kick a goal and it went out on the full we don't say oh he was attempting a goal so we are gonna throw it in instead now. No you are punished for it so you should also be punished if you dont correctly dispose of the ball.
This only applies if the player didn't have prior opportunity, if there was a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and it was disposed of incorrectly, it'll be called incorrect disposal, but if there was no prior opportunity, the player only needs to make a genuine attempt to dispose correctly, even if the disposal isn't actually correct.
It would be easier if it goes back to… At any time, incorrect disposal is a free against. No prior, held in, ball up. No prior, drop it or miss kicking it, free kick. Prior, free against anytime you don’t get rid of it.
@@JordanKR7 yeah, usually the only time players are let off from incorrect disposal is if there was no prior, whatever that's means anymore, and the ball was knocked out by the tackler.
My understanding from when the AFL changed the rules - arm pinned - tackled - early whistle, ball up. - arm not pinned - tackled - early whistle, holdint the ball - no prior - tackled - early whistle, ball up - prior - tackled - early whistle holding the ball. - no prior - tackled - ball comes out - play on - prior - tackled - ball dropped - holding the ball How is the afl not getting this.
That is exactly my understanding of the rules but some numpty from AFL HQ have this obsession of making it a fast paced game therefore letting a lot of these free kicks go to avoid stoppages which in their puny mind slows the game down. If the free kick is there pay it, so what if it slows the game at least we're being honest with the rules.
@@stavio12exactly this ^ the AFL has at fault for the rise in concussions because they have constantly tweaked the rules to speed up the game. But instead they punish players with asinine suspensions, trying to place the blame on the players to avoid future litigation.
I am nearly 60 and when we played back in the 70s - 90s we tried to tackle around the waist as if you pinned the arms the ump would just say he had no way to get rid of it and you wouldn't win the free kick. I dont like the pinning of the arms as they are right if you bury the bloke with the arms pinned they have no way to protect themselves. They need to look at the way we used to tackle and bring that back, pinning the arms cant be holding the ball.
If the AFL come out and punish Cripps for having an opinion then there should be an uproar. They shouldn't be allowed to mute players, coaches and media personalities for discussing their inabilities and bringing it to public light. This is not a dictatorship AFL.
Spot on, it's exactly how it's been since I watched it as a kid, all of a sudden it's changed? incorrect disposal has gone out the window, and if they keep spinning payers around to gain a free kick like that, ACL injuries will go up. How do the umps not sit down with coaches or players to discuss this stuff??
@@fallingintoh1ellyou completely missed his point. But you're also wrong, there are plenty of players you could pluck from the 80-90's who would do great now. Especially those who were ahead of their time training standards wise.
and all he is saying, is what we learned as juniors. why has it changed in the afl. how is it being umpired in local leagues do you watch country footy ?? honest question.
The players know. You could almost let them umpire the game themselves and have captains review using the video ref. Save some money and fire all the field umpires. Between the players, boundary umpires, goal umpires and TV review, there’s enough eyes to officiate fine. No wishy washy frees. Just play on unless the free is completely there.
I think you could fire the umps and also save money by not using a ball. The players know who will win each contest anyway just go from contest to contest and pick who will win the ball.
this is why my dad likes soccer more than afl.(he's lived in Australia his whole life) if the afl cant get the rules straight after 100+ years then what are they doing. at least give the umps time to learn the rule in the preseason rather than just before a game. there seems to be 5-10 rule and umpiring changes per season where as in soccer, there has only been 1 in the past 30 years. the afl need to stop changing the rules and interpretations because it is getting to a point where new people cant understand the rules of the game anymore. How do people expect foreigners to watch the game when we cant even understand the basic rules? cant they just not change the rules for a few seasons? then it gives us and the umpires time to really learn and understand the rules.
