Baaallllllll!!

The custodians of our game must do something to bring sense and fairness back into the holding the ball rule. And while they’re at it, perhaps they could require that umpires only pay free kicks when they can see the ball or the infringement.

 

In recent years the interpretation of the holding the ball rule was altered so that players who had previously pounced on the ball with the intention of holding play up would be penalised if they did not dispose of the ball when tackled.

 

Over time, the Giesch and his minions have refined that interpretation. In Round 11 of the 2010 season, a player receiving a pressure handball and being tackled to the ground immediately is often free kicked for holding the ball, even if his arms are pinned, on the basis that he hasn’t made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball legally.

 

During the 2010 pres-season, an experimental rule penalising a player holding the ball to an opponent’s body was trialled. It’s a matter of enduring frustration that this situation occurs more and more often during home and away games in the season proper.

 

Worst though, in our opinion, is the scenario where an umpire pays a free kick for holding the ball where he can’t see the ball. We regularly see on television replays that the ball has been released as part of the tackle and is simply located near the players. A blindsided umpire should not be paying free kicks. The umpire must be able to see the ball to be able to judge whether it is being held or not. Otherwise, they are guessing.

 

The current interpretation of holding the ball denies the player attempting to make the ball their objective natural justice. It also penalises the player receiving the ball through no fault of their own.

 

By all means penalise the player who drags the ball in under himself with the clear objective of holding play up. By all means penalise the player who has had three seconds prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is tackled legally and successfully. For the rest, providing the umpire can see the ball, let common sense and a judgement of intent rule the umpire’s assessment.

 

Zero tolerance may be a fashionable societal attitude in some societies and in some circumstances, but in Aussie rules it works against the spirit of a fair go for the player making the ball his objective.

 

And the first step in claiming back common sense as a modus operandi for our game’s adjudicators? Release the Giesch!