What is the new AFL holding the ball interpretation and what does it mean for the game?

Fintan Daly

A free kick for ‘holding the ball’ (HTB) is paid when the player in possession of the football is deemed to meet one of four specific clauses. The wording of these variations in the laws is as follows:

• 18.6.2 Holding the ball: Prior Opportunity – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
• 18.6.3 Holding the ball: Incorrect Disposal – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
• 18.6.4 Holding the ball: No Genuine Attempt – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
• 18.6.5 Holding the ball: Diving on Top of the Football – A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

So, what was changed? While the four clauses above haven’t been adjusted, the way they are interpreted by the umpires has. The new interpretation essentially means that players would be given less time to release the ball, and the whistle would be blown earlier for either ball-ups or HTB free kicks.

We saw some examples of the new interpretation across Round 13. The most controversial one came in the last quarter of the West Coast vs North Melbourne game. The Eagles were leading by 2, 32 minutes into the final quarter. Then Elliot Yeo was penalised for holding the ball 50 metres from North’s goal after supposedly dragging the footy back in after being tackled the first time. This resulted in a Jy Simpkin goal, and, ultimately, losing the game to give the Kangaroos their first win of season 2024.

The new interpretation was also on show in the King’s Birthday match between Collingwood and Melbourne. Across the game, players were penalised almost instantly if they didn’t legally dispose of the football. Victims included Trent Rivers and Bailey Fritsch of Melbourne and Pat Lipinski of Collingwood.

The controversy has seen debates rage across social media, with people on both sides of the argument. Some believe it has changed footy for the better, but other view it as inimical to the health of the game. So, where do I stand?

Well, I see it as a failure. Players are now tentative, scared even, to pick up ground balls because they know they can get penalised almost instantly, and if they lay their hands on that footy, their fate is at the discretion of the closest umpire. This is detrimental to the flow of matches, because, of late, the ball is being held up and play isn’t moving fast up and down the field, creating a less exciting viewer experience. Despite this, it does have some positives, like the fact that players are now incentivized to get rid of the ball faster, leading to quicker, more exciting gameplay.

The interpretation has divided AFL fans, and I’m not sure it’s for the better.