15m or not 15m?

[Moggy]

Now, I'm not biased *, but I think there are some massive inconsistencies in the umpiring of the 15m kick rule.

On Monday, it seemed (as usual?) that Hawthorn got away with sub-15m kicks on a regular basis. Some of them (Mitchell on the left forward flank 2nd qtr) looked under 10m!

In contrast, the umps seemed much happier to call Geelong kicks short, some of them when it wasn't even clear where the ball was going to land when they called it.

My theory is that the umpires have been seduced by the success of the Hawthorn game style of precise short kicking and consequently give them a free pass on kick length because they have been so dominant.

Anyway, it drives me mad - as my wife will attest...

Amirite?



* I am biased

 

[WCErevival]

I think it comes down to where the kick is. Often if its in the defensive 50 they call play on to get the game moving. Even the commentators were joking in our game about a couple of decisions where it was clearly at least 20 metres but called to play on.

 

[jjami15]

Possibly biased but it has been quite evident that the 15m rule has been policed more this year even with some calls of 'not 15' by the umps whilst the ball is still in the air and some definite 15m passes being called short. As always there are inconsistencies due to the human factor and I thought that ground an where trying to assist this with their markings on the ground with the way they cut the grass. I can see what they are trying to do but I've always it said it should be 20m.

 

[Moggy]

My main beef is with the inconsistency, but I would be all for extending it to 20m.

Didn't see the WCE game.

 

[D-N-R]

My main beef is with the inconsistency, but I would be all for extending it to 20m.

Didn't see the WCE game.

I'm not sure if extending it to 20m would help, the umpires would still be guessing.

Positioning of the umpire can make a difference. Side on to the kick, it is easier to judge distance than if you are positioned along the line of the kick, although there were a couple on the weekend where the umpire was well placed and probably still got it wrong.

If the umpires are strict on the rule, then it should encourage players to kick it a bit further to make sure it is going far enough. So I would rather they called 16 or 17m kicks 'play-on' than pay 13 or 14m kicks marks.

To perfect it they would need to employ technology like gps tracking to measure the distance between players, have sensors in the ball or use a hawkeye-type system. Even then the message would have to be transmitted to the umpire almost immediately. Something like Google-glass maybe, which shows the umpire a circle from where a ball is kicked. If the player marks it in the circle, then it is play on.

Other than that, we can only train the umpires better and put up with the odd mistake.

 

[Moggy]

I'm not sure if extending it to 20m would help, the umpires would still be guessing.

Positioning of the umpire can make a difference. Side on to the kick, it is easier to judge distance than if you are positioned along the line of the kick, although there were a couple on the weekend where the umpire was well placed and probably still got it wrong.

If the umpires are strict on the rule, then it should encourage players to kick it a bit further to make sure it is going far enough. So I would rather they called 16 or 17m kicks 'play-on' than pay 13 or 14m kicks marks.

To perfect it they would need to employ technology like gps tracking to measure the distance between players, have sensors in the ball or use a hawkeye-type system. Even then the message would have to be transmitted to the umpire almost immediately. Something like Google-glass maybe, which shows the umpire a circle from where a ball is kicked. If the player marks it in the circle, then it is play on.

Other than that, we can only train the umpires better and put up with the odd mistake.

I think that kind of technology is a long way away from being practical.

The advantage of the 20m extension is that the grey zone shifts from 10-15m kicks to 15-20m kicks.
I believe that it would be significantly harder to find safe options with 15-20m kicks than 10-15m because it requires about 30% more space, and space is very hard to find in the modern game.

Ergo, 15-20m kicks will end up in many more contested possessions than 10-15m kicks and that is a good thing IMO.

 

[GreyCrow]

My brother said something that made me sit up.

Most ovals are mowed before the game right? Most like to use the cross hatch pattern. Why not make each square 10m x 10m so the umps can see a definite distance. Or ( and I just thought of this ) can you not see the pattern at ground level

It was my brother ok not me.

 

[Moggy]

My brother said something that made me sit up.

Most ovals are mowed before the game right? Most like to use the cross hatch pattern. Why not make each square 10m x 10m so the umps can see a definite distance. Or ( and I just thought of this ) can you not see the pattern at ground level

It was my brother ok not me.

