Should the protected area rule only be applied when if affects player?

Jul 12, 2011
33,629
24,412
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
As the heading says should the umpire only apply the 50m penalty when player kicking is clearly obstructed by the player within the protected area? Sometimes they pay the 50m penalty when the player with the ball is running backwards so obviously they aren't going to be kicking at that stage....just seems stupid

Thoughts?
 
Sep 19, 2007
12,951
7,062
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I agree somewhat with this, however this could be a tactic by players to prevent the player taking the kick from playing on. And if I was a player taking the kick and someone was a few meters away, I would deliberately run into him.
 

Thetrader15

Cancelled
10k Posts
Oct 16, 2015
24,279
30,558
AFL Club
Adelaide
How about a 25m penalty instead - 50m almost always ends up in a goal and the umps aren't exactly great at estimating 10m
 

Cincinnatus

Club Legend
Mar 30, 2018
2,006
2,226
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think the only reluctance I have is that it then becomes another interpretation which leads to inconsistency and fury.

At least with this zone its 10m and that's that.

I was open to 25m instead of 50m but some people think this becomes open to abuse and I tend to agree.
 

Big_Birdy

Premiership Player
Jul 6, 2011
4,597
7,042
AFL Club
West Coast
As the heading says should the umpire only apply the 50m penalty when player kicking is clearly obstructed by the player within the protected area? Sometimes they pay the 50m penalty when the player with the ball is running backwards so obviously they aren't going to be kicking at that stage....just seems stupid

Thoughts?

Pretty sure that was the rule which worked fine for my entire life watching football.
 

ManInWhite

Ex ManInWhite
Apr 6, 2009
918
421
AFL Club
Richmond
Making the whole thing open to interpretation will just make it worse. The opponent might not be obstructing the player with the ball but if that player wants to play on, his opponent has an unfair advantage by being closer.

What about situations where a player is kicking for goal from a tight angle. Opponent might be off to the side (and therefore not obstructing) but shouldn't be allowed too close to the kicker. Will get messy.
 

churner

Debutant
Jun 8, 2010
74
38
AFL Club
Collingwood
As the heading says should the umpire only apply the 50m penalty when player kicking is clearly obstructed by the player within the protected area? Sometimes they pay the 50m penalty when the player with the ball is running backwards so obviously they aren't going to be kicking at that stage....just seems stupid

Thoughts?

Tend to agree. Those who object to interpretive adjudications such as this are typically the first to get riled up for a correct black/white, rulebook decision that is otherwise deemed exceptionally harsh. Best umpires are always those who have a 'footy feel'.
 

big_e

Existential crisis management consultant
Apr 28, 2008
12,558
38,503
Back Pocket
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
Get rid of the rule completely, IMO. Is there anything wrong with expecting a player with the ball to have some situational awareness?
 
Back