The new 50 meter penalty requirements are bad.

[Truckosaurus]

Alternatively, in the spirit of the finest traditions of the AFL, they will add another rule that is intended to mitigate the unforeseen consequences of this one rather than just dialing back their initial mistake.

 

[Nutsngum]

I believe teams will cotton on to this and work out so a player further up the ground prepares to take the mark whilst the infringer runs out and past but as it stands the AFL have obviously failed to give a proper indication how it might be used by certain players to gain much more of an advantage.

The old system was absolutely fine mind you. The video of the issues today just looked so awful for the game.

 

[Black Stripe]

With my mind on my money and my money on my mind.

Rollin down the street smokin indo sippin on gin and juice.

 

[Taylor]

There will be a player called playing on when the deviated off the line a bit as the umpire didn't run directly to goal or the umpire didn't measure it correctly and the player running alongside will drill him

 

[Luv_our_club]

The defending player has to guess when 50 meters of distance has elapsed so he can tackle or stand in the way. If you guess wrong you immediately give away another 50 meters. So dumb.

 

[Bobmonkey]

The defending player has to guess when 50 meters of distance has elapsed so he can tackle or stand in the way. If you guess wrong you immediately give away another 50 meters. So dumb.

Pretty much, unless the field is measured like an NFL field I can't fathom how this rule can be implemented effectively.

 

[Topkent]

As it should be. A 50 metre penalty is meant to be a big advantage for the attacking team, much more compared to a standard free kick, and if the attacking team thinks the optimum time to make use of the advantage is 25 metres down the oval, then by all means.

I don't think I've heard ever heard anything more ridicolous than this attempt to justify it.

If a 50m is paid anywhere forward of the back flank it's a free shot on goal

If it's paid in the D50 why would you play on 15m in to kick it sideways when you get a free inside 50? The dumbest rule change in the history of Aussie rules.

It's not a 50m penalty any more then, if the player springs as hard as he can to 45m away past the umpire then what? Does the umpire stop him to guess where 50 is? Or does he continue sprinting while opposition defenders lay out the red carpet an move away from him until he kicks the ball?

I swear I'm ******* done if I see a 50 paid for the protected zone in the back 50 an then another 50 because the bloke trying to man the mark gets to close to the guy again an makes it 100m

 

[Sprout]

I don't really like the rule but don't get in front of the player with the ball and you will be fine. It's not that hard to understand

No you won’t be fine. The player who gives away the penalty must not impede, meaning they must be a metre clear of the player on all sides. Look at the Higgins penalty. He ran alongside and still got pinged because he was too close.

The AFL has introduced some poorly thought through BS over the years but this one takes the cake. The only reason people don’t realise the absurdity of this rule is because they don’t understand it yet. If it is actually kept then grab the popcorn.

 

[hcd199]

Alternatively, in the spirit of the finest traditions of the AFL, they will add another rule that is intended to mitigate the unforeseen consequences of this one rather than just dialing back their initial mistake.

Sounds about right; can't wait until players have to nominate to be 'designated man on the mark' when a 50m penalty is called, just so trying to man the mark isn't considered an infringement...

The AFL have made some ridiculously bad decisions with rule changes over the years, but the slew of them this season might be breaking point for me.

 

[Forward Press]

snip

It's the attacking team's choice as it should be. If they perceive a greater benefit from playing on after 15 metres, then all power to them. It certainly does encourage quicker attacking play - we all know the current ritual of awarding 50m penalties is slow and measured and defending teams easily have the time to set up properly once it's awarded.

If the attacking player is adjudged to have run more than 50m then the umpire still has the power to blow the whistle and stop the play (therefore reducing the attacking team's advantage over the defending team), so I don't know why that is such a big issue.

I just see it as a natural extension of the protected zone free kick. Players have now all adapted to it, they will adapt to this one too.

 

[Topkent]

It's the attacking team's choice as it should be. If they perceive a greater benefit from playing on after 15 metres, then all power to them. It certainly does encourage quicker attacking play - we all know the current ritual of awarding 50m penalties is slow and measured and defending teams easily have the time to set up properly once it's awarded.

If the attacking player is adjudged to have run more than 50m then the umpire still has the power to blow the whistle and stop the play (therefore reducing the attacking team's advantage over the defending team), so I don't know why that is such a big issue.

I just see it as a natural extension of the protected zone free kick. Players have now all adapted to it, they will adapt to this one too.

See you've already ****ed yourself
If the attacking player runs 51m that's playing on, so now He's only allowed to play on sideways but not forwards?

It's ******* footy, it's not supposed to be this technical bullshit

 

[Forward Press]

See you've already ****** yourself
If the attacking player runs 51m that's playing on, so now He's only allowed to play on sideways but not forwards?

