15 metres

[flyinghi64]

15m would have to be one of, if not the, most important measurements in our game.
Constantly you will be watching a game and see a ball travel 10m and be paid a mark and another travel nearly 20 and be called play on. The same goes for running to far.
2 of the goals of the year were illegal, the Geish has already come out and admitted Jetta ran too far. Looking at the replay of Yarran's he also ran too far.

Surely with how professional and well trained the umpires are nowadays they can spend a bit of time learning how far 15m is. At the training there should be cones or lines marked every 15m all over the place so they get it mentally scarred into their heads how far 15m is. They should be able to look anywhere at any time and say "that's 15m from here to there".
A couple of metres I can forgive but not 5,6,7+ that's over 33% difference

 

[Quivorir]

Grass strips in a square pattern. 5x5 all over the ground..

 

[Chewy]

The AFL should change both to 20m, in my opinion.

I personally think Lewis Jetta bounced the ball enough times during his run to goal last Friday night. If the 15m rule is strictly enforced, it becomes too easy for the chaser to run down the player who takes a bounce. Why is that good for the game? We love it when players run with the ball. Let's encourage it, not penalise them.

I also think the game would be better if players had to kick the ball 20m for a mark to be paid. I don't think a 15m footpass warrants a "free kick". Players can handball that distance. Allowing marks to be awarded from these short, chip passes just encourages a boring, low-skill style of possession footy. Make them kick the ball at least 5 metres further if they want to be awarded a mark and slow the play down.

These rule changes would hardly change the game. They'd just make it slightly better, IMO.

 

[Donakebab]

The worst is when an umpire calls 'play on not 15' just as the player has kicked the ball and they are just guessing that the ball won't go the distance. Then the ball actually travels 25m but they have already made their call and play is forced to continue. Noticed it a lot this season, more than any other, it makes no sense to make the call so early.

 

[AFLQLD]

Perhaps the umpires could do a little practice in measuring out 50 meter penalties while they are training as well. I swear I have seen 50's that look about 30 metres and others that look closer to 70 metres.

 

[blue harvest]

OP, with the bouncing, it's not a problem with the umpires estimating distance, they know the player has run too far, they just cut them some slack, how much depends on what they are feeling like at the time and how much the ump likes that player.

 

[TheFub]

GPS in the ball and have a computer figure it out .

Also if its 15m between bounces why do commentators always count steps.

 

[Chewy]

The worst is when an umpire calls 'play on not 15' just as the player has kicked the ball and they are just guessing that the ball won't go the distance. Then the ball actually travels 25m but they have already made their call and play is forced to continue. Noticed it a lot this season, more than any other, it makes no sense to make the call so early.

I can understand why they do it. It keeps the game flowing. It gives the player in possession a chance of doing something with the ball. He can play on quickly or try to shrug the tackle. It's an example of how the umpires act like they're conductors to an orchestra, rather than simply adjudicating on decisions after they happen. (There are pro and cons)

I have no problems with the umpires estimating the ball won't travel 15m. You don't need to see where the ball lands to judge where it will drop. Normally it works okay. But you're right, when the umpire guesses incorrectly, it creates an injustice. They should just realise their error, whistle the play back and award the mark. The umpires are allergic to doing something like that because it gives the impression they've lost control of the game and the crowd will boo them. They figure it's better to wave play on and hope everyone forgets about their error and moves on.

It's also another way umpires can directly influence the result of games, not shown by the free kick tally. (Same with calling 'play on' quickly after a player had marked or taken half a step off his line, but cutting extra slack to another player.)

 

[flyinghi64]

Agree with Chewy, 20m or even 25m would be a better distance that would allow a little flexibility without being so noticeable. It would also mean players would actually kick the ball not chip it.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

How about 15 steps, or 10 steps?

 

[Killer eagle]

How about 15 steps, or 10 steps?

about half a meter for josh Kennedy

 

[AC for PM]

What worries me is that with the talk of Jetta's run and goal being deemed "incorrect call" by the Geesh, they will be extremely hard on it this week and potentially cost either side a crucial goal.
When in fact all year they have let players run 15-25m at times without bouncing with nothing said.

 

[FreoRicci]

Isn't it now 15 step/strides rather then metres. IF you look closely Jetta runs at most 12-13 steps/strides hence umpires not penalizing it. How can the umpires even measure 15 m whilst they also sprinting themselves.. harsh.

 

[SuperSub17]

Isn't it now 15 step/strides rather then metres. IF you look closely Jetta runs at most 12-13 steps/strides hence umpires not penalizing it. How can the umpires even measure 15 m whilst they also sprinting themselves.. harsh.

It's meant to be 15 metres.

I agree with Chewy, why not make it 20 metres. It's easier to judge. Most players can run 15 metres very quickly, and it happens more often than you would think. We don't want it being penalised 20 times a game.

 

[Righteo]

GPS in the ball and have a computer figure it out .

Also if its 15m between bounces why do commentators always count steps.

