AFL 2021: Damien Hardwick says prior opportunity should be removed from holding the ball adjudications

Richmond coach Damien Hardwick says removing prior opportunity from holding the ball adjudications would improve the rule dramatically.

The Saints tackled like mad men, but were rarely rewarded. Picture: AFL Photos/Getty Images

Richmond coach Damien Hardwick wants the AFL to scrap prior opportunity to help umpires and remove confusion as debate continues around the holding-the-ball rule.

St Kilda coach Brett Ratten was the first to react after an average of just five holding the ball decisions were made across all matches last weekend.

The Saints received just three free kicks from 86 tackles against Geelong last Friday night.

On Tuesday, Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge said simplification was needed to “give the umpires a chance”.

“Let’s just get back to prior opportunity and incorrect disposal, give the umpires a chance,” Beveridge said.

Watch the 2021 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. Every match of every round Live on Kayo. New to Kayo? Try 14-Days Free Now >

AFL NAB LEAGUE 2021: HOW YOU CAN LIVE STREAM MATCHES

“The game has never been quicker, so sometimes it’s hard to work out if a player has had prior opportunity, pick it up, there’s a split second, get tackled, then if they deem it no prior they have been disposed before their prior then it’s play on.

“It’s a fine line. But just keep it simple for them and it will give them every chance.”

Hardwick went a step further on Wednesday and said players would adapt if prior opportunity was removed altogether and players just had to get rid of the ball when tackled.

“Prior opportunity just makes the umpires’ job harder,” he said on Wednesday.

Damien Hardwick says it’s time to remove prior opportunity from holding the ball adjudications.

“Put the pressure on the players, the players adjust really quickly.

“We’ve seen how quickly they’ve adjusted to the man on the mark rule.”

Hardwick, a three-time premiership winning coach, said players would develop ways to keep the ball alive, which is what the AFL is after.

“If we put the rule in place that the players have to get rid of it, they’ll start tapping it, they’ll start kicking,” he said.

“The amount of handballs we see now if we go back in the course of time and look at history, the players used to kick it, now under pressure they will handball.

“If we take away prior opportunity, it probably reduces congestion around that.

“Back in the old days you knew you were going to get tackle and knock it on

“You tap the ball to your advantage, you kick it off the ground, or you kick it long.

“The really smart players will become smarter.”

‘RATTS WAS RIGHT’ ON UMPIRES: GOODWIN

– Jon Ralph and Jay Clark

The AFL did not instruct its umpires to pay a different holding-the-ball interpretation in Round 9, despite wildly divergent free kick tallies paid across the weekend games.

The league is extremely happy with the standard of umpiring across the season as officials have quickly become accustomed to executing the new man-on-the-mark rule.

But a number of missed calls for holding the ball and incorrect disposal occurred in the first half of the St Kilda-Geelong contest.

The league took no action on Brett Ratten’s query over why so few of those tackles were rewarded.

Ratten said only three of his team’s 87 tackles were rewarded.

The Saints tackled like mad men, but were rarely rewarded. Picture: AFL Photos/Getty Images

In the St Kilda-Geelong contest only five of 149 total tackles were rewarded with a free kick.

In the Carlton-Melbourne contest 21 of the 152 total tackles were rewarded with a free kick.

There was no umpiring directive either midweek at training or during the weekend to assess holding-the-ball free kicks differently.

Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin said he understood Ratten’s frustrations.

“I watched Friday night’s game and ‘Ratts’ was right,” Goodwin said on Fox Footy.

“Our game was umpired in a way where the tackler was rewarded.”

Umpires were keen to keep the ball moving at the weekend. Picture: Michael Klein

There is no set formula for the amount of free kicks that should be paid per game.

Put simply, Friday’s umpires had a bad night that put the umpires under the spotlight all weekend.

But Ratten’s frustration was echoed across the weekend as a number of players including Fremantle’s Nat Fyfe were allowed to spin in a full 360 degrees tackle without being penalised.

Ratten said too many players were allowed to incorrectly dispose of the ball.

“To think you have 85 (sic) tackles — I thought we out-tackled them — and you get three free kicks for the day from 85. I don’t know if it’s worth tackling. Just set up behind the ball and flood back,” he said.

“I didn’t think we got the reward for our effort around the tackling component of the game, that was slightly disappointing. But the players’ effort and what they did was very good, we just didn’t do what we wanted to do and that was put it in the sticks.”

There were only four holding-the-ball decisions in the Essendon-Fremantle game.

Goodwin strongly backed the way the Demons’ game on Sunday was umpired when the whistleblowers were more strict, paying 21 holding the ball free kicks for the clash against Carlton.

“It was pretty evident early in the game that there was a slightly different interpretation of holding the ball (compared to Friday night) and we spoke to our players about it on the bench and the ability to get the full reward for your tackle,” Goodwin said on Fox Footy.

“But I felt they umpired it in the way it should be umpired.

“There were lots of prior opportunities where players who were held with the ball had opportunities to get rid of it and didn’t and got pinged with the perfect tackle.

“So I thought the way our game was umpired was the way footy should be umpired.”

Daniel Rioli of the Tigers fends off a tackle by Matt Buntine of the Giants.

Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley said the holding the ball rule and the prior opportunity component could be more straightforward for clubs and fans.

“If the rule was a little clearer for everyone and it was simpler I think we would get a better outcome,” Hinkley said.

“I’m not against the holding the ball rule being umpired a little bit more than it has been currently.”