The ten metre protected zone rule isn't working.
I believe (anyone can correct me if wrong) that the rule to call 50 in these instances was brought in to prevent players from lurking around the back of contests and tackling the ball carrier when they played on. It has clearly stopped that from occurring. However, the rule as it stands goes beyond mitigating that and now gets players who are unintentionally in the protected zone, either through a lack of awareness or poor timing.
This is impacting games in contexts where no infringement was intended by the players responsible. Letting the play go in these instances would have no impact on the game. The player would kick on as they intended, and in the same way as they would were the opposition player not in the zone. Calling 50 can lead to goals that were very unlikely to happen in the course of play, as we saw last night with Sydney vs Hawthorn. In sum, it is having a greater impact on the game than stopping the lurking tackler that it was intended to stop, and it is now preventing the contest from continuing organically with many 50s occurring due to the rule. It has become more of a problem than what it was intended to resolve.
I suggest that a very simple tweak to this rule could resolve the problem. 50 is only called when a player in the protected zone impacts the play of the ball carrier in some way. This could be up to the discretion of the umpire, but would obviously encompass all instances of a lurking tackler, and also times where the opposition player impedes the space and kick of the ball carrier. Such a rule change would also stop, as happened last night, 50s against players who were unintentionally moving through the zone. In sum, the 50 would barely ever be called, and would stop the problem it was brought in to address. Everybody wins.
Make no mistake, the rule had an impact on the result last night, and it was a sum negative for the game. Hawthorn supporters cant have a go at me being salty in this instance - the dogs benefited from two such decisions against Port some weeks ago, in another close contest.
What are people's thoughts on such a tweak?
Also as a corollary to this, I think play on should be called immediately when a team mate of the ball carrier enters the zone to shepherd the man on the mark.
"Protected zone
Last year, no one was allowed within five-metres of the person with the ball after a mark or free kick. This year the protected area is extended to 10-metres. If a player goes in that protected zone, expect a 50-metre penalty to be awarded.
"
I believe (anyone can correct me if wrong) that the rule to call 50 in these instances was brought in to prevent players from lurking around the back of contests and tackling the ball carrier when they played on. It has clearly stopped that from occurring. However, the rule as it stands goes beyond mitigating that and now gets players who are unintentionally in the protected zone, either through a lack of awareness or poor timing.
This is impacting games in contexts where no infringement was intended by the players responsible. Letting the play go in these instances would have no impact on the game. The player would kick on as they intended, and in the same way as they would were the opposition player not in the zone. Calling 50 can lead to goals that were very unlikely to happen in the course of play, as we saw last night with Sydney vs Hawthorn. In sum, it is having a greater impact on the game than stopping the lurking tackler that it was intended to stop, and it is now preventing the contest from continuing organically with many 50s occurring due to the rule. It has become more of a problem than what it was intended to resolve.
I suggest that a very simple tweak to this rule could resolve the problem. 50 is only called when a player in the protected zone impacts the play of the ball carrier in some way. This could be up to the discretion of the umpire, but would obviously encompass all instances of a lurking tackler, and also times where the opposition player impedes the space and kick of the ball carrier. Such a rule change would also stop, as happened last night, 50s against players who were unintentionally moving through the zone. In sum, the 50 would barely ever be called, and would stop the problem it was brought in to address. Everybody wins.
Make no mistake, the rule had an impact on the result last night, and it was a sum negative for the game. Hawthorn supporters cant have a go at me being salty in this instance - the dogs benefited from two such decisions against Port some weeks ago, in another close contest.
What are people's thoughts on such a tweak?
Also as a corollary to this, I think play on should be called immediately when a team mate of the ball carrier enters the zone to shepherd the man on the mark.
"Protected zone
Last year, no one was allowed within five-metres of the person with the ball after a mark or free kick. This year the protected area is extended to 10-metres. If a player goes in that protected zone, expect a 50-metre penalty to be awarded.