Your brother is very wise, or he has been watching "on the couch" where Gerard Healey floats this idea on a regular basis.
It makes a lot of sense really.

 

[hawkman]

I thought Geelong got away with a few short kicks on Monday but I'm biased as well

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Now, I'm not biased *, but I think there are some massive inconsistencies in the umpiring of the 15m kick rule.

On Monday, it seemed (as usual?) that Hawthorn got away with sub-15m kicks on a regular basis. Some of them (Mitchell on the left forward flank 2nd qtr) looked under 10m!

In contrast, the umps seemed much happier to call Geelong kicks short, some of them when it wasn't even clear where the ball was going to land when they called it.

My theory is that the umpires have been seduced by the success of the Hawthorn game style of precise short kicking and consequently give them a free pass on kick length because they have been so dominant.

Anyway, it drives me mad - as my wife will attest...

Amirite?



* I am biased

The KICK .............................................................The Mark..............................Where defender stood


Mitchell kicked 5m outside 50m, McEvoy marked just inside 40m - so barely 15m . Geelong player on the mark creeps another 2m and ignores umpire call to come back which made it seem shorter.

Actually, Selwood pushed Mitchell in the back after the kick, so in all honesty should have been downfield/50m anyway.

 

[Moggy]

Fair enough. I guess the evidence shows that one to be borderline.

My blue/white filter is pretty strong on game day.

 

[EagleShore]

Clearly they were given a directive to call "not 15" while the ball was being kicked or in flight if they thought the target player was within 15m of the player disposing of the ball, obviously to give more notice which is conducive to less confusion. In doing so, they possibly erred more than usual but I expect this to settle down as the weeks progress.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it seemed like they were harsher on Geelong than Hawthorn is this regard, but this could be a byproduct of the fact that most erroneous "not 15" calls seemed to occur before quarter time when Geelong had more of the ball, and they were possibly coached at the break to be less zealous with these calls during the rest of the game. I recall a Geelong kick in their defensive 50 that went at least 20m (two "patches" of the 10m grass squares) and it was called "not 15", and later Mitchell kicked a few that went barely 12-13m which were not.

I accept human error by the umpires as long as they improve over time with their consistency.

 

[Boxhead_31]

The KICK .............................................................The Mark..............................Where defender stood
View attachment 230600View attachment 230601View attachment 230602

Mitchell kicked 5m outside 50m, McEvoy marked just inside 40m - so barely 15m . Geelong player on the mark creeps another 2m and ignores umpire call to come back which made it seem shorter.

Actually, Selwood pushed Mitchell in the back after the kick, so in all honesty should have been downfield/50m anyway.

See those stripes on the ground? They are 10m wide, the kick covers one of them, what does that tell you?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

See those stripes on the ground? They are 10m wide, the kick covers one of them, what does that tell you?

The markings aren't in line with the kick however, remember calculating triangles sides in Primary School? (a2 + b2 = c2)


Or just use the visual cues - McEvoy marks 2m into the next 'block'. Mitchell kicks 3m before the block = 2+3+10 = 15m

Regardless, it's certainly close enough to not be argued definitively either way.

 

[Boxhead_31]

The markings aren't in line with the kick however, remember calculating triangles sides in Primary School? (a2 + b2 = c2)

View attachment 230729
Or just use the visual cues - McEvoy marks 2m into the next 'block'. Mitchell kicks 3m before the block = 2+3+10 = 15m

Regardless, it's certainly close enough to not be argued definitively either way.

If that is 2m into the next block I'd love to buy some land off of you. He is half way across the block

 

[D-N-R]

I think that kind of technology is a long way away from being practical.

The advantage of the 20m extension is that the grey zone shifts from 10-15m kicks to 15-20m kicks.
I believe that it would be significantly harder to find safe options with 15-20m kicks than 10-15m because it requires about 30% more space, and space is very hard to find in the modern game.

Ergo, 15-20m kicks will end up in many more contested possessions than 10-15m kicks and that is a good thing IMO.

