-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Incorrect disposal and dropping the ball - Clarko genius
- Thread starter Spirit of Jack
- Start date
Then it's good we play on Sunday. The interpretation should have normalised by then
There's plenty of dumb aspects to the rules.
The deliberate OOB is too open to interpretation. There's plenty of times when a player gets tackled or dragged as he's making contact with the ball. So now the umpire knows the player's intent? Bloody oval shaped ball can bounce in any direction but the player gets penalised? Just pay it when it's bleedin' obvious to everyone.
Why is it that a kick has to go 15m to be a mark, but the ball can travel a half a meter off a blokes shin and it can be out on the full?
I can't see how changing the distance to 20m will improve anything. The maggots will be just as inconsistent in adjudicating that. For me, 15m is fine as long as all of the umpires know what 15m looks like. There have been some howlers.
For me it's all about the lack of consistency in application of the rules. And don't tell me that umpires don't get a certain mindset on some players or teams. We are consistently on the bottom of list for frees. Another example is Toby Green. Yes he's a nob but also a good footballer, and he gets consistently shafted by the maggots (which I'm ok with when he's playing us
)
The deliberate OOB is too open to interpretation. There's plenty of times when a player gets tackled or dragged as he's making contact with the ball. So now the umpire knows the player's intent? Bloody oval shaped ball can bounce in any direction but the player gets penalised? Just pay it when it's bleedin' obvious to everyone.
Why is it that a kick has to go 15m to be a mark, but the ball can travel a half a meter off a blokes shin and it can be out on the full?
I can't see how changing the distance to 20m will improve anything. The maggots will be just as inconsistent in adjudicating that. For me, 15m is fine as long as all of the umpires know what 15m looks like. There have been some howlers.
For me it's all about the lack of consistency in application of the rules. And don't tell me that umpires don't get a certain mindset on some players or teams. We are consistently on the bottom of list for frees. Another example is Toby Green. Yes he's a nob but also a good footballer, and he gets consistently shafted by the maggots (which I'm ok with when he's playing us
)
I think the minimum length kick rule was introduced very early on, possibly even before the VFL, as there was a strategy of tiny kicks to get the ball forward. I read this somewhere or heard it on the Kick to Kick podcast. It is reasonable but only if the umpires stop paying marks for very short kicks - when in doubt, kick is too short.
It used to be 10 metres too, probably 10 yards before that, but the game evolves and short passing became more prevalent and they changed it to 15 metres.
The answer is simple as many have said - leave it at 15 metres and stop paying marks for <15 metre kicks.
DS
It used to be 10 metres too, probably 10 yards before that, but the game evolves and short passing became more prevalent and they changed it to 15 metres.
The answer is simple as many have said - leave it at 15 metres and stop paying marks for <15 metre kicks.
DS
Last weekend there was a passage of play in the Nth v Orks game where the ball was kicked (what to me) looked to be about 15mtrs, play on was called, the very next kick went about 10mtrs & THE SAME UMPIRE paid a mark.
No wonder players & spectators get confused & pee'd off.
Why has it taken to July 2020 before there’s an AFL resolve on this , can only hope it benefits us , I think it will
They were meant to have fixed this not long after 1980 and the rule Bartlett exploited by bouncing just before he was tackled.
How have they let this slip?
DS
There is a really simple solution to this one.
Measure the 15 metres from the man on the mark, not from the kicker. After all, that is the exact spot that the mark was taken, or where the free kick was awarded. Why allow a player to take a mark, run back 10 metres and kick sideways without advancing very far past the mark?
If the kick goes sideways, again, measure how far it advances past the mark, not how far it goes.
If the player opts to kick backwards, then just call play on. They play on from the switch nearly every time anyway.
Oh, and don’t allow a third player to interfere with the man on the mark.
or we could just go back to the 60s and insist that every set kick go over the man on the mark. I’d like to see how the short pass game would work out then!
I don't mind the idea of if it's kicked backwards it's play on no matter if a mark is taken or not.
It's pretty simple, McGraw. When a player is running with the ball, 15m is 30m. When he's kicking it, it's 9. Unless he's in defence, then it's 18.
Too complicated for me, Spook.
Seriously though, your examples are illustrative of the inconsistencies.
If they can't tell with some degree of accuracy whether a kick has gone 15m in open play, how can we expect them to get decisions correct for infringements in packs or heavy traffic?
I can grudgingly accept errors but I hate some of the obvious bias, intentional or not.
This is a furphy. Dermot Brereton actually demolished this by saying the argument taken to its logical conclusion would have two opposing players standing there looking at the ball waiting for each other to grab it. As for the argument its always been the way, just don't buy it. Back in the olden days players had to get rid of the ball straight away when tackled, prior opportunity was implicit. If you see the tackler coming and take him on, no matter how brief the time of that realisation, if you lose you're done, if you win you're away, that's footy, its a contest.. If you don't see him coming, get rid of it legally as soon as you realise you're tackled.
Prior opportunity unnecessarily muddied the waters, and on top of that and also driven by that, is implemented poorly. Umps should be able to see that rapid realisation of the ball carrier that he is about to be tackled, but apparently they cannot. The whole point of the rule is to create a disputed ball, get rid of it instantaneously, not in a few seconds when help arrives, or the ump calls a ball up. The rule is administered in a way that contradicts the intent of the rule. Just pay holding the ball. It shouldn't be that hard.
I don't mind prior opportunity, the ball comes to you and you have less than a second before you are wrapped up in a tackle then it shouldn't be penalised. Also, remember that years ago a tackling player would not hold one of your arms to prevent a disposal, in fact, I reckon you would have been pinged for an illegal tackle if you tried that years ago.
The problem is the implementation. When one player gets pinged for holding the ball after being turned around 90 degrees, while other players are not pinged despite being flung around 720 degrees something is wrong with the adjudication. Surely they show comparison videos to umpires and ask for an explanation?
DS
The problem is the implementation. When one player gets pinged for holding the ball after being turned around 90 degrees, while other players are not pinged despite being flung around 720 degrees something is wrong with the adjudication. Surely they show comparison videos to umpires and ask for an explanation?
DS
Great post. The modern players skill and decision making in close is amazing, often they make that decision to be tackled and get the stoppage. A few decisions against them will see them alter their game pretty quick.
I am of the view that the holding the ball etc interpretation will always be difficult to adjudicate.
Congestion is coach and player fitness determined .
The easy answer is 2 on the interchange.
That way much less running possible and less at the contest.
Tired players open up the game.
Good coaches will plan to manage this and I am certain scoring will be easier and the game less congested.
The only issue will be injuries.
I have no problem with this. ...except with the current HIA situation which may penalise a team if a player is unfairly tackled or in a GF .
I believe we just take that as it comes or consider a sub again.
Congestion is coach and player fitness determined .
The easy answer is 2 on the interchange.
That way much less running possible and less at the contest.
Tired players open up the game.
Good coaches will plan to manage this and I am certain scoring will be easier and the game less congested.
The only issue will be injuries.
I have no problem with this. ...except with the current HIA situation which may penalise a team if a player is unfairly tackled or in a GF .
I believe we just take that as it comes or consider a sub again.
I think everyone knows that the holding the ball/holding the man rule is not easy to adjudicate.
But does that mean we accept the current inconsistencies?
Are these not the best umpires the game can find?
This is the elite level of the sport, we need elite umpires and clearly we don't have them.
DS
But does that mean we accept the current inconsistencies?
Are these not the best umpires the game can find?
This is the elite level of the sport, we need elite umpires and clearly we don't have them.
DS
