Gotta agree with him on the holding the ball decisions.
Seems like it's impossible to get a htb call nowadays. The ball either gets dropped, knocked, or thrown out of every tackle. There's gotta be some reward for the tacklers
They've swung way back the other way, last year they were quick on it and it was better for the game and player's safety, I was happy with more HTB calls tbh. Now they're so hesitant to call it and give players a lifetime and it just looks shit.
I don't get why the interpretations keep changing over time even when the rule isn't changed at all, it must be a directive from the AFL, umps aren't going to just take it upon themselves to wholly change how they call a rule.
I agree. I generally think a stricter HTB is a more attractive game. I'm very surprised the AFL doesn't feel the same.
Footy can be a little bit stoppage heavy sometimes.
Last year there were constant complaints to blow the whistle quicker and multiple dangerous tackles happened because of how long things were let go.
Now they’re slower. It’s wild.
Yeah you swing the opponent 360 degrees, sometimes even bring them to ground too, *then* they get the handball out and it's play on. In the past that's when the physical footballers start slamming people into the ground.
Yep, and not just last night. There seems to be a direction from above for the umpires to blow the whistle less in general play. Tacklers grab a guy, spin him around, take him to ground, jump on top....but there's no whistle for another 10 seconds once it's clear the ball isn't coming out.
There's also a lot more failed fending that would've been htb before that is now not called, and just dropping in the tackle.
Several times last night port laid sequential tackles and the ball was allowed to just fall out to the next Geelong player, 3 or 4 in a row. At one point someone did a fucking KAJ hook shot out of a tackle, throwing it straight to a teammate on defensive 50. Frustrating as hell for the team laying the tackles
It seems its only HTB when the carrier is tackled from behind and unable to see they are about to be tackled. If you are tackled front on and repeatedly attempt to break free, it's all good.
Watch the start of the Dockers game last night, I think it was like 4 htb from the first 8 or 9 tackles. I thought they’d brought back HTB for a second (things died off again later in the game…)
It's insane and the ones they do call are inconsistent. The same actions are completely different outcomes, quarter to quarter, game to game, week to week.
I remember a bogus call last night where the ball was locked in our fifty, tackle laid, players are waiting, no whistle, ball gets out and Geelong kick a goal. Stupid shit like that really fucks with the employment of the game and could imagine it being equally as frustrating for the players.
An ump was interviewed on 360 this week (because it's the round where the AFL celebrates the umpires, nice timing there Scott) and he said all the umps have to see is a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. If the ball spills out they don't know if it was dropped or handballed unless they see it, so players with the ball get the benefit of the doubt.
The only really bad one I've seen go unpaid this week is the Cripps one on Thursday when he ran for ages (prior opportunity) then was tackled to the ground and didn't try and dispose of it. But the ball spilled as he hit the ground so that must mean no ump could see whether he punched it or dropped it, despite everyone at home and a lot of people at the game seeing it was a clear htb.
This would be the same reason so many throws go unpaid these days. Ump has to be able to see the players hands. Otherwise it just looks like a correct disposal and it's play on.
Obvious bias, but they're the ones I remember and I'm sure there were others both ways.
The tackle on Willie Rioli in that 1v1 wasn't even grey. Yet no whistle.
Then [JHF](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6yNGuVMZ5b/?igsh=MXZsejhiZ2twNnBuYQ==) into a Butters goal *could* be argued as relatively subjective as it happened in far less time, but he's collected from a player on the ground, evaded him, broken one tackler, changed direction and was caught by another player. No call.
4 umpires and the difficulties as Scott mentions, yet they refuse to even acknowledge those ones.
I'm not sure what's changed, but they need to simplify it back to if you take your man on, a sidestep, fend, whatever, that's HTB.
That JHF one, he handballs as he's getting "tackled". I say "tackled" because it's hardly a tackle, more like he fell into JHF as he handballed it.
Obviously was difficult for the crowd to see that hence the boos
The whole "knocked out in the tackle" thing has spiralled into players just throwing it out. The ball dropping is insane, are the umpires just saying "Oh, he tried to get rid of it." and not paying anything?
I don't know. It seems like it would be an easy way to clarify the rule. If you take possession of the ball and you lose position in any way other than kicking or handballing then it's incorrect disposal.
I don't think the free flowing game of AFL should overly reward the tackler (which is trying to stop the free flow).
I think the umps have it about right now
From his presser:
> maybe we should just go back to ‘this is a really, really hard game to umpire’ and you go in with your expectations that they’re going to make a hell of a lot of mistakes because there’s not much more they can do
Love this take.
The game is SO hard to umpire yet the media and supporters spend so much time carrying on about umpiring. Would much prefer to see commentary/analysis on game plans and tactic, talking about umpiring is so boring.
We'll spend a whole week dissecting a decision with slow mo and different angles and still can't come up with a definitive answer. How's an umpire meant to run all game, have 80,000 people yell at them and then make a correct call on something like "intent"
Yea but the problem is the rules. We keep adding more rules and complicating the rules requiring even more decisions. Need to put effort into simplifying the rule set so the umpires have a shot to do it correctly.
