Protected Area nonsense

Remove this Banner Ad

The Swert

The Swert

Premiership Player
May 3, 2009
3,508
4,707
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Why do the AFL change the interpretation on umpire contract in the middle of the season yet they can't change the Ridiculous, Arbitrary, Over officiated, Harsh, Gamechanging bullshit rule that is the 'Protected Area' rule?

It was never an issue for 100 years. Now it's confusing players, destroying momentum and wrecking games.

The AFL is meant to be a sport about skill and athleticism. Not about getting too close to somebody during a period when the game is paused.

Why aren't commentators talking about it more? Where are the articles from Robbo, Carro, Sam Newman?

It's a blight. Has been all year, every game. Change the rule!
 
Last edited:
The protected area rule is fine. It's a good rule and should stay. Just because it was policed badly tonight doesn't mean it should go. The real question which needs to be asked is why hasn't it been policed for the past at least 6 weeks.
 
It just needs to be umpired with common sense. Tonight the interpretation was literally changing from contest to contest. You can't blame players and fans for being confused and frustrated. It's quite simple: if a player beelines the marker before he's played on or directly gets in his space, pay the 50. If someone is jogging past but clearly making no effort to impact the kick, play on. I don't know why it's so hard for the umpires but they've made a mess of it, sometimes paying it ultra-technically and others all-but-ignoring it. In the same game tonight we had guys get pinged purely for being in the same spot as the marking player (against Hanneberry, I think?) while others were given warnings to clear the space (Franklin). You can't have such widely varying officiating of a rule in the same match - it's amateurish and stupid.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

IKnowtheDog said:
The protected area rule is fine. It's a good rule and should stay. Just because it was policed badly tonight doesn't mean it should go. The real question which needs to be asked is why hasn't it been policed for the past at least 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the rule is applied inconsistently like most other rules these days, blatant breaches of the rule can go ignored while minor breaches or even non-breaches can get pinged and with the penalty being a 50m penalty rather than just a free kick it can have way too much of an effect on a game.
 
this rule is s**t and doesnt make sense
-player needs a 10m protected zone around them is stupid. its auskick stuff
-the player takes half a step sideways and its play on.

wtf is the point of that rule. i cant stand these auskick rules at the highest level of this sport
 
IKnowtheDog said:
The protected area rule is fine. It's a good rule and should stay. Just because it was policed badly tonight doesn't mean it should go. The real question which needs to be asked is why hasn't it been policed for the past at least 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

This is not a reactionary thread. This has been an issue every week this year, not just tonight.

3 points.

What was this rule brought in for? Was the game rampant with players being caught from behind after playing on? I don't remember any great discussion or complaints about the previous rule. Can't players check their own surroundings before playing on?

Why can't umpires just tell a player who is encroaching to move away? A verbal warning should be enough to enforce clear play. We don't need such a harsh penalty.

If there is a player encroaching, why can't the umpire just blow his whistle to pause play until the player moves away? If this becomes a time wasting ploy, then you can penalise the time wasting like they do when players take too long to give the ball back etc. No need for 50m penalties and free shots at goal when we already have lots of low scoring matches.
 
Last edited:
The Swert said:
This is not a reactionary thread. This has been an issue every week this year, not just tonight.

3 points.

What was this rule brought in for? Was the game rampant with players being caught from behind after playing on? I don't remember any great discussion or complaints about the previous rule. Can't players check their own surroundings before playing on?

Why can't umpires just tell a player who is encroaching to move away? A verbal warning should be enough to enforce clear play. We don't need such a harsh penalty.

If there is a player encroaching, why can't the umpire just blow his whistle to pause play until the player moves away? If this becomes a time wasting ploy, then you can penalise the time wasting like they do when players take too long to give the ball back etc. No need for 50m penalties and free shots at goal when we already have lots of low scoring matches.
Click to expand...

The rule was brought in so that players had more space to play on after taking a mark, to try and open up the game a bit and speed up play. When it was first brought in a lot of people loved it because teams like the Dogs played on at all costs etc, Richmond did a similar style last year.

This year coaches getting so many numbers back it makes playing on almost pointless half the time.

The argument that "oh that player wasn't even impacting the play" is rubbish, because if the player goes off his line and the umpire says play on, the player in the protected area could tackle or smother for example.

I remember a piece of play last year, I forget who it was against, GWS maybe, where Eddie Betts was standing inside the protected area, the umpire said play on and he tackled the player instantly and got holding the ball - probably should have been 50m, but if you introduce gray areas thats the stuff that happens.

Edit:
Saw one of these paid last week too, if the closest player is simply going to the mark, it cannot be 50m.

 
Speed up play? Because Hawthorn and Geelong never found ways to do that before the rule came in? Nah that's just AFL rhetoric.

Leave it up to the players to look around them before taking risks.
 
I think there were 3 last night and 2 were correct. The one in Tex's video above is exactly why the rule was brought in. Players coming in from behind to take the mark blocking the quick play on. It had become rampant. Great decision umpire. The Hanneberry one was also correct. He had lost his player and just ran around behind the player with the ball to make up ground, way outside of 5m from his man. Under 10 mistake, correct by umpire. I think it was Kelly in the other one. Genuine umpire clanger.
But if you want clangers, Geelongs 23 behinds. I'd say at least 10 of these were soda's. Not a bagging of Geelong but I think their fans would agree, it could have cost them.
 
