Weird AFL rules or interpretations

[Topkent]

Just watching the Cats Eagles game and Danger was paid a downfield free after being dumped a half second after kicking the footy, yet if an eagle had bumped a cats player within 5 metres of Danger it would have been play on?
Just occured to me that rule is ******* weird

 

[eldorado]

My main one...

Supposedly this one keeps the game moving

The guy who wins the ball, when tackled, must make every conceivable attempt to get the ball out. If he doesn't satisfy the umpire, he will be penalised.

However, the tackler (i.e. the guy who didn't win the ball) endeavours to make every effort to ensure the ball does NOT come out. If he successfully stops the ball coming out, he will be rewarded with a free kick.

So do they want to come out or not? If so, don't reward the defending team making every effort to keep the ball locked in.

There needs to be some kind of call of 'tackle' or 'release' by the umpire after which the tackler is not to keep the ball locked in.

It might sound like too radical a change, but at the moment, it's a ridiculous anomaly

 

[SterlingArcher]

I've got no problem with looking after a player who has just disposed of the ball.

 

[Underarm]

My main one...

Supposedly this one keeps the game moving

The guy who wins the ball, when tackled, must make every conceivable attempt to get the ball out. If he doesn't satisfy the umpire, he will be penalised.

However, the tackler (i.e. the guy who didn't win the ball) endeavours to make every effort to ensure the ball does NOT come out. If he successfully stops the ball coming out, he will be rewarded with a free kick.

So do they want to come out or not? If so, don't reward the defending team making every effort to keep the ball locked in.

There needs to be some kind of call of 'tackle' or 'release' by the umpire after which the tackler is not to keep the ball locked in.

It might sound like too radical a change, but at the moment, it's a ridiculous anomaly

How do people who don't know what's going on become Moderators?

The tackler wants the ball to stay in. The person tackled must make an attempt to get the ball out, even if they don't want it to.

If the umpire believes the person with the ball has tried and failed, then a Stalemate is called, and a Ball up is called.

 

[eldorado]

How do people who don't know what's going on become Moderators?

.

Is that necessary? Try arguing the point without the bullshit...

Two teams rewarded and punished for opposite actions.

Why is one team rewarded for 'keeping the ball in' while the other is punished?

The tackle should be one action, to possibly be rewarded, and 'keeping the ball in' a separate action, which should not be. At the very least, no third party from the tackling side should be allowed to attempt to lock it in after a tackle has been made.

 

[Dugdale2Dwyer]

the umps bounce the ball to start the game and throw it up after that.

 

[Godchin]

A few things I hate:

When a player gets tackled after a play-on call and doesn't get penalised because they didn't hear the play-on call. I wonder how many players pretend they didn't hear it because there's nothing up ahead for them?

When the umpire calls play-on quicker due to their being no opposition players around or if the game is close towards the end. A player who marks the ball in the midfield with a man on the mark deserves as much time to kick it as a player in the back pocket all alone. Keep it consistent.

There was a chopping the arms call last week on a touched kick. Since a touched kick cannot be a mark, surely the arm chop rule doesn't apply? I think it was a screw up by the umpire more than a rule quirk.

Being bumped or tackled on top of the ball isn't equivalent to diving on it.

As already mentioned, the 'no attempt at disposing the ball' rule is stupid sometimes. Surely you have to have the ball in your hands to be in possession of it. If the opposition player is holding the ball to your body whilst your hands aren't touching it, then you shouldn't have to dispose of it since it's not your ball to dispose.

If a player gets advantage from a free kick and then fluffs his kick/handpass, then sometimes the umpire will call "no advantage" and bring it back and other times he/she will allow the play to go on. I think it's a bit of a grey area.

 

[Lester Burnham]

My main one...

Supposedly this one keeps the game moving

The guy who wins the ball, when tackled, must make every conceivable attempt to get the ball out. If he doesn't satisfy the umpire, he will be penalised.

However, the tackler (i.e. the guy who didn't win the ball) endeavours to make every effort to ensure the ball does NOT come out. If he successfully stops the ball coming out, he will be rewarded with a free kick.

So do they want to come out or not? If so, don't reward the defending team making every effort to keep the ball locked in.

There needs to be some kind of call of 'tackle' or 'release' by the umpire after which the tackler is not to keep the ball locked in.

It might sound like too radical a change, but at the moment, it's a ridiculous anomaly

Some of the interpretations of this rule are absurd. In the Round 3 Cats v Lions game Mitch Robinson was tackled and the players and ball spilled to the ground. The Geelong tackler held the ball against Robinson's back and won the free kick!

 

[JeffDunne]

The weirdest part of our rules is how the standard or interpretations can differ so wildly week to week.

