Holding the ball

The rule results in a free kick being awarded against a player who fails to correctly dispose of the football upon being tackled by an opponent, although not under all circumstances.

[3] The umpire signals holding the ball by leaning forward and sweeping both arms below his body and out to his sides.

Perhaps in no sport is there a rule which has given rise to more discussion, or caused more difficulty in its interpretation than this law of the Australian game.

Most football supporters endorse the view that the holding-the-ball-holding-the-man rule is the most contentious in the law book governing the national code.

[4][10] Applying the rule more strictly leads to a scenario which discourages players from trying to win the contested ball, as they find that it is more profitable to wait for an opponent to win the ball, then earn a free kick by tackling them; such a practice is considered to be against the spirit of the game as a contest.

[11] Changes to the rule throughout history have generally been brought about by moving undesirably close to one of these extremes, but many observers have differing opinions on which is the less desirable outcome and what the optimum interpretation would be.

In general, the tackler needed to do little more than grip an opponent by the guernsey with one hand, not necessarily even retarding his progress, to earn a free kick.

The full body tackle which would be seen in modern playing style was not necessary, and was very uncommonly seen because executing one would almost always result in conceding a holding the man free kick – that rule was also applied very stringently at the time, so a full body tackle would almost always linger for some time after the player had dropped the ball, and therefore would always be penalised.

[15][16] One of the early difficulties encountered by the Australasian Football Council, which owned and administered the laws of the game from 1906 onwards, was in establishing a consistent interpretation the holding the ball rule between the different states.

This practice, known in those times as "malingering", was and still is considered undesirable, as it was believed that a rule which discouraged players from winning contested ball was against the spirit of the game.

Without the ability to execute a drop or a VFA-style throw, players were forced to rely on the more cumbersome disposal methods of a kick or a handpass; because umpires had conventionally called holding the ball penalties almost immediately when a player was tackled, it was very difficult (and sometimes impossible, depending upon the quickness of the presiding umpire) to execute either of these skills before conceding a free kick, and those who did manage to dispose of the ball often committed turnovers in doing so.

[35] To rectify the problems, a more liberal interpretation of the rule was gradually adopted by the state leagues during the mid-1940s, then was formally codified into the Laws nationally in 1948.

The new rules eliminated the requirement for the player to dispose of the ball "immediately", and replaced it with the stipulation "umpires must give the player who is in possession of the ball a reasonable chance of disposing of it before free kicking him,"[36] first introducing the concept of a 'reasonable chance/time' which remains enshrined in the modern laws.

Richmond footballer Kevin Bartlett was particularly well known for using these tactics to avoid being penalised for holding the ball, and the rule changes are generally associated with his play.

[39] This later became the modern 'prior opportunity' rule in 1996,[40] and it was the first time that different holding the ball interpretations had been applied on the basis of what had taken place before the tackle was laid.

A rule under which a ruckman was considered to have assumed prior opportunity immediately upon catching the ball on the full in a ruck contest was added to the Laws of the Game in 2003, then removed in 2019.