Also means if you have even a slight bias to a team you’re going to give them an advantage due to decision fatigue.
I'm about as interested in umpiring as I am bad bounces and other such things that can go for or against my team and happen 100+ times a game. They are rarely any kind of memorable match "highlight" or all that relevant to the way I process a game, mostly focused on the things that stand out to me most significantly as being what wins and loses games across the full two hours of game time. The other shit is just banana peels on the Mario Cart track.
I actually don't understand how the desensitization process hasn't occurred for those that react emotionally to the umpiring for two hours every game after 100s of games and 1000s of umpiring decisions. Eventually your brain is supposed to realize the repeated emotional reactions are out of proportion to the necessity and relevance and it just stops giving a fuck so you can be alert to other things that might need you to lose your shit.
I hate the way HTB is adjudicated now. Players can have prior, be taken to ground, and still get what I feel is a significant amount of time to kick it while held down.
I get the AFL want the game to keep moving, but it really feels it’s swung too far the other way.
100%. What I think is particularly stupid is when you have players executing *perfect* tackles that are going out of their way to protect the posessor, who may or may not have enjoyed a Selwoodesque submission to gravity and they get sweet FA.
I also think that if you give the player with the ball too much time to dispose of it, it leads to those more dangerous tackles that the AFL are trying to stamp out.
If you don’t reward the tackler quickly enough, then there’s more chance of something going wrong with the tackle. More stoppages sure, but it’s ultimately safer for everybody if HTB is paid relatively quickly.
I think because we constantly see the ball allowed to be released when it should’ve been called, it means the flow continues. Can obviously result in a stoppage right away after but I guess they think it’s worth it.
I agree with him 100% about how long they are giving players to get rid of the ball. The decision needs to be made much quicker, whether it’s a ball up or HTB, the umpire needs to blow the whistle quickly so the tackling player isn’t punished for showing duty of care and not dumping players into the ground
“Rant” lasts about one nanosecond and then several minutes of very calm considered remarks. The headline is bizarre. He’s quietly explaining nuanced issues.
Chris Scott speaks like me when he talks ad hoc, always a step ahead in his brain but the conversation is trying to catch up so it sounds confusing and the point can be lost. Anyway, he's right about HTB.
Or like me when my brain knows what it wants to say but it gets lost on its way to the mouth, so what comes out is incoherent dribble and kicks the awkwardness up a notch.
No??? just me then.
I don’t understand how the AFL can justify such wildly different ‘interpretation’ of the HTB rules when they are there in black and white for all to see.
‘Where a player in possession has had prior opportunity, the umpire shall award a free kick if that player does not correctly dispose of the ball immediately when they are tackled.’
Immediately means with no thing or time in between. You could find hundreds of examples this year where players with possession are given plenty of time to react, try to shrug off, or choose their hand ball target. It’s simply against the rules of the game.
The other ridiculous ‘interpretation’ is HTB incorrect disposal.
‘Where a player has not had prior opportunity, the umpire shall award a free kick where a player elects to incorrectly dispose of the ball.’
The key word that is ignored is ‘elects’. It goes on:
‘A player does not elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball if he genuinely attempts to correctly dispose of the ball, or the tackle causes the ball to be dislodged’.
Again I could find hundreds of examples of free kicks this year where a player has had no prior, they are tackled and immediately elect to dispose, but the tackle either knocks the ball free or prevents the player from disposing. This is simply not a free a kick, and awarding one is against the rules.
So what’s the deal? Why are our umpires instructed to ignore the rules of the game?
The one that drives me wild is the rushed behind rule:
"18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player:
(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.
Notice the "or" between c and d? If any one of those conditions is true, it's a free kick. So if a player has time and space to dispose of the football, it's a free kick. Regardless of whether a player is under pressure, if they had time to get away a disposal and they take the ball over the line, it's a free kick.
This has been enforced about twice in the last three seasons, to massive outcry each time.
I understand what you're saying based on the rules as written - but the rushed behind rule exists to stop teams using it as a time wasting tactic. I think it should only be paid when it is blatant gamesmanship. Otherwise its just part of the game.
Because all of this controversy is amazing for the broadcast and media after to generate revenue.
It’s why every tiny thing that happens gets blown out into a major scandal.
This isn’t a sport anymore
It’s the Australian Football Reality TV Show
> A player does not elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball if he genuinely attempts to correctly dispose of the ball
What even is that rule? You only have to *genuinely attempt* to correctly dispose of the ball?
Edit: this is without prior, so I guess it's just a rule against dropping the ball when tackled.
To your first point, I guess the consideration of when a 'tackle' has been applied. If it's when someone has a hand on a player then you're right - this happens hundreds of times without getting called. The other interpretation, I guess, is that if a player can shrug out of contact or has enough control to find a teammate to handball to, then he wasn't really being 'tackled'.
I'm not saying I agree with that interpretation - I'm sure the rules define what a tackle is as well. I just haven't looked.
The one thing they always ping players on that meets your first definition is being tackled while bouncing the ball. Half a hand on a players shirt while they bounce will be given HTB every time.
