15 metres - I give up.

Remove this Banner Ad

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
May 8, 2007
9,809
13,098
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
I have complained about this often (haven't we all?) - but this is getting stupid.

A ball must travel 15 metres for it to be paid a mark.
A player must not run more than 15 metres without bouncing the ball.

How can we have the exact same measurement used in the game for different rules, but be adjudicated completely differently? It's not even close.

The ludicrous example last night where Burton ran from outside the centre square to basically the centre (where the umpire had 2 white lines to use as guides) - imagine if he had kicked the ball that far and the umpire called it 'not 15'. That's basically the decision he made in allowing him to run that far. And that's how the umpires should rule it - 'Would I have paid a mark if he kicked it that far? If yes, then he should have bounced it'.

I'm not really complaining about the '15 metres for a mark' - I think that's generally pretty closely and consistently enforced (yes there are the occasional shockers). But the 'running 15 metres' has become a joke. When one was paid in the Tigers-Hawks gamne last week, the commentators even said 'Well, yes that's a correct decision, but you rarely see it paid'.

It's not '15 steps' - a reasonable athlete will cover about 2 metres per stride when running near top pace (which is how most AFL players run when they have the ball). So it should be about 9-10 steps at most between bounces.
Here's an example of some runners taking 50-60 steps to cover 100m. From a standing start. And they're 10 years old!!! (Bolt used to take 41-42)


Either enforce the rule properly - or change it. But the AFL Umpiring department just isn't even trying.
 

Mofra

Moderator
Dec 6, 2005
54,917
156,129
Footscray
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
The umpires are told how far the mowing lines in the grass are before each game too (surprisingly they're not consistent across grounds) and that is the measure they are meant to use for judging the distance of kicks. For some reason they are still meant to count steps for players carrying the ball.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ferrisb

Brownlow Medallist
May 22, 2011
20,357
109,953
The Naughty Corner
AFL Club
Carlton
I have complained about this often (haven't we all?) - but this is getting stupid.

A ball must travel 15 metres for it to be paid a mark.
A player must not run more than 15 metres without bouncing the ball.

How can we have the exact same measurement used in the game for different rules, but be adjudicated completely differently? It's not even close.

The ludicrous example last night where Burton ran from outside the centre square to basically the centre (where the umpire had 2 white lines to use as guides) - imagine if he had kicked the ball that far and the umpire called it 'not 15'. That's basically the decision he made in allowing him to run that far. And that's how the umpires should rule it - 'Would I have paid a mark if he kicked it that far? If yes, then he should have bounced it'.

I'm not really complaining about the '15 metres for a mark' - I think that's generally pretty closely and consistently enforced (yes there are the occasional shockers). But the 'running 15 metres' has become a joke. When one was paid in the Tigers-Hawks gamne last week, the commentators even said 'Well, yes that's a correct decision, but you rarely see it paid'.

It's not '15 steps' - a reasonable athlete will cover about 2 metres per stride when running near top pace (which is how most AFL players run when they have the ball). So it should be about 9-10 steps at most between bounces.
Here's an example of some runners taking 50-60 steps to cover 100m. From a standing start. And they're 10 years old!!! (Bolt used to take 41-42)


Either enforce the rule properly - or change it. But the AFL Umpiring department just isn't even trying.
The rule also is completely ignored when a player takes a running shot on goal.

I kind of don't mind that, as it would totally ruin the spectacle of some of the best goals. But it is completely against the rules.

Whatever you do, don't google Patrick Cripps running goal Adelaide ;)
 

MC Extra Dollop

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2006
21,800
18,808
AFL Club
Geelong
Yeah, when you think that 15m is roughly half a basketball court, it's clear that's too short to say a player has to bounce if they run any further. I'm ok with 15 steps or 25-30m.
 

