Baaallllllll!! (2)

In a further illustration of the inflexible, zero-tolerance approach of the current interpretation of the holding the ball rule, today AussieRulesBlog witnessed (on TV) two players, each with a firm grasp of the ball in two hands, engaged in a test of strength with each other. One happened to be lying on his back. His opponent had not tackled him. The free kick for holding the ball was paid against the player on the ground.

On another occasion, a player broke through a series of three or four tackles, none of which was made to stick, and handballed the ball to a teammate who kicked toward goal. The umpire, presumably, decided that the cumulative time of applied tackles was sufficient to deem the player to have been holding the ball and paid a 50-metre penalty for the ball being kicked on (more about the logical disconnect between the advantage rule and the 50-metre penalty later). (Ed. : Gieschen has subsequently admitted that the free kick and initial 50-metre penalty were incorrect.)

The holding the ball interpretation and the 50-metre penalty for time wasting interpretations are cancers on our game. Players are confused, fans are confused, media people are confused.

Perhaps we’ll also run a series on the abuse that umpires use to justify adding additional 50-metre penalties.

Eagle-eyed readers will be able to place all these incidents in one game. The umpiring did not affect the result of the game in any material way, but it was, in general, inflexible, capricious and inappropriate to the conditions.

More coming on holding the ball!  Release the Giesch!!