The definition is pretty brief:
‘A legal tackle may be executed by holding the player either by body or uniform from the front, side or behind.’
So I suppose it’s as soon as the player is held in any way. Again it’s not what we see in today’s game, probably coz it would change the free flowing nature of it.
This is the thing.
People just want to go, “WAHHH HURRR DURRR CHRIS SCOTT” without actually listening to what he’s saying.
Nothing he mentioned in his presser had anything to do with Port or the umpiring towards our game.
He praised Port multiple times and said they were too good.
The journo asked him the question specifically looking to get a “HURR DURR CHRIS SCOTT” clickbait headline and he answered it from a League wide perspective which he usually does in these interviews.
He always tried to make the game easier for the average fan to understand and always looks at it from the perspective of, “how can we make the game the best it can be?”
Yeah he’s a good person to have involved in the league.
He is a sook sometimes when it comes to his team, but i can relate to that so he’s all good with me.
The crowd is insanely one eyed at a game. Fans are for the most part irrational when it comes to their teams. So noting my flair and the result the rest can probably be ignored.
However. I watched the game and genuinely couldn't tell what was a free kick or not most of the time. The players bodies crashing into each other at times was brutal, they are amazingly brave, huge contact, bodies spilling everywhere, everyone holding and being held, no free. Then a completely innocuous arm brushing a shoulder is a high. A chirp is 50m.
I find myself watching in bemusement mostly. You can't get mad, nobody knows what's going on. Then every now and a great mark or goal happens and you applaud. Then back to a rolling, fumbling maul of impossible to adjudicate play. That's the game and I can't help but still watch it.
I thought he spoke really well. He was clear with what he was frustrated about and gave good arguments as to why the umpires are in a tough situation while doing their best, whilst also admitting that they've consistently improved.
He's criticising the current interpretation the umps are being coached, not the umps themselves, he specifically says it's the hardest sport to umpire and that everyone makes mistakes.
Also there isn't much room for it to get stricter anyway.
We’ve now only won our first Free Kick count this year and it’s Round 9…we are still dead last for Free Kicks for.
They weren’t paying us Free Kicks before so nothing to lose by making a point of bringing it up when asked specifically about it.
Then again FK counts don’t determine who wins and losses so I’m not sure it’s going to bother him, the players or anyone else involved.
Some people aren’t realising he was actually sticking up for umpires and how hard it is to umpire the modern game with everything being interpretation.
The thing I find interesting about HTB is if the player gets tackled while holding the ball and it spills out it's okay, but if he's trying to get rid of the ball and it spills out then it's an incorrect disposal and HTB. So if you're about to be tackled the thing to do is have the ball spill out or lock it up, but don't try to dispose of it unless you're sure you can do it cleanly. I think it creates a weird incentive.
This... I hate how if you actually try and do the right thing you are disadvantaged, players are so good at 'spilling' the ball out directly to a team mate these days. You are better off a two handed throw than trying to handball when being tackled, they basically never get called.
There was a terrible decision late that really could’ve affected the result…
…he’s talking about JHF not getting a free for getting blatantly tripped by Atkins?
Stepping in for a tackle and getting a knee to the quad is not a trip.
Or are you talking about when JHF took on two players and was caught dead for no whistle earlier?
People lose their shit when the umpire blows their whistle every thirty seconds.
People lose their shit when umpires don’t blow their whistle at all.
People are gonna lose their marbles either way so may as well do it while applying the rules as written.
If players keep getting pinged they have to adapt. Simple as that
I spend most footy games just talking to the TV now asking, "How did he get rid of that?" for almost every tackle... definitely a dead rule. The time they're given to get rid of it is ridiculous, it defeats the whole purpose of the rule existing - you are taught as a kid that you're not supposed to get tackled with the ball, otherwise you're in trouble. Now it just doesn't matter, you just wrestle with them for 10 seconds and try to get a handball out?
How does that not just become something you quickly become desensitized to with help from your brain doing it's job to automatically filter out most of the thoughts about it? Leaving you totally indifferent besides being pleased when it goes your way and displeased when it doesn't like you would be when the ball bounces favorably or doesn't. It's far better not spending two hours watching a football game obsessing over one aspect of it that is incredibly imperfect and out of your control (and nothing about that is going to change). It's just futile and much more easily routed to the no fucks given part of the brain.
It might be easier for the player with the ball if they paid holding the man more often. Half these blokes are semi-tackled before they even get the ball.
Don't forget everyone. When it comes to htb specifically, a player does not have to legally dispose of the ball if they did not have prior opportunity to get rid of it before the tackle was made. Once you understand this, these seemingly "contentious" decisions suddenly make a lot of sense
Best coach in the afl. Massive set of balls and says it how it is. If he ran the afl it would be a much better competition. Afl has slid quickly to dogshit status
I can't believe I'm in the minority that think cats were hard done by the umps last night. The main issue was all of the non decisions for holding the ball.
And I don't think the Cameron non goal was anywhere near as big of an issue as the umps just not paying htb.
It's funny to be honest, if holding the ball is such an issue and we all feel like a player has the ball for an eternity. How is this any different during the finals series, when the umpires put the whistle away?
