One rule, a century of chaos: Why we still can’t define holding the ball

Having two teenage daughters, the sounds of Harry Styles, Olivia Dean and even a little Taylor Swift have too often been coming out of the speakers at home.

Last week, I turned back the clock; a bit of Pearl Jam. When Eddie Vedder belted out my favourite line in Corduroy – “Everything has changed, absolutely nothin’s changed” – my mind went instantly to … the holding the ball rule. Sad, I know.

On May 31, 1927 the following words appeared in the Launceston Examiner in an article about umpiring and, more specifically, holding the ball. The rule was being explained by “well known” Adelaide umpire, Mr JJ Quinn.

“The greatest difference of opinion about the rule is the length of time for which a player may retain possession when held. The reply is that he should give him sufficient time to relinquish possession or to break away from the grasp.”

A century later, the problem remains the same. It’s the prior opportunity part of the rule. So much of football is subjective and grey. This is not. If you took away prior opportunity, you would solve holding the ball. Would the game be the better? I’m not so sure.

Over the years, we’ve more clearly defined the mechanics behind holding the ball. We’ve shortened the allowable time, but the contentious nature of it hasn’t diminished one iota. The rule says in spirit and intention, that “the player who has possession of the football will be provided with an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a legal tackle”.

How can something so clear lead to such mayhem?

While holding the ball has been a talking point since the game started, it does seem to have reached fever pitch over the last 20 years.

There are three reasons for this. First, the coverage of the game, the camera angles and the subsequent analysis has gone through the roof. Second, the rule is very complex and not easily understandable. And third, simply, there are so many more tackles and therefore so many opportunities for controversy.

The great coach Allan Jeans used to say that to win games, you had to have 40 tackles. If teams had 40 tackles today, they’d be bringing their mouthguards to training on Monday night.

I believe that the essence and spirit of our game has always been about the ball player, so I believe in prior opportunity. But let’s explore the case for no prior.

One, the game instantly becomes easier to umpire and much easier to understand. If you take possession, you must kick or handball. Simple.

Two, it’s faster. Players may opt not to not take possession, and tap the ball to keep it alive.

The average number of ball-ups this season is 29.9 per game – down from 35.9. I would suggest this would drop to fewer than five. Picture in your head the number of times a player takes possession and is immediately tackled, and the two players go to ground before the umpire quickly blows their whistle for a ball-up. This would be a free kick if there was no prior opportunity, and the game roars on.

This year, due to the introduction of five players on the bench we have seen some teams playing two genuine rucks.

It is wonderful for our game. No prior opportunity would lead to fewer stoppages, which could lead to a ruck taking the centre bounce and then jogging to the interchange bench.

When I was involved in umpiring at the AFL we had a “famous” holding-the-ball decision. It involved Angus Monfries playing for Port Adelaide and veteran umpire Shane McInerney was the adjudicator.

Monfries gathered the ball in his attacking goal square, took a few steps and was tackled. No free kick was paid, and a teammate subsequently picked up the ball and kicked a goal. There was uproar.

It looked to me as if the ball player had had a “reasonable time” to dispose. He’d had four steps and that was enough in my mind. I was on my own in the umpiring fraternity, but we went out to the public with it being a mistake.

There was a tackle on the weekend where the player with the ball barely had two steps, and the free kick was paid. It shows how far we’ve come in tightening the rule, although the confusion still reigns on a weekly front among players, coaches and fans – Adem Yze was fuming after the Tigers’ loss to the Demons in round seven following multiple non calls for holding the ball.

“I felt like we didn’t get rewarded for a few of them, and then we got punished for others, so you’re going to get the rough end of the stick in certain games, but you just want to get rewarded for pressure,” Yze said.

So which side of the debate do I come down on? Keep prior opportunity.

Supporters have rule change fatigue, but I’ve always felt reducing the numbers on the field from 18 to 16 would help so many aspects of the game, including holding the ball. More space and fewer opposition players to lay tackles. People come to the game to see the stars, not the stars being tackled.

There would also be less theatre. The roar of “BALL!!” ringing around stadiums is a unique and powerful part of our game.

Long may we see the likes of Mr JJ Quinn and “Razor” Ray Chamberlain having to explain holding the ball and the mystery of prior opportunity to us.

If we dropped prior opportunity, maybe Harry Styles would start the explanation with: “You know it’s not the same as it was …”

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.