**** yeah, also have the ball coated in millions of tiny LED's, if the kick goes more than 15m it flashes green once and if not it remains red or yellow and is called play on

 

[Righteo]

What worries me is that with the talk of Jetta's run and goal being deemed "incorrect call" by the Geesh, they will be extremely hard on it this week and potentially cost either side a crucial goal.
When in fact all year they have let players run 15-25m at times without bouncing with nothing said.

I think it's almost a certainly, few media commentators/callers whatever draw attention to the fact he might've run too far, AFL responds by having Giesch cover it on his segment and the following week the umps under clear instructions scrutinize similar incidents more harshly than usual.

It's been the case almost every week this year, this is just the latest rule under the spotlight and the AFL being the kneejerk cretins they are will predictably respond by telling the umps to pay extra attention to the 15m rule.

 

[Last of the Roys]

Grass strips in a square pattern. 5x5 all over the ground..

That is a pretty good simple suggestion that could be easily implemented.

 

[Superstar swan]

It's a very hard rule to officiate, and I think the umps do pretty well the majority of the time

 

[entourage]

If Sydney had've won by a goal or under, he would not have said Jetta's goal shouldn't have been counted.

 

[TripleB]

I think most of us who watch a lot of footy just have a sense of when a player has run too far. The crowd usually gets up around the same time and 'How far' will ring out almost simultaneously. Unless it is blatantly too far, just let them go. The game needs more run and bouncing goals, not more free kicks...

 

[Leg End]

15m would have to be one of, if not the, most important measurements in our game.
Constantly you will be watching a game and see a ball travel 10m and be paid a mark and another travel nearly 20 and be called play on. The same goes for running to far.
2 of the goals of the year were illegal, the Geish has already come out and admitted Jetta ran too far. Looking at the replay of Yarran's he also ran too far.

Surely with how professional and well trained the umpires are nowadays they can spend a bit of time learning how far 15m is. At the training there should be cones or lines marked every 15m all over the place so they get it mentally scarred into their heads how far 15m is. They should be able to look anywhere at any time and say "that's 15m from here to there".
A couple of metres I can forgive but not 5,6,7+ that's over 33% difference

You're right. The game is not treated technically enough.

If we eradicate the bounce altogether, this will get rid of the "illegal running" problem. Let's stop ruckmen jumping for the ball - no injuries, no fouls. If contesting a ball in the 50 is disallowed, then there won't be all this negative carry-on about hands in the back, eyes on the ball etc.

But, you're right. Yarran and Jetta flouted the rules blatantly - making a mockery of the game, taking away all credibility. Probably too late to punish them, but the MRP should review this.

The game should be all about ensuring umpires have an easy time. This rubbish about entertainment and the fans needs to be knocked on the head immediately.

 

[Zagg]

In general the umpires pay a mark is paid if the ball travels 10+ metres, but a free kick isn't given unless a player runs 20+ metres.

There's certainly not a consistency between the two distances.

In my opinion I don't mind the players being allowed to run 20 metres, but it's bad that far too many short kicks are paid marks.

 

[Scott lastname]

The AFL should change both to 20m, in my opinion.

I personally think Lewis Jetta bounced the ball enough times during his run to goal last Friday night. If the 15m rule is strictly enforced, it becomes too easy for the chaser to run down the player who takes a bounce. Why is that good for the game? We love it when players run with the ball. Let's encourage it, not penalise them.

I also think the game would be better if players had to kick the ball 20m for a mark to be paid. I don't think a 15m footpass warrants a "free kick". Players can handball that distance. Allowing marks to be awarded from these short, chip passes just encourages a boring, low-skill style of possession footy. Make them kick the ball at least 5 metres further if they want to be awarded a mark and slow the play down.

These rule changes would hardly change the game. They'd just make it slightly better, IMO.

Agree. Then use gross mowed in different directions to make it easier to judge distance.

 

[Scott lastname]

about half a meter for josh Kennedy

The first man to give away a free-kick while taking a set-shot for goal.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

The AFL should change both to 20m, in my opinion.

I personally think Lewis Jetta bounced the ball enough times during his run to goal last Friday night. If the 15m rule is strictly enforced, it becomes too easy for the chaser to run down the player who takes a bounce. Why is that good for the game? We love it when players run with the ball. Let's encourage it, not penalise them.

I also think the game would be better if players had to kick the ball 20m for a mark to be paid. I don't think a 15m footpass warrants a "free kick". Players can handball that distance. Allowing marks to be awarded from these short, chip passes just encourages a boring, low-skill style of possession footy. Make them kick the ball at least 5 metres further if they want to be awarded a mark and slow the play down.

These rule changes would hardly change the game. They'd just make it slightly better, IMO.

Agreed on both points.

Too often little chips into the forwardline that are borderline 10m, let alone 15m, are awarded as marks because the umpires are too scared to challenge. 20m is a far clearer distinction, especially when as you said most players can easily handpass 15m and it would keep play flowing.

The faster players often run over the 15m mark between bounces, especially when being chased and IMO you would be robbing the game of a lot of its excitement if we became sticklers for the 15m rule. The players are taller and more athletic than they have ever been, that extra 5m buffer would accommodate this factor.