Players can't man the mark now?

What happens if somebody like Josh Jenkins is loose in the goal square and takes a mark? No defender can come back and man the mark without passing through the zone. If you're not goal side, what are you meant to do?

That video above is exactly what's wrong with the rule.
 
The Swert said:
Players can't man the mark now?

What happens if somebody like Josh Jenkins is loose in the goal square and takes a mark? No defender can come back and man the mark without passing through the zone. If you're not goal side, what are you meant to do?

That video above is exactly what's wrong with the rule.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious when you put it that way.
 
The Swert said:
Players can't man the mark now?

What happens if somebody like Josh Jenkins is loose in the goal square and takes a mark? No defender can come back and man the mark without passing through the zone. If you're not goal side, what are you meant to do?

That video above is exactly what's wrong with the rule.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't happen. Josh Jenkins is never free out the back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The one last night where a Swans player ran around the back to follow their man was ridiculous. That should never be paid unless they interfere with the player who has the ball.
 
The rule is needed, otherwise it will be even harder to make attacking plays.

A player already there should not be penalised though, provided they move away in reasonable time; or, provided they don't block or touch the ball of they are injured and can't move away.

Like the example in the video, it's the player coming from behind to take the mark that is the problem. Technically, they are doing a similar thing to a guy already on the mark who comes a metre forward. They are unfairly cutting off options for the kicker.

Teams want the guy from behind to take the mark so that the other player can quickly flood back. Well bad luck, you should have had someone there already if you wanted them.
 
The Swert said:
Players can't man the mark now?

What happens if somebody like Josh Jenkins is loose in the goal square and takes a mark? No defender can come back and man the mark without passing through the zone. If you're not goal side, what are you meant to do?
Click to expand...

That's a good example of where the rule isn't really needed. Stopping a player going inside didn't really apply there as they don't want to do it.

So the rule no doubt needs refining. Likewise when you are 5m from the boundary on the wing, and someone runs past boundary side of you. That shouldn't be a 50 as it's not stopping the player from exercising a realistic option.

I hate to have another rule that requires interpretation, but perhaps without particularly specific guidelines, this rule needs it.
 
Perhaps something like in rugby where when the player plays on quickly, any opposition still trying to get out of the protected area must continue or be penalized with the 50.
The calls against a player trying to leave the area as quick as possible but not going outwards seem nonsensical. A few I thought had the umps calling the 50 against a player who was actually taking the shortest, most direct route out of the zone, and ironically the direction most away from the marking player. Do the umps have trig tables in their minds computing which angle gets the player out soonest? Clearly quite a few of the calls this year had large impacts on games. Nothing speeds up a game like a 50 meter penalty.
 
IKnowtheDog said:
The protected area rule is fine. It's a good rule and should stay. Just because it was policed badly tonight doesn't mean it should go. The real question which needs to be asked is why hasn't it been policed for the past at least 6 weeks.
Click to expand...
How should the rule be used?

If a player enters the protected area, 1. They must not infringe on the player kicking the ball, either by infringing on the kick, or by sneaking up for a surprize tackle. Players should endeavor to leave the protected area, but if they do enter it, the player with the ball could strategically run into the player infringing on the zone and claim the 50m.

IF the player gets in the way, or tries to play a part in the play, its 50m. EASY AS *!!!

This is the most sensible approach to this farcical issue. The Tim Kelly one was wrong because he was clearly leaving the area. I saw at least THREE instances ignored in the Richmond Crows game.
 
Do we want this rule ajudecated on correctly or consistently?

It seemed the AFL literally changes their stance on the rule overnight, no doubt in response to backlash from the Sydney game.

There were probably 4-5 obvious ones not paid in the Adelaide Richmond game. Martin coming into the protected area and tangling up with Douglas, actually stopped him from playing on which is the purpose of the rule.

Another time a Richmond player is following his Adelaide opponent and just as they get to the person with the ball for whatever reason changes direction and goes the other side of the mark - all year that's 50.

The Richmond player knew he was screwed and started pointing at the closest Adelaide player who was 7-8m away.

The umpiring in this sport is so amateur, let's get full time umps, let's decide on the rules and then judge them the same all year.

None of this rule of the week nonsense.
 
Honestly, get ****ed AFL, that one early on in the second half of the cats dees game (Angus Brayshaw was it?) was complete bullshit.

The rule is a pile of horseshit.
The essence of the idea isn't bad, but if that's a free kick it's just ****ed.
 
Pusswah said:
Honestly, get ****** AFL, that one early on in the second half of the cats dees game (Angus Brayshaw was it?) was complete bullshit.

The rule is a pile of horseshit.
The essence of the idea isn't bad, but if that's a free kick it's just ******.
Click to expand...
It was Harmes. Just ****ed.
 
It's a s**t rule but I don't know how you can argue that one.

He should have ran straight out to the right of screen when Kolo took the mark.

Instead he ran left of screen and hooked back around the back of Kolo.

He was not following a man.

That was the exact reason the rule was brought in. Kolo couldn't have swung left to play on because the Melbourne player was illegally running around the back of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top