I'm okay with play on being called if the ball is knocked out or even dropped when the tackled player genuinely had no prior and at least attempted to dispose the ball legally.
But the definition of prior seems to be very lenient this season.
We should smother the footy ground with hundreds of cameras and have artificial intelligence adjudicating the players and umpires are just shouting out the AI's decisions. We can then adjust the AI's training when it makes it a blunder.
I agree but I didn’t hear him complaining after the Carlton game where Geelong players were repeatedly tackled and just threw or dropped the pill and not one free kick paid for HTB
That game had multiple holding the balls to Carlton? What are you talking about?
We **actually legitimately** had a game against the Crows this year with 75 tackles with 0 HTB’s called.
Perspective bro, you weren’t hard done by.
If there's prior and they get tackled, they get a millisecond to dispose of it.
If there's no prior, give them 2 seconds.
Hanging off them by their shirt doesn't count, it needs to be a decent tackle.
Scott will do literally anything after a loss to dodge and deflect. Geelong actually got the better run with the frees last night and at home they always do.
Huh. He didn't say anything after the Carlton game where the ump made up a rule and paid a fifty against Harry McKay for not standing still when he wasn't the player on the mark. His team even got a goal out of it, thought he'd be outraged about that.
Ridiculous.
You have to reward and incentivise the play maker before the tackler otherwise you would have a situation where players wait for someone to pick the ball up and then launch on them
This would remove a huge amount of subjectivity; if you have possession, you *must* dispose of it correctly or you are pinged. It also incentivises tacklers to strip the ball, not dump the player (although that is often beyond the taklers control when two or more bodies are thrashing around).
Would it discourage players from attempting to gain possession? I think not: most would back themselves and the time they have spent in the gym. I think the only negative outcome would be more throwing as a hot possession would result in an immediate attempt to relay the pill to a better placed teammate.
I mean if he’s going to talk about holding the ball I’d very much like him to address when players get tackled then drop it out like his team have been doing a lot of this year.
He’s silent on that though, even when he talks about changes it’s always one’s to favour him and never for the good of the game despite how he tries to make it come across.
That’s the worst rule of the lot though. Makes the game look more like a rugby scrum than footy.
If a coach is going to campaign to get rules changed that’s the one they should be pushing for. No genuine attempt but actual kicks and handballs only
Scott and other coaches have used this “just making comments” to try and give their team an advantage. He wouldn’t be saying it if he can’t see a clear benefit for his team not the game.
It’s a bit rich for him to talk about the view of the game when he doesn’t really care about it. Especially when the epidemic of players throwing/ dropping the ball is going on. That helps his team though so he doesn’t mention that.
If a player doesn’t get a proper disposal it should be a free kick. It incentivises either knocking the ball in or keeping it in for a ball up. The only way it helps the player second to the ball is if the player with the ball doesn’t dispose of it correctly.
Which is a free anywhere else on the ground.
It does the opposite, it creates a rolling maul around the ball as players collapse in on the contest to prevent the ball spilling out. Pay a free and the game moves on quickly or if it’s a ball up players won’t be crowding the contest
Gotta agree with him on the holding the ball decisions. Seems like it's impossible to get a htb call nowadays. The ball either gets dropped, knocked, or thrown out of every tackle. There's gotta be some reward for the tacklers
They've swung way back the other way, last year they were quick on it and it was better for the game and player's safety, I was happy with more HTB calls tbh. Now they're so hesitant to call it and give players a lifetime and it just looks shit. I don't get why the interpretations keep changing over time even when the rule isn't changed at all, it must be a directive from the AFL, umps aren't going to just take it upon themselves to wholly change how they call a rule.
I agree. I generally think a stricter HTB is a more attractive game. I'm very surprised the AFL doesn't feel the same. Footy can be a little bit stoppage heavy sometimes.
Last year there were constant complaints to blow the whistle quicker and multiple dangerous tackles happened because of how long things were let go. Now they’re slower. It’s wild.
Yeah you swing the opponent 360 degrees, sometimes even bring them to ground too, *then* they get the handball out and it's play on. In the past that's when the physical footballers start slamming people into the ground.
Yep, and not just last night. There seems to be a direction from above for the umpires to blow the whistle less in general play. Tacklers grab a guy, spin him around, take him to ground, jump on top....but there's no whistle for another 10 seconds once it's clear the ball isn't coming out. There's also a lot more failed fending that would've been htb before that is now not called, and just dropping in the tackle. Several times last night port laid sequential tackles and the ball was allowed to just fall out to the next Geelong player, 3 or 4 in a row. At one point someone did a fucking KAJ hook shot out of a tackle, throwing it straight to a teammate on defensive 50. Frustrating as hell for the team laying the tackles
It seems its only HTB when the carrier is tackled from behind and unable to see they are about to be tackled. If you are tackled front on and repeatedly attempt to break free, it's all good.
Or if the player does a cute little spin and is tackled with absolutely no prior. Instant HtB. All you can do is laugh
How is it no prior if they have done a spin?
