BALL! How it started; how it's going?
It would be fair to say, the holding-the-ball rule - the theme of the past week, if not the season - began as a simple demand on players and umpires and has become the most subjective concept in Australian football.
How did it start?
When the Port Adelaide Football Club in April 1877 went to the Prince Alfred Hotel - then adjacent to the Town Hall in Adelaide's city centre - to be a founding signatory to the first league of Australian football (the South Australian Football Association), the laws of the fast-growing game were the "Victorian Rules".
In 1876, rule 7 read: "The ball may be taken in hand at any time, but not carried further than is necessary for a kick and no player shall run with the ball unless he strikes it against the ground in every five or six yards. In the event of a player with the ball in hand trying to pass an adversary and being held to him, he shall at once drop the ball, which shall not be again taken in hand by any player till after it has been kicked."
Such a rule is simple to umpire. It is clear cut - player is tackled, he must release the ball ... immediately!
But it is a rule that favours the tackler, punishing the player who seeks to win the ball. The smart players also knew when to drop the ball to win the holding-the-man free kick.
So in 1930, four days after the new season had already begun with Port Adelaide hosting Sturt at Alberton Oval, the holding-the-ball rule was redefined by the SANFL on April 30 (the 57th anniversary of the league's foundation meeting).
The interpretation became: " ... the player who is in possession of the ball must at once kick or hit the ball when held by an opponent. If he fails to kick or hit the ball, a free kick shall be awarded against him. Hitting means proper handball."
A tackle was defined as "a player is held firmly enough to stop him or to retard his progress."
And the SANFL umpire and permit committee loaded up the subjective clauses in an interpretation that has tested everyone in Australian football for a century now.
From the demand of the 1870s that the ball be "at once" dropped on being tackled, the umpires were told to "give the player who is in possession of the ball a reasonable opportunity of disposing of the ball before giving a free kick against him".
The critical note delivered by the SANFL rule guardians was: "The spirit of the law is that the player who has the ability and the determination to go in and get the ball should be given the advantage."
The observers of the day noted the tackler "has to do something more than simply touch the man with the ball to get a free kick". And the ball player "should be given a reasonable chance" of disposing of the Sherrin.
They argued "if he can break free from the first grasp, let him go. If he cannot break free, and he fails to kick or (handball), give a free kick against him".
There was this interesting point made by one critic in the Press ranks: "If a player holds on to the ball so long that he is thrown off his balance and then, when kicking, he misses the ball, he deserves a free kick against him. He took the risk."
How is it all going a century later?
The interpretation of the holding-the-ball rule has become loaded with subjective themes of "prior opportunity", "reasonable time" and "genuine attempt". As former Port Adelaide captain Travis Boak said last week: "In the 18 years I've been in the league, this is probably the most confused I've been with the rule ... if you asked me the question 'What is holding the ball?' I don't think I could answer it clearly right now."
Within hours, the AFL acted to ease the confusion carried by Boak and the concern expressed by coaches noting the "reasonable time" afforded to the ball holder was creating a risk with tackles that were taking players to ground. The consequence of these ground-hitting tackles was reports and suspensions against the tacklers - and head injuries to the ball holder.
Remarkably, the AFL put blame on the players saying: "We are seeing players hold onto the ball slightly longer and challenging the definition of 'reasonable time'."
Of course, if the umpires were blowing their whistles earlier there would be no temptation to ride the tackle to ground ... and play for a "dangerous tackle" free kick, sometimes by eagerly dropping the head into the ground.
And so it was ordered of the umpires on Thursday night at Adelaide Oval with the Port Adelaide-Carlton game when "reasonable time" was shaved.
The instant reaction of the players was to seek to dispose of the ball quicker when tackled. And Port Adelaide premiership player Nathan Buckley noted: "Who would have thought that forcing the ball carrier to make quicker decisions would result in a more up tempo, open game of footy? Great adjustment."
But there are still players who remain confused ... and no four umpires in any match can ever have identical understanding of "prior opportunity", "reasonable time" and "genuine attempt", the key elements of the holding-the-ball rule.
Buckley has long argued to remove "prior opportunity" - a theme that would take the game back to the 1870s allowing players today to sweat off the ball winners, hoping their tackle wins a holding-the-ball free kick. Of course, if the ball winner is a Buckley-type player, he gets the ball away cleanly and is rewarded for his enterprise in winning the Sherrin in the first place.
"Reasonable time" is never clearly defined ... and never understood in the same way by two people, let alone four umpires.
"Genuine attempt" is no less subjective.
In the century since that famous meeting at SANFL House, the tackling has increased in numbers and quality and the calls of "BALL!" from the terraces has risen just as much by volume and frustration with a rule - and more so an interpretation of the rule - that is loaded with grey themes of subjectivity.
For now, we know it is best to dispose of the ball as soon as the shadow of a tackler falls onto the Sherrin. But it can never be clear cut while "reasonable time" has no precise definition.