It's ******* footy, it's not supposed to be this technical bullshit

What are you on about? I said that if the ump thinks the player took more than 50m then they still have the power to stop the play. During that 50m, the player can elect to play on at any time within that 50m, yes? If your query is to whether the ump has to adjudge whether a player is playing on, or simply taking more than the alloted 50m - well, these judgement calls are something an umpire makes dozens of time in a game anyway, it is simply in my view another thing to add to the umpire's duties.

 

[Topkent]

What are you on about? I said that if the ump thinks the player took more than 50m then they still have the power to stop the play. During that 50m, the player can elect to play on at any time within that 50m, yes? If your query is to whether the ump has to adjudge whether a player is playing on, or simply taking more than the alloted 50m - well, these judgement calls are something an umpire makes dozens of time in a game anyway, it is simply in my view another thing to add to the umpire's duties.

What's the difference between a player sprinting towards the 50m and sprinting towards the goal playing on.

Not a ******* thing

 

[Forward Press]

What's the difference between a player sprinting towards the 50m and sprinting towards the goal playing on.

Not a ******* thing

Not sure what you're arguing about, again. The player is sprinting towards goal, aware he has the 50m to dispose of the ball at any time without waiting for the umpire, with no opposition player able to enter his protected zone. The player also has the choice to take the full 50m before having to dispose of the ball, or having the umpire call play on if he stands there and hesitates for too long, or is deemed to 'play on' instead of disposing the ball, allowing the nearby opposition players to now encroach. This is exactly what happens with normal free kicks. Like I said, natural extension of the protected zone free kick.

 

[W.C. Fry]

Let's see how it plays out a bit more before thinking the sky is falling.

Basically the first time umps or players have had to deal with it. Umps are a bit trigger happy. Players still adjusting to what they can and can't do.

 

[Topkent]

Not sure what you're arguing about, again. The player is sprinting towards goal, aware he has the 50m to dispose of the ball at any time without waiting for the umpire, with no opposition player able to enter his protected zone. The player also has the choice to take the full 50m before having to dispose of the ball, or having the umpire call play on if he stands there and hesitates for too long, or is deemed to 'play on' instead of disposing the ball, allowing the nearby opposition players to now encroach. This is exactly what happens with normal free kicks. Like I said, natural extension of the protected zone free kick.

Again you can't see the point.

If the bloke sprints infront of the umpire there is no indication where the mark for 50 will be which means the player can go as far as he wants.

It's a stupid stupid rule change that was brought in for no reason at all.
I sincerely hope WC are on the end of some multiple double 50s so you can see what a pathetic change this is

 

[Forward Press]

If the bloke sprints infront of the umpire there is no indication where the mark for 50 will be which means the player can go as far as he wants.

The umpire calls play on at what he or she adjudges to be 50 metres?

 

[Topkent]

The umpire calls play on at what he or she adjudges to be 50 metres?

How does the umpire know where 50m is if the player has sprinted 10m infront of them. You are forcing a critical decision under pressure. Then you will have a situation where the player has run 60m gets tackled an the umpire calls another 50 because he hasn't signalled play on yet.

You'll see goals from D50 kicked because of 2 players being close to someone. That's a disgusting state in our game

 

[footyfan1978]

Put the beers down Topkent. The umps are paid to work out what is 50 metres from original mark. If any of them cannot work it out, they will lose their job.

 

[Pessimistic]

But they tested all the rules in the VFL didn’t they?

Oh that’s right they tested a different set of rules to what they implemented.

Amateur hour

 

[dzussy]

All these endless rule changes are important every year.
Now no runners, countdown clocks, we use soccer boards, and everyone must wear snug fitting underwear.
It justifies someones job in AFL house. If they changed nothing, they would be out of a job so the fabric of the game must be changed to suit their positions.
The end result would be a higher unemployment, nobody wants that.
Its science.

 

[telsor]

But they tested all the rules in the VFL didn’t they?

Oh that’s right they tested a different set of rules to what they implemented.

Amateur hour

If they tested it in the VFL, the non Vic clubs would be sooking about how Vic clubs have had a better chance to adjust to the changes.

Of course, if they tested it in the other state comps, they'd sook about being used as crash test dummys...

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Jack R exploited this shitty rule perfectly last night, got the 50 and ran off with no one near him, looks around and see's Frawley and Jack slows down so Frawley who was not clued on got close and bingo bango another 50 and Jack walks to the square.

Smart players will exploit this to within an inch of it's life and 100m penalties will be the order of the day.

AFL will make excuse's and the rule will remain because they are too stubborn to admit one of their rules has backfired considering the big tantrum they chucked regarding the state of the game and they don't want to be seen as having made a mistake.

 

[Milanista28]

If say Saad gets a 50 and just starts sprinting past the umpire is he protected even if the mark hasn't been set yet.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Let's see how it plays out a bit more before thinking the sky is falling.

Basically the first time umps or players have had to deal with it. Umps are a bit trigger happy. Players still adjusting to what they can and can't do.

Which is why its fine to try these things out in pre-season, and then tweak them if required the following pre-season and only implement them when they are understood and if they (mostly) work.