100 % with Cripps... umpiring is too confusing ..even for the umpires.. if ball hits ground when attempting or fulls out of hand.. as the words explain...DROPPING THE BALL. NOT CALLED ATTEMPTING THE BALL. keep it basic so fans and players can enjoy the games and rules.... GO PIES :)
I might be against the majority here but If a player is tackled without prior opportunity and the ball spills free the umpire should be calling play on as the rule states. If the rule is tweaked, and players are pinged HTB in such an instance, I will bet there will be far more ball ups as players who are tackled without prior will hold the ball in tight and make no attempt to dispose of it legally hoping for a stoppage. Just my opinion.
I think that to protect the player being tackled, from sustaining shoulder or knee injuries which we know can be severe, the tackler should not be allowed to take the ball player down to the ground with force and weight,but the tackler should be awarded a free kick, fairly quickly on pinning the ballplayer upright. If there's incorrect disposal,by dropping the ball with one hand pinned or not being able to get kick away, the tackler should also be rewarded with a free kick. The no prior opportunity scenario has no real substantian, as any player who wants to gather the ball with both hands and take possession, should be aware of the surrounding opponents pending tackle,and they should do the smart thing, and tap the to their own or their teams advantage so that they are not caught and pinned, however by wheeling the ball to a clear unconjested area they can gather and get their kick unencumbered. This sould be the clear interpretation of the holding the ball rule. On the other hand, a player who does not have full possession of the ball with both hands and is tackled without the ball in both hands, should be immediately awarded afree kick. Take this suggestion on board AFL, and your game will improve 100 percent.
If a player wins possession of a contested ball, the onus should be absolutely on them to move the ball on as possible, and they should not hatch the ball within their possession without knowing what to do with it in advance. Move the ball on, don't hog and hatch it is what I'm promoting.
It's simple, incorrect disposal is just that, so it's holding the ball, they contradict themselves by putting in (attempted), How stupid can you get, everyone is attempting to get rid of the ball, thus there should never be a free kick, that's how stupid the Afls wording is. Once you're tackled there is only two ways to get rid of the ball, handball or kick. If a player is tackled and the ball is not disposed of you ball it up. It would be so easy for the umpires to interpret.
Should only be incorrect disposal if they had prior opportunity. If they are immediately tackled and the ball is knocked loose by the tackler or incorrectly disposed by the player, it should be play on.
Cripps is wrong and right at the same time. Having one arm free is your opportunity, you can still kick the football if you have one arm free. That part has always been holding the ball and it should stay that way. He's absolutely right about the disposal though, if you dispose of it incorrectly you should be gone regardless of a proper attempt or not.
That would be even worse than the current fiasco because it punishes the player who goes for the ball. Grab the ball, get pinned straightaway, no prior and no realistic way of getting rid of the ball legally. The rule says you have to try to get rid of the ball. So you’re stuffed.
I don't think he's wrong, he's making the point that if a player has an arm pinned and tries to dispose of it, they are putting themselves off balance and at danger of concussion because their only option is to stand on one leg and try to kick it, so the AFL's own rule is contradictory to their intent to protect the head.
true, the midfielders seem to get away with the 'scoop' way too often, getting the ball off the ground up to a teammate, seems you can just pass it like a hot potato now too, its not rugby.
Charlie arguably the best athlete in the comp mate. Elite endurance and built like a brick dunny. He gets so many frees because he's so difficult to mark up on
100% agree with Cripps. I've lost count of how many times the footy has been turned off in disgust in my household the last few years, when it comes to inconsistently adjudicated rules, especially holding the ball coupled with protecting the head and the things players are/aren't getting suspended for. Their interpretations are contradictory. You can't encourage players to pin an arm to get rewarded for frees that ignore no prior opportunity, only to put the player with pinned arms at risk of head injury, then if the player falls and hits their head because they're trying to dispose the ball, you expect the tackler to defend himself at the tribunal and tell him he should've let go of an arm, when your rules encourage him to pin the arms. Seriously, the AFL are incredibly stupid.
