AFL Brings in 'Betts Rule'

[quotemokc]

AFL brings in 'Betts rule' on balls hitting umpires

THE AFL has changed the rule on balls hitting goal umpires after a controversial incident involving Eddie Betts during the NAB Challenge.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/afl-introduces-betts-rule

Bound to happen, good thing they managed to get it done before the start of the season.

 

[mike123]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

 

[NM_Mitchell]

i thought this'd have something to do with shorts needing to be the right size...

 

[catters05]

The common sense rule.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

He's out of control.

 

[master bate]

The common sense rule.

Common sense isn't all that common.

The ball is oval shaped and pointy. The surface unpredictable. Wind and weather play a part in where a ball will go.

For every time an umpire impedes a clear goal (such as Betts) there might be an occasion when the umpire impedes a shot that is inconclusive and could easily be a point or goal. Instead of play on and let the universe sort it out we now have the situation where a score review will be called for (don't think the field umpires will sort this without going upstairs) and the decision will be left in the hands of a very human, very unpredictable, somewhat unaccountable AFL review official.

Anything within a metre from each post or bouncing at any stage almost by definition has to be called a point. And there might even be a circumstance where a ball was due to spin blindly backwards or sideways and not score at all (think the Monfries leg break or Milne grand final bounce).

This rule doesn't automatically fix anything.

 

[Juggs Magnetic]

This is the only sport I can think of where this is a problem as it's the only sport where the umpire actually stands in the goal area. As long as the goal umpire is behind the line at all times, which he/she should be, then it should never really be a problem.

In the case of Eddie Betts, it looked like the umpire was behind the line. So the ball crossed the line, hit the umpire, bounced back in and they called that play on? Then felt it necessary to actually revise the rule to avoid some sort of confusion here?

There never really any reason for the umpire to come into the field of play. I guess they often 'straddle' the line to try and see if the ball is touched but surely they can still do this from behind the line?

 

[cammo78]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

A wagering company...

 

[DaVillaBlues]

I believe Richmond lost a close game at Subi a few years ago when a ball a Tigers player kicked went through the goals but hit the numpty umpire who didn't have the awareness to move out of the way and it was deemed a behind .. That was just crap and unprofessional in every sense ..

 

[Kram]

I believe Richmond lost a close game at Subi a few years ago when a ball a Tigers player kicked went through the goals but hit the numpty umpire who didn't have the awareness to move out of the way and it was deemed a behind .. That was just crap and unprofessional in every sense ..

This is a situation where it would still cause controversy as there is a grey area, that ball at Subi might have went through for a goal if it didn't hit him but there was absolutely no way you could tell for sure.

 

[Bosun]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

His own brand of shorts.

 

[catters05]

Common sense isn't all that common.

The ball is oval shaped and pointy. The surface unpredictable. Wind and weather play a part in where a ball will go.

For every time an umpire impedes a clear goal (such as Betts) there might be an occasion when the umpire impedes a shot that is inconclusive and could easily be a point or goal. Instead of play on and let the universe sort it out we now have the situation where a score review will be called for (don't think the field umpires will sort this without going upstairs) and the decision will be left in the hands of a very human, very unpredictable, somewhat unaccountable AFL review official.

Anything within a metre from each post or bouncing at any stage almost by definition has to be called a point. And there might even be a circumstance where a ball was due to spin blindly backwards or sideways and not score at all (think the Monfries leg break or Milne grand final bounce).

This rule doesn't automatically fix anything.

Common sense is that it will not automatically be dismissed as in the past.

 

[ibd77]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

Only because some Crows flogs claimed it.
It's probably one of the most easiest pockets to score from even if your out of bounds.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Only because some Crows flogs claimed it.
It's probably one of the most easiest pockets to score from even if your out of bounds.

I will meet you their tomorrow give you 5k if you can slot one?

 

[ibd77]

I will meet you their tomorrow give you 5k if you can slot one?

Accuracy not a problem.
Distance however Hmmm......

 

[Xtreme]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

Brownlow medal to be renamed the Betts medal ?

or a new Betts medal established to the person or person's who do not place a bet on their own OR any other team during the course of the year.

 

[Back One Out]

AFL brings in 'Betts rule' on balls hitting umpires

THE AFL has changed the rule on balls hitting goal umpires after a controversial incident involving Eddie Betts during the NAB Challenge.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/afl-introduces-betts-rule

Bound to happen, good thing they managed to get it done before the start of the season.

So what's the new rule? Do I have to open the link?

Why couldn't you include the most important bit of information in your post?

Here mate. This is how you do it:

umpires to decide what score would have resulted if the ball had not hit the umpire.

If they are unable to decide, and any video evidence is inconclusive, the lesser score will result.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Of corse, if the umpire straddles the post, and the ball grazes him/her, it'll be judged a behind, despite conclusive evidence the ball would have missed the post (unless there's cyclonic winds)

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Betts has a pocket named after him and now a rule, what next?

A racing magazine, "Best Betts".

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

What football has been badly in need of for many years is a "common sense" rule. Only a pickled brained idiot would have trouble understanding that was a goal.

 

[mic59]

I would have thought that eventuality shouldn't happen too often. I don't even see why the umpire in the NAB challenge didn't realise that was a goal as he was forced back behind the goal line by the kick. What should be a "Betts" rule is a score review to see whether he actually kicked the ball from inside the field of play. I wouldn't be aware of other teams but there have been two occasions against Port where he may have kicked a goal where the ball went out and he dragged it back in, once when he was playing for Adelaide and once for Carlton.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Just stand behind the line you dickheads

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Just stand behind the line you dickheads

You would think with all the technology available in today's sport, the goal umpire should be obsolete.

 

[Garf]

Stuff this going upstairs to contrive some alleged outcome !

Just have the offending goal umpire take the shot on goal from where the original obstructed kick was taken from.

Simple !

 

[Rob]

What football has been badly in need of for many years is a "common sense" rule. Only a pickled brained idiot would have trouble understanding that was a goal.

Sadly the AFL employs only pickle brained idiots as TV umpires, as we've seen on plenty of occasions. Never mind some of the mouth breathers they've had manning the interchanges.