How much time are players allowed to take when having a set shot at goal?

[Always Ballin]

Is there a rule or clear guideline about this? I've always wondered. Don't take this thread the wrong way, I doubt the Eagles would have scored with 20 seconds left on the clock. Just wondering what the rulebook says on time allotted for a set shot?

 

[master bate]

30 seconds to start your run up. But it's done by the umpires not by a shot clock.

And it doesn't include the run up, ball in flight and til the goal umpire signals. So all up a shot on goal could take more like 50 seconds.

 

[Always Ballin]

Also what distinguishes stopping the clock and keeping it going? Is it just when the ball goes out of bounds?

 

[Doggstats]

Can someone ban this troll already.

 

[Always Ballin]

30 seconds to start your run up. But it's done by the umpires not by a shot clock.

And it doesn't include the run up, ball in flight and til the goal umpire signals. So all up a shot on goal could take more like 50 seconds.

Do we feel that it might be a bit excessive? Stopping the clock for 4th quarter set shots may produce a higher scoring product that the AFL has been eyeing for.

 

[Looney]

There's nothing stopping a player from pretending to take a shot, use up the full shot clock, and then short pass it to a team mate, and then start the process all over again.

 

[Choomah]

Suns got robbed

 

[Masto]

Can someone ban this troll already.

Its a legitimate question but perhaps it could be moved to the Umpiring and Rules board.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I thought he'd take it quickly and hope for a quick centre break and possible win. But a draw was the least the Gold Coast deserved. Their pressure was great

 

[Always Ballin]

There's nothing stopping a player from pretending to take a shot, use up the full shot clock, and then short pass it to a team mate, and then start the process all over again.

This is a bit of a loophole error in the rules. I don't deny it however, all teams have benefited and not benefited from this at one point in time or another.

 

[master bate]

Do we feel that it might be a bit excessive? Stopping the clock for 4th quarter set shots may produce a higher scoring product that the AFL has been eyeing for.

No. All that will do is make the game go longer. Plus why stop it in the last quarter if you don't do it all night?

The umps usually sound a warning at about the 15 second mark and most players walk in after that.

If the ball gets kicked away, a player takes time to gather themselves after a big hit or to do their shoe laces up the umpire should call time on.

 

[Always Ballin]

Its a legitimate question but perhaps it could be moved to the Umpiring and Rules board.

My mistake. You are right, this should have been posted there.

 

[Ochre]

There's nothing stopping a player from pretending to take a shot, use up the full shot clock, and then short pass it to a team mate, and then start the process all over again.

The opposition manning up?

 

[Balony_pony16]

There's nothing stopping a player from pretending to take a shot, use up the full shot clock, and then short pass it to a team mate, and then start the process all over again.

perhaps they need to tighten up on it, by making players have a shot when they have indicated they are going too?

 

[calaisking]

I thought he'd take it quickly and hope for a quick centre break and possible win. But a draw was the least the Gold Coast deserved. Their pressure was great

Lynch said after the game that he thought they were down by 5 and that goal got them the game. Probably why he took his time

 

[master bate]

perhaps they need to tighten up on it, by making players have a shot when they have indicated they are going too?

Don't think so. As long as you're within 60 I think you're entitled to take your time and then if you get an option close to goal then good luck to you.

It's not going to be a popular or practical time wasting tool really.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Lynch said after the game that he thought they were down by 5 and that goal got them the game. Probably why he took his time

That makes a lot of sense. Pity he didn't know

 

[kingswood71]

30 seconds, 40 seconds....try counting to 30 seconds and get someone to actually time 30 seconds and I can almost guarantee you will not be smack on 30 seconds....the umpires are merely guessing 1,1000, 2, 1000, 3, 10000 !!

 

[Balony_pony16]

Don't think so. As long as you're within 60 I think you're entitled to take your time and then if you get an option close to goal then good luck to you.

It's not going to be a popular or practical time wasting tool really.

Yeah I have watched some tight games late and often thought why a player on the wing doesnt indicate they are going for goal Malcolm blight style and get the extra time to waste. Would be pretty funny, but imagine the shiit storm lol

 

[Ron]

I think it should be 30 seconds to have disposed of the ball. As it is the process drags on far too long sometimes.

 

[MadMac]

Ask Matty Lloyd

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

I thought he'd take it quickly and hope for a quick centre break and possible win. But a draw was the least the Gold Coast deserved. Their pressure was great

Taking it quickly was never a consideration for Tom.
He might be a good footballer, but he is a s**t mathematician and thought they were 5 down and thus he had put them in front.

DOH!!

 

[Nutsngum]

Don't think so. As long as you're within 60 I think you're entitled to take your time and then if you get an option close to goal then good luck to you.

It's not going to be a popular or practical time wasting tool really.

Hell some players could probably torp it from the centre square these days so its not like you can really even limit it to 60metres. If its down to a goal difference on the siren you might as well put that *er on the boot from wherever you marked it.