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.
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.