JM#1

All Australian
Apr 19, 2017
791
927
AFL Club
Collingwood
I've been saying it for months. The umpires will continuously call not 15 if it's a short kick in defensive 50, but always call a mark in the attacking 50. It's premeditated and shows the compete lack of integrity by the AFL.
 

falcons2

All Australian
Feb 19, 2009
889
761
Melbourne OuterEast
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Fair point OP. Rule 18.13 (c) whilst in possession of the football, does not bounce or touch the football on the ground at least once every 15 metres, irrespective of whether such Player is running in a straight line or otherwise. For the purposes of this Law, a Player shall be deemed to be in possession of the football during the period when the Player kicks or handballs the football to themself and regains possession without the football touching the ground;
Seems to be totally ignored unless it is an extremely long run. I'd say nearly every kick from full back exceeds 15m. Perhaps a 15m from the kick off line arc could be trialed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,491
10,056
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Fair point OP. Rule 18.13 (c) whilst in possession of the football, does not bounce or touch the football on the ground at least once every 15 metres, irrespective of whether such Player is running in a straight line or otherwise. For the purposes of this Law, a Player shall be deemed to be in possession of the football during the period when the Player kicks or handballs the football to themself and regains possession without the football touching the ground;
Seems to be totally ignored unless it is an extremely long run. I'd say nearly every kick from full back exceeds 15m. Perhaps a 15m from the kick off line arc could be trialed.
I watched the replay of the rd 23 Geelong v Melbourne match and slowed down and replayed every decision or non decision in the match that could even be questionable. I found at least 3-4 passes that could not have travelled 15 metres or even close, and at least 3 instances of players carrying the ball further than 20 metres without bouncing, where you could be certain of the distance by the mowing strips.

This is a mess and frankly it is laughable. Personally I would like to see marks taken out to 20m - and only forward kicks are paid a mark, and the need to bounce to stay at 15m strictly policed with any doubt going against the team in possession in both instances.
 

Gear Up

Draftee
Sep 1, 2021
3
3
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Back on the point made by Mofra on mowing lines. It seems like it would be much more helpful for the umpires if they could mow the lines at 15m. I've always wondered why they haven't done this... Would there be any particular reason, or are most grounds actually mowed at 15m?
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,314
5,200
AFL Club
Collingwood
I watched the replay of the rd 23 Geelong v Melbourne match and slowed down and replayed every decision or non decision in the match that could even be questionable. I found at least 3-4 passes that could not have travelled 15 metres or even close, and at least 3 instances of players carrying the ball further than 20 metres without bouncing, where you could be certain of the distance by the mowing strips.

This is a mess and frankly it is laughable. Personally I would like to see marks taken out to 20m - and only forward kicks are paid a mark, and the need to bounce to stay at 15m strictly policed with any doubt going against the team in possession in both instances.

The problem is it is exceedingly difficult to estimate distance by sight in a 360 degree game. Extending to 20 metres will just make it harder
 

kozi

Varsity athlete
Oct 14, 2011
47,509
60,135
AFL Club
Richmond
Rule isn’t the problem, umpire’s just don’t adjudicate it properly.

In other cases it’s completely backwards where the rule is the problem and umpires enforce it correctly (correctly according to the problem rule)

We don’t have much good rule + being well enforced happening.
 

flyinghi64

Premiership Player
Dec 7, 2006
3,207
2,697
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
I have said this many times, surely umpires do training so why don't they set cones or lines up at 15m intervals and train around them so they are constantly looking at and remembering what 15 bloody meters is.

Personally I would make it 25m.
 

Captivating

Premiership Player
Jun 6, 2012
3,504
4,360
AFL Club
Collingwood
I have said this many times, surely umpires do training so why don't they set cones or lines up at 15m intervals and train around them so they are constantly looking at and remembering what 15 bloody meters is.

Personally I would make it 25m.
I think the issue is the umpires doing too many cones and lines at training and before the game.
 

DavidSSS

Rookie
Feb 26, 2020
37
74
AFL Club
Richmond
Umpires are at ground level, they don't see mowing strips.

I hate the way 10 meter kicks are paid as marks, been my pet hate for many years.è
Personally I reckon something's wrong. How can they pay a 10 metre kick as a mark and yet let players run 25 metres without bounding or disposing of the ball? There is a massive inconsistency in their perception of distance between these 2 rules.

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the AFL wanting less free kicks per game, so they just ignore a lot of them.

DS
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad