15 metres - I give up.

[Wallaby]

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]

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.

 

[Crashy]

A turnover scrappy kick from a defender only has to go 8m to be called a mark

 

[ferrisb]

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

 

[Hoops]

They should just change it to 15 steps or 10 steps if they want to be closer to 15m

 

[Dirty Bird]

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

which one?

 

[Osho]

Let the playersvrun 20m. Let the kickers have to kick 25. All this dinky low risk keepings off is more an enemy to the game than defence first tactics.

 

[Quivorir]

Just fk the bounce off all together.

 

[Wallaby]

Just fk the bounce off all together.

Then it becomes Rugby - with the added bonus that, because Australian Football allows shepherding, you can just run flying wedges down the field.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

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.

 

[Tiger Outcast]

A turnover scrappy kick from a defender only has to go 8m to be called a mark

Generally the umpiring has been atrocious this year.

 

[JM#1]

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]

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.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.

 

[Vikingnz]

I wonder what impact changing the rule from a 15m kick to 15m of forward progress would have? Makes it easier to use the gridlines as a guide perhaps?

 

[caveman72]

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.

What happens if you take little steps like Caleb Daniels

 

[PanzerMan]

What happens if you take little steps like Caleb Daniels

Is he Brent Daniels' brother?

 

[Gear Up]

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]

A turnover scrappy kick from a defender only has to go 8m to be called a mark

Intercept marks shouldn't have a distant requirement anyway. I hate it when umpires call borderline 15 m intercept marks "play on"

 

[NoobPie]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Umpires are at ground level, they dont see mowing strips.

I hate the way 10 meter kicks are paid as marks, been my pet hate for many years.è

 

[DavidSSS]

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