 

[OhhhhhCyril]

The play on/advantage rule is confusing and annoying. How often to players just stop when the umpire blows the whistle, only for the umpire to call "play on play on"

 

[Gydafud]

You can't use your body to block someones run at a mark, but you can use your body to block someone making a run at the ball on the goal line. So many times I have seen players shepherd, or just drag down their opponent on the goal line to make a goal a certainty.

 

[yyou]

So what happens if a relayed free is paid downfield, but the player who is receiving the kick has whacked an opponent in the head before he knew he was getting the free?
Which free wins out?
I hope I asked the question clearly

 

[AstonSouffle]

You can't use your body to block someones run at a mark, but you can use your body to block someone making a run at the ball on the goal line. So many times I have seen players shepherd, or just drag down their opponent on the goal line to make a goal a certainty.

Personally think the block rule is absurd, particularly because it's impossible to umpire. Yeah the obvious ones get called, but everyone knows the the more subtle blocks are just as efficient and have the same intent(and would be nigh on impossible for umpires to pay with any consistency) I'd prefer they did away with the rule entirely.

You can block a players run to the ball, but you can't block a players run to a mark?

 

[ossie_21]

My main one...

Supposedly this one keeps the game moving

The guy who wins the ball, when tackled, must make every conceivable attempt to get the ball out. If he doesn't satisfy the umpire, he will be penalised.

However, the tackler (i.e. the guy who didn't win the ball) endeavours to make every effort to ensure the ball does NOT come out. If he successfully stops the ball coming out, he will be rewarded with a free kick.

So do they want to come out or not? If so, don't reward the defending team making every effort to keep the ball locked in.

There needs to be some kind of call of 'tackle' or 'release' by the umpire after which the tackler is not to keep the ball locked in.

It might sound like too radical a change, but at the moment, it's a ridiculous anomaly

Being the tackler sometimes you don't want it coming out (if prior opportunity) but sometimes you do want it coming out (illegal disposal). The correct technique is to pin at least one arm entirely which generally means the ball will come out.

 

[russ]

The play on/advantage rule is confusing and annoying. How often to players just stop when the umpire blows the whistle, only for the umpire to call "play on play on"

my main gripe with this game. just call or allow advantage like in union or soccer and call it back if need be.

 

[milhouse1]

my main gripe with this game. just call or allow advantage like in union or soccer and call it back if need be.

Exactly! I hate it especially when the balls spills free and players stop for a free, but then a player swoops onto the ball and runs with it and the ump pays "play on". This must be the only sport in the world where you still have to keep playing beyond an umpire's whistle

 

[feenix67]

A guy can shepherd /block the guy standing on the mark, even though the player with the ball is usually more than 5 meters away. Why bother having someone on the mark at all?

 

[docko911]

That 15m rule that just disappeared. Was getting frustrated v Hawthorn as their kicks go about 10 metres but then the umpire paid a mark to us that went about 5 metres.

It has to be played or it shouldn't exist.

Anything about 12m or less should be not paid a mark leaving the umpire some room for error.

 

[The Swert]

You can run about 30m before needing to bounce the ball. They never implement that rule. If you compare the bounce frequency now to the 70s or 80s there's a big difference.

 

[THRILLHO]

You can run about 30m before needing to bounce the ball. They never implement that rule. If you compare the bounce frequency now to the 70s or 80s there's a big difference.

That's definitely a good interpretation that should lead to a new rule. Do we really want to penalise players trying to break the lines, reduce congestion, and make the game more interesting? I think it was Morris on Friday night who gathered the ball and burst through and maneuvered around about three Hawthorn players over the space of 25 or 30 metres. It was then that I realised the rule is antiquated.

Bounce the ball every 20 metres for mine. Rule would be interpreted as every 25 metres or so and we'd get many more instances of players trying to burst through and take tacklers on.

 

[Stopher]

the umps bounce the ball to start the game and throw it up after that.

Once to start each quarter, using the best bouncer of the ball on the day each time. The idea that this skill can be ranked within a bull's roar of decision making is a joke in today's game.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Anyone want to find 'hands in the back' for us? TEH BIG BOOK OF FOOTIE ROOLZ

 

[Xenthor]

Does a kick of the ground count as a kick?

 

[Sylvia Saint]

There seems to be a clear contradiction between 'no prior opportunity' and 'no genuine attempt' with HTB frees. If the player gets wrapped up immediately and has his arms/the ball pinned to him and thus makes no real effort to get rid of it then which one does it fall under? Seems to differ each week.

 

[Wallaby]

The deliberate out of bounds is completely stupid. If a player has the ball, he should be able to dispose of it however he wants according to the rules. Where the ball winds up should be immaterial. Defenders should be able to use the boundary line. The penalty is, they lose possession and the next contest is 50/50.