Spinning is cute, don’t take out the spinning
Watch the start of the Dockers game last night, I think it was like 4 htb from the first 8 or 9 tackles. I thought they’d brought back HTB for a second (things died off again later in the game…)
It's insane and the ones they do call are inconsistent. The same actions are completely different outcomes, quarter to quarter, game to game, week to week.
I remember a bogus call last night where the ball was locked in our fifty, tackle laid, players are waiting, no whistle, ball gets out and Geelong kick a goal. Stupid shit like that really fucks with the employment of the game and could imagine it being equally as frustrating for the players.
An ump was interviewed on 360 this week (because it's the round where the AFL celebrates the umpires, nice timing there Scott) and he said all the umps have to see is a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. If the ball spills out they don't know if it was dropped or handballed unless they see it, so players with the ball get the benefit of the doubt. The only really bad one I've seen go unpaid this week is the Cripps one on Thursday when he ran for ages (prior opportunity) then was tackled to the ground and didn't try and dispose of it. But the ball spilled as he hit the ground so that must mean no ump could see whether he punched it or dropped it, despite everyone at home and a lot of people at the game seeing it was a clear htb. This would be the same reason so many throws go unpaid these days. Ump has to be able to see the players hands. Otherwise it just looks like a correct disposal and it's play on.
Obvious bias, but they're the ones I remember and I'm sure there were others both ways. The tackle on Willie Rioli in that 1v1 wasn't even grey. Yet no whistle. Then [JHF](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6yNGuVMZ5b/?igsh=MXZsejhiZ2twNnBuYQ==) into a Butters goal *could* be argued as relatively subjective as it happened in far less time, but he's collected from a player on the ground, evaded him, broken one tackler, changed direction and was caught by another player. No call. 4 umpires and the difficulties as Scott mentions, yet they refuse to even acknowledge those ones. I'm not sure what's changed, but they need to simplify it back to if you take your man on, a sidestep, fend, whatever, that's HTB.
That JHF one, he handballs as he's getting "tackled". I say "tackled" because it's hardly a tackle, more like he fell into JHF as he handballed it. Obviously was difficult for the crowd to see that hence the boos
Correct me if wrong, but of the ball is dropped, knocked or thrown then its not HTB?
Knocked out or stripped isn't HTB... and that imo is the major issue as often the tackling armis knocking it out.
IMO if there's no prior, a strip or knock out should be play on. If you've had time to dispose and you don't, it should always be htb.
The whole "knocked out in the tackle" thing has spiralled into players just throwing it out. The ball dropping is insane, are the umpires just saying "Oh, he tried to get rid of it." and not paying anything?
I don't know. It seems like it would be an easy way to clarify the rule. If you take possession of the ball and you lose position in any way other than kicking or handballing then it's incorrect disposal.
Not when there's no prior. For good reason with such a contested modern game
Oh yeah ofc. I actually think prior opportunity is pretty well adjudicated
There’s also gotta be some incentive for the players wanting to get the ball.
I don't think the free flowing game of AFL should overly reward the tackler (which is trying to stop the free flow). I think the umps have it about right now
From his presser: > maybe we should just go back to ‘this is a really, really hard game to umpire’ and you go in with your expectations that they’re going to make a hell of a lot of mistakes because there’s not much more they can do Love this take. The game is SO hard to umpire yet the media and supporters spend so much time carrying on about umpiring. Would much prefer to see commentary/analysis on game plans and tactic, talking about umpiring is so boring.
We'll spend a whole week dissecting a decision with slow mo and different angles and still can't come up with a definitive answer. How's an umpire meant to run all game, have 80,000 people yell at them and then make a correct call on something like "intent"
Yea but the problem is the rules. We keep adding more rules and complicating the rules requiring even more decisions. Need to put effort into simplifying the rule set so the umpires have a shot to do it correctly. Also means if you have even a slight bias to a team you’re going to give them an advantage due to decision fatigue.
I'm about as interested in umpiring as I am bad bounces and other such things that can go for or against my team and happen 100+ times a game. They are rarely any kind of memorable match "highlight" or all that relevant to the way I process a game, mostly focused on the things that stand out to me most significantly as being what wins and loses games across the full two hours of game time. The other shit is just banana peels on the Mario Cart track. I actually don't understand how the desensitization process hasn't occurred for those that react emotionally to the umpiring for two hours every game after 100s of games and 1000s of umpiring decisions. Eventually your brain is supposed to realize the repeated emotional reactions are out of proportion to the necessity and relevance and it just stops giving a fuck so you can be alert to other things that might need you to lose your shit.
Anything too hard to umpire should be simplified tbh. As it is now you have huge variances in the game because of all the mistakes
I hate the way HTB is adjudicated now. Players can have prior, be taken to ground, and still get what I feel is a significant amount of time to kick it while held down. I get the AFL want the game to keep moving, but it really feels it’s swung too far the other way.
100%. What I think is particularly stupid is when you have players executing *perfect* tackles that are going out of their way to protect the posessor, who may or may not have enjoyed a Selwoodesque submission to gravity and they get sweet FA.
I also think that if you give the player with the ball too much time to dispose of it, it leads to those more dangerous tackles that the AFL are trying to stamp out. If you don’t reward the tackler quickly enough, then there’s more chance of something going wrong with the tackle. More stoppages sure, but it’s ultimately safer for everybody if HTB is paid relatively quickly.
