Guessing the 15 metre rule

[CrowInFiji]

Do you normally yell not 15 play on when the ball is touched?

Sometimes. I dunno I have no idea what was called, i can't tell from the video I saw. Should be easy for the AFL to come out and clarify.

But still, the premise of the thread is utterly moronic

 

[2Knights]

The issue is the umpires are calling not 15 when the ball has only travelled 5m. Its guess work

There is a more general issue of teams in possession getting an unfair advantage from short-passing less than the required 15m and being paid a mark. It would be interesting to hear from current umpires (non-AFL or AFL) how they estimate kicking distance.

 

[RobbieGray17]

There is a more general issue of teams in possession getting an unfair advantage from short-passing less than the required 15m and being paid a mark. It would be interesting to hear from current umpires (non-AFL or AFL) how they estimate kicking distance.

Fwiw that was a reasonable kick.

 

[Contested Marx]

Good call by the ump

 

[RobbieGray17]

Good call by the ump

View attachment 1116861

It's not 10m. OMG watch the replay. I bloody hate Geelong, but it is what it is.
Maybe this angle might give you a better idea of the fact that that spot lines up with the point post

 

[Contested Marx]

It's not 10m. OMG watch the replay. I bloody hate Geelong, but it is what it is.

Ball is first touched in front of the goal post, I'm being generous.

Umps got it right in this instance

 

[RobbieGray17]

Ball is first touched in front of the goal post, I'm being generous.

Umps got it right in this instance

I updated my post. The image here shows more accurately where the posistion of the kick is. You got fooled by the angles.

 

[Contested Marx]

Mate I majored in telephotic trigonometry and my measurements are accurate

 

[RobbieGray17]

Mate I majored in telephotic trigonometry and my measurements are accurate

Youré full of s**t. Yeah 4m My ass.

 

[Contested Marx]

I'm accounting for parallax error and photometric distortion

 

[Contested Marx]

You need to account for the vanishing point in that image

 

[Orange Agent]

Ive just watched it 4 times with the volume right up with head phones on. Its clearly 'touched, play on'. The commentators should be the ones giving a please explain.

 

[RobbieGray17]

You need to account for the vanishing point in that image

Mate, that is NOT 4m. There are more than enough camera angles to show that. The vanishing point is going to have very little impact over that distance. From goal to goal over 150m yes, but not over 10m.

There is absolutely no way that is 4m.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Ive just watched it 4 times with the volume right up with head phones on. Its clearly 'touched, play on'. The commentators should be the ones giving a please explain.

I understand that that was a player saying that.

 

[Young Gun #6]

AFL umpiring association just came out and admitted the wrong decision was made.

 

[Contested Marx]

Mate, that is NOT 4m. There are more than enough camera angles to show that. The vanishing point is going to have very little impact over that distance. From goal to goal over 150m yes, but not over 10m.

There is absolutely no way that is 4m.

Check my images. unless the goals changed from 6.2m width then yes that's less than 4m when you account for convergence of vectors

 

[Contested Marx]

AFL umpiring association just came out and admitted the wrong decision was made.

WHAT WOULD THEY KNOW

 

[RobbieGray17]

Check my images. unless the goals changed from 6.2m width then yes that's less than 4m when you account for convergence of vectors

Measure the top of the goalsquare on the wide shot and it's 9cm (on my screen), down from 11cm. There is about 2mm distortion on that image between goal post and point post on the wide (Right) side. There is a diminishing view front to back. Very little distortion left to right in that image. The distance horizontally from corner of goal square to the kicking point, is about 9.3cm. Which is clearly not anywhere near 4M

 

[STPer18]

22 metres. AFL confirmed the error not long ago.

 

[footyfan1978]

It still doesn't change the query around the rule. Umps call not 15 before the ball lands, which is wrong.

Should be changed to 20 metres anyway.

 

[blue harvest]

Good call by the ump

View attachment 1116861

Goals are 6.4m wide, you have them as 5.2 in this diagram.

 

[Contested Marx]

Goals are 6.4m wide, you have them as 5.2 in this diagram.

 

[Wojcinski]

lol it was called touched.

I like the earley call of touched and not 15 otherwise you get that weird stop in play where everyone freezes and waits for whistle or umpires to call play on. Also umpires called touched off boot last night not 15m rule it was commentators who called that.

9.5/10 times it is called before the ball is touched by another player the umps can see where the player is standing and the basic trajectory of the ball. It is never an issue.

In the case of last night it didn't matter either because it was called touched.

What A Comeback! - Swans vs Geelong Last Two Minutes - YouTube


Hard to hear with commentators and crowd noise but sounds like a call of play on with ball in air and than touched play on as mark was being tacken followed by touched play on again.

listen again and maybe not 15 call in there aswell at end

Ball is first touched in front of the goal post, I'm being generous.

Umps got it right in this instance

Ive just watched it 4 times with the volume right up with head phones on. Its clearly 'touched, play on'. The commentators should be the ones giving a please explain.

nah, wrong

 

[Sterge]

Youré full of sh*t. Yeah 4m My ass.

View attachment 1116870

maybe show pictures of the actual kick and the actual mark not just random shots taken throughout the game

 

[RobbieGray17]

maybe show pictures of the actual kick and the actual mark not just random shots taken throughout the game

That dry spot is the exact spot the ball was kicked. go and look