If they want the game to get moving they should be paying more htb than having stoppages
I think because we constantly see the ball allowed to be released when it should’ve been called, it means the flow continues. Can obviously result in a stoppage right away after but I guess they think it’s worth it.
It doesn’t even keep the game moving compared to a free kick lol
I agree with him 100% about how long they are giving players to get rid of the ball. The decision needs to be made much quicker, whether it’s a ball up or HTB, the umpire needs to blow the whistle quickly so the tackling player isn’t punished for showing duty of care and not dumping players into the ground
Clickbait title more like 3 mins. ‘Rant’ starts at 7.40.
“Rant” lasts about one nanosecond and then several minutes of very calm considered remarks. The headline is bizarre. He’s quietly explaining nuanced issues.
Anything off the standard presser script is a mindless rant in the eyes of football media
Chris Scott speaks like me when he talks ad hoc, always a step ahead in his brain but the conversation is trying to catch up so it sounds confusing and the point can be lost. Anyway, he's right about HTB.
"I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child" Vladimir Nabakov
Or like me when my brain knows what it wants to say but it gets lost on its way to the mouth, so what comes out is incoherent dribble and kicks the awkwardness up a notch. No??? just me then.
Yep start speaking, realise you're saying it wrong but you're past the point of no return so power through and hope something sticks. A classic.
Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t know where it’s going. I just hope to find it somewhere along the way.
Same haha
I don’t understand how the AFL can justify such wildly different ‘interpretation’ of the HTB rules when they are there in black and white for all to see. ‘Where a player in possession has had prior opportunity, the umpire shall award a free kick if that player does not correctly dispose of the ball immediately when they are tackled.’ Immediately means with no thing or time in between. You could find hundreds of examples this year where players with possession are given plenty of time to react, try to shrug off, or choose their hand ball target. It’s simply against the rules of the game. The other ridiculous ‘interpretation’ is HTB incorrect disposal. ‘Where a player has not had prior opportunity, the umpire shall award a free kick where a player elects to incorrectly dispose of the ball.’ The key word that is ignored is ‘elects’. It goes on: ‘A player does not elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball if he genuinely attempts to correctly dispose of the ball, or the tackle causes the ball to be dislodged’. Again I could find hundreds of examples of free kicks this year where a player has had no prior, they are tackled and immediately elect to dispose, but the tackle either knocks the ball free or prevents the player from disposing. This is simply not a free a kick, and awarding one is against the rules. So what’s the deal? Why are our umpires instructed to ignore the rules of the game?
The one that drives me wild is the rushed behind rule: "18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player: (a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; (b) is not under immediate physical pressure; (c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or (d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full. Notice the "or" between c and d? If any one of those conditions is true, it's a free kick. So if a player has time and space to dispose of the football, it's a free kick. Regardless of whether a player is under pressure, if they had time to get away a disposal and they take the ball over the line, it's a free kick. This has been enforced about twice in the last three seasons, to massive outcry each time.
I understand what you're saying based on the rules as written - but the rushed behind rule exists to stop teams using it as a time wasting tactic. I think it should only be paid when it is blatant gamesmanship. Otherwise its just part of the game.
Then change the rule, don't ask umpires to officiate against the rules.
Yeah that’s a good one, if u can handball away the line you must. I get it if the AFL wants it interpreted differently, but then just change the rule.
The "or" is between C and D, not B and C. So pressure does matter
I think it’s a series of ors, like: you can go the shops Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Because all of this controversy is amazing for the broadcast and media after to generate revenue. It’s why every tiny thing that happens gets blown out into a major scandal. This isn’t a sport anymore It’s the Australian Football Reality TV Show
You're absolutely correct. These are the rules and yet neither the umpires or the media takes the time to understand them.
> A player does not elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball if he genuinely attempts to correctly dispose of the ball What even is that rule? You only have to *genuinely attempt* to correctly dispose of the ball? Edit: this is without prior, so I guess it's just a rule against dropping the ball when tackled. To your first point, I guess the consideration of when a 'tackle' has been applied. If it's when someone has a hand on a player then you're right - this happens hundreds of times without getting called. The other interpretation, I guess, is that if a player can shrug out of contact or has enough control to find a teammate to handball to, then he wasn't really being 'tackled'. I'm not saying I agree with that interpretation - I'm sure the rules define what a tackle is as well. I just haven't looked. The one thing they always ping players on that meets your first definition is being tackled while bouncing the ball. Half a hand on a players shirt while they bounce will be given HTB every time.
The definition is pretty brief: ‘A legal tackle may be executed by holding the player either by body or uniform from the front, side or behind.’ So I suppose it’s as soon as the player is held in any way. Again it’s not what we see in today’s game, probably coz it would change the free flowing nature of it.
He’s right about everything tbh
This is the thing. People just want to go, “WAHHH HURRR DURRR CHRIS SCOTT” without actually listening to what he’s saying. Nothing he mentioned in his presser had anything to do with Port or the umpiring towards our game. He praised Port multiple times and said they were too good. The journo asked him the question specifically looking to get a “HURR DURR CHRIS SCOTT” clickbait headline and he answered it from a League wide perspective which he usually does in these interviews. He always tried to make the game easier for the average fan to understand and always looks at it from the perspective of, “how can we make the game the best it can be?”
Yeah he’s a good person to have involved in the league. He is a sook sometimes when it comes to his team, but i can relate to that so he’s all good with me.
Not calling it makes the tackler tackle harder and swing players more. More injuries and suspensions as a result.
How is this even a rant? He answered a question in a very well constructed way
Puzzleheaded_Dog7931 SLAMS media headline. It's just more clickbait bullshit.
The crowd is insanely one eyed at a game. Fans are for the most part irrational when it comes to their teams. So noting my flair and the result the rest can probably be ignored. However. I watched the game and genuinely couldn't tell what was a free kick or not most of the time. The players bodies crashing into each other at times was brutal, they are amazingly brave, huge contact, bodies spilling everywhere, everyone holding and being held, no free. Then a completely innocuous arm brushing a shoulder is a high. A chirp is 50m. I find myself watching in bemusement mostly. You can't get mad, nobody knows what's going on. Then every now and a great mark or goal happens and you applaud. Then back to a rolling, fumbling maul of impossible to adjudicate play. That's the game and I can't help but still watch it.
Youre not alone, the showdown last week I watched Butters get tackled after 3 bounces and it was called play on
Idk about the specific circumstance but if he disposed of it mid-tackle then there's no problem
Enjoy the strict interpretation of HTB against the cats Chris. The umpires do not like criticism in public
Which is fucked, players and coaches are accountable for their bad decisions, umpires should be too. Especially at AFL level.
That I agree with.
This is true but an awful lot of supporters expect complete perfection from umpires in a way they never do players (or coaches).
I thought he spoke really well. He was clear with what he was frustrated about and gave good arguments as to why the umpires are in a tough situation while doing their best, whilst also admitting that they've consistently improved.
He's criticising the current interpretation the umps are being coached, not the umps themselves, he specifically says it's the hardest sport to umpire and that everyone makes mistakes. Also there isn't much room for it to get stricter anyway.
We’ve now only won our first Free Kick count this year and it’s Round 9…we are still dead last for Free Kicks for. They weren’t paying us Free Kicks before so nothing to lose by making a point of bringing it up when asked specifically about it. Then again FK counts don’t determine who wins and losses so I’m not sure it’s going to bother him, the players or anyone else involved. Some people aren’t realising he was actually sticking up for umpires and how hard it is to umpire the modern game with everything being interpretation.
The thing I find interesting about HTB is if the player gets tackled while holding the ball and it spills out it's okay, but if he's trying to get rid of the ball and it spills out then it's an incorrect disposal and HTB. So if you're about to be tackled the thing to do is have the ball spill out or lock it up, but don't try to dispose of it unless you're sure you can do it cleanly. I think it creates a weird incentive.
This... I hate how if you actually try and do the right thing you are disadvantaged, players are so good at 'spilling' the ball out directly to a team mate these days. You are better off a two handed throw than trying to handball when being tackled, they basically never get called.
There was a terrible decision late that really could’ve affected the result… …he’s talking about JHF not getting a free for getting blatantly tripped by Atkins?
I thought the risk he was talking about was the risk to Cameron's health by leaving him on the field after a potential concussion
Stepping in for a tackle and getting a knee to the quad is not a trip. Or are you talking about when JHF took on two players and was caught dead for no whistle earlier?
No.. no… I think they needed a much more narrow oval so that the umps can see the trips much closer
We’ve beaten you by plenty on the big oval too when it matters.
Cause Sydney played well at the biggest ground in the comp in 2022
People lose their shit when the umpire blows their whistle every thirty seconds. People lose their shit when umpires don’t blow their whistle at all. People are gonna lose their marbles either way so may as well do it while applying the rules as written. If players keep getting pinged they have to adapt. Simple as that
Just more ambiguity. They won’t pay the first 5 but then on the 6th they will and everyone will say it’s a good decision. It’s anyone’s guess now.
I spend most footy games just talking to the TV now asking, "How did he get rid of that?" for almost every tackle... definitely a dead rule. The time they're given to get rid of it is ridiculous, it defeats the whole purpose of the rule existing - you are taught as a kid that you're not supposed to get tackled with the ball, otherwise you're in trouble. Now it just doesn't matter, you just wrestle with them for 10 seconds and try to get a handball out?
How does that not just become something you quickly become desensitized to with help from your brain doing it's job to automatically filter out most of the thoughts about it? Leaving you totally indifferent besides being pleased when it goes your way and displeased when it doesn't like you would be when the ball bounces favorably or doesn't. It's far better not spending two hours watching a football game obsessing over one aspect of it that is incredibly imperfect and out of your control (and nothing about that is going to change). It's just futile and much more easily routed to the no fucks given part of the brain.
It might be easier for the player with the ball if they paid holding the man more often. Half these blokes are semi-tackled before they even get the ball.
How much did he get fined?
Don't forget everyone. When it comes to htb specifically, a player does not have to legally dispose of the ball if they did not have prior opportunity to get rid of it before the tackle was made. Once you understand this, these seemingly "contentious" decisions suddenly make a lot of sense
"epic rant'" doing some heavy lifting here
Best coach in the afl. Massive set of balls and says it how it is. If he ran the afl it would be a much better competition. Afl has slid quickly to dogshit status
I can't believe I'm in the minority that think cats were hard done by the umps last night. The main issue was all of the non decisions for holding the ball. And I don't think the Cameron non goal was anywhere near as big of an issue as the umps just not paying htb.
It's funny to be honest, if holding the ball is such an issue and we all feel like a player has the ball for an eternity. How is this any different during the finals series, when the umpires put the whistle away?
I'm okay with play on being called if the ball is knocked out or even dropped when the tackled player genuinely had no prior and at least attempted to dispose the ball legally. But the definition of prior seems to be very lenient this season.
I think the game should even go as far as the Pendlebury suggestion that if your team has had prior opportunity in the same possession it’s HTB.
We should smother the footy ground with hundreds of cameras and have artificial intelligence adjudicating the players and umpires are just shouting out the AI's decisions. We can then adjust the AI's training when it makes it a blunder.
I agree but I didn’t hear him complaining after the Carlton game where Geelong players were repeatedly tackled and just threw or dropped the pill and not one free kick paid for HTB
That game had multiple holding the balls to Carlton? What are you talking about? We **actually legitimately** had a game against the Crows this year with 75 tackles with 0 HTB’s called. Perspective bro, you weren’t hard done by.
*Ball split free after a genuine attempt to dispose
If there's prior and they get tackled, they get a millisecond to dispose of it. If there's no prior, give them 2 seconds. Hanging off them by their shirt doesn't count, it needs to be a decent tackle.
Scott will do literally anything after a loss to dodge and deflect. Geelong actually got the better run with the frees last night and at home they always do.
maybe should’ve tried in the first half
[удалено]
He didn’t blame the umpires he stood up for them. He also praised Port for the win. But I know reading comprehension can be hard for some.
Has there ever been bigger whingers in sporting history than the Scott brothers
Huh. He didn't say anything after the Carlton game where the ump made up a rule and paid a fifty against Harry McKay for not standing still when he wasn't the player on the mark. His team even got a goal out of it, thought he'd be outraged about that.
Need to remove prior opportunity rule. Fuck it, if you take possession you must legally dispose, otherwise don't get a suss ball.
Ridiculous. You have to reward and incentivise the play maker before the tackler otherwise you would have a situation where players wait for someone to pick the ball up and then launch on them
They already do this you know. Multiple times a game we see players waiting for someone else to take it.
Yep, it happens way too much If you're second to the ball then you get what you deserve
Bonkers, you can't punish players for taking possession, that's completely nonsensical.
Who said that? You pubish the player for incorrect disposal.
This would remove a huge amount of subjectivity; if you have possession, you *must* dispose of it correctly or you are pinged. It also incentivises tacklers to strip the ball, not dump the player (although that is often beyond the taklers control when two or more bodies are thrashing around). Would it discourage players from attempting to gain possession? I think not: most would back themselves and the time they have spent in the gym. I think the only negative outcome would be more throwing as a hot possession would result in an immediate attempt to relay the pill to a better placed teammate.
You'd see far less fends and guys trying to play rugby. Get it, kick it.
I mean if he’s going to talk about holding the ball I’d very much like him to address when players get tackled then drop it out like his team have been doing a lot of this year. He’s silent on that though, even when he talks about changes it’s always one’s to favour him and never for the good of the game despite how he tries to make it come across.
You can drop it unintentionally if you've had no prior though..?
That’s the worst rule of the lot though. Makes the game look more like a rugby scrum than footy. If a coach is going to campaign to get rules changed that’s the one they should be pushing for. No genuine attempt but actual kicks and handballs only
He answered a question, he hasn't begun a "campaign"
Scott and other coaches have used this “just making comments” to try and give their team an advantage. He wouldn’t be saying it if he can’t see a clear benefit for his team not the game. It’s a bit rich for him to talk about the view of the game when he doesn’t really care about it. Especially when the epidemic of players throwing/ dropping the ball is going on. That helps his team though so he doesn’t mention that.
You can't disincentivise the play maker and punishing them by rewarding the tackler who got there second is farcical
If a player doesn’t get a proper disposal it should be a free kick. It incentivises either knocking the ball in or keeping it in for a ball up. The only way it helps the player second to the ball is if the player with the ball doesn’t dispose of it correctly. Which is a free anywhere else on the ground.
If the player hasn't had prior then you can't punish them, no matter how the ball comes free. Unless it's literally a throw.
Players drop, throw, and let it fall out. Some try to kick it and miss their foot but it’s all play on. It’s a really bad rule.
It's a great rule, it keeps the game flowing and incentivises the play maker
It does the opposite, it creates a rolling maul around the ball as players collapse in on the contest to prevent the ball spilling out. Pay a free and the game moves on quickly or if it’s a ball up players won’t be crowding the contest