I don't think the tech is too far away from being practical. Players already have gps trackers in their jumpers. In the EPL they are using a real-time Hawk-eye system and I read somewhere that a Uni in Australia is developing a football with sensors. The heads-up display is probably a couple of years off but if the will was there to develop a system to track the movement of the ball and / or players, it could be put together in a few years. The AFL would be another 10 years behind, mind you. It is a pipe-dream, but I don't think it is that unreasonable technology-wise.

Changing the distance for a kick might mean there are more play-on calls, but I'm not sure if this is necessarily a good thing. And in the end, there will still be complaints about kicks that we think only went 18, 19 metres.

I'd rather they just tighten up on 15m kicks to the point where players try to kick it a bit further to make sure it has gone far enough.

 

[Moggy]

I don't think the tech is too far away from being practical. Players already have gps trackers in their jumpers. In the EPL they are using a real-time Hawk-eye system and I read somewhere that a Uni in Australia is developing a football with sensors. The heads-up display is probably a couple of years off but if the will was there to develop a system to track the movement of the ball and / or players, it could be put together in a few years. The AFL would be another 10 years behind, mind you. It is a pipe-dream, but I don't think it is that unreasonable technology-wise.

Changing the distance for a kick might mean there are more play-on calls, but I'm not sure if this is necessarily a good thing. And in the end, there will still be complaints about kicks that we think only went 18, 19 metres.

I'd rather they just tighten up on 15m kicks to the point where players try to kick it a bit further to make sure it has gone far enough.

I think the EPL use Hawkeye on the goal-line, which is much simpler than tracking a ball across the whole field.

 

[estibador]

Now, I'm not biased *, but I think there are some massive inconsistencies in the umpiring of the 15m kick rule.

On Monday, it seemed (as usual?) that Hawthorn got away with sub-15m kicks on a regular basis. Some of them (Mitchell on the left forward flank 2nd qtr) looked under 10m!

In contrast, the umps seemed much happier to call Geelong kicks short, some of them when it wasn't even clear where the ball was going to land when they called it.

My theory is that the umpires have been seduced by the success of the Hawthorn game style of precise short kicking and consequently give them a free pass on kick length because they have been so dominant.

Anyway, it drives me mad - as my wife will attest...

Amirite?



* I am biased

Amen brother! It was a total pisstake in our prelim against them last year.

I was up in the 3 tier stand at Subi where the players look like ants but where you get a very good view from the top down when it comes to the comparative distance of kicks. Time and time again they were paid marks when the ball barely went 10 metres, let alone 15. It's no wonder they're so feted for their ability to pick through zones with their 'awesome footskills' when teams set up zones to intercept 15m kicks and Hawthorn are allowed to chip 10m into the space between them and still be paid marks.

As the annoyance of the crowd grew with each dodgy mark paid, I turned to the person I'd taken (a relative n00b to live footy) and said "You watch, the minute we try one later they'll call play on". Sure enough, at a crucial time in the 4th qtr when we were still in the game one of our boys hit Suban on the chest inside 50 with a Hawthorn kick and the umpire instantly called play on, robbing us of a shot at goal.

 

[grimlock]

This was called not 15, looks more like 25 based on the 50m arc

 

[ManWithNoName]

It's out of control. They're calling it as soon as the ball leaves the players boot, which is ridiculous. It's clearly a directive because everyone* wants a fast, continuous, non-stop game. But they've gone way too far.

*TV Executives

 

[The_Todd07]

Has anyone got footage of the Motlop kick on Saturday that was called play on? Ball went at least 25-30m and was definitely not touched off the boot

 

[Tigerland]

Attention umpire HQ:

Stop making a rule of the week that you go tough on. This week it's 15m and the calls were ridiculous.

The AFL is already the worst adjudicated sport in the world, stop making it worse.

Pay holding the ball as you've gone soft on that (god knows why) but leave ALL rules the same for EVERY game of the season.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[dockerfemme]

It seems defenders have to kick it more than 20 for mark to be awarded. Forwards can kick it 12.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

When my own team get a set shot on goal as a result, and I'm abusing the umpire's call - it's an issue.

1. How far can a player run without being called "too far" (<15m)? 20+ is allowed regularly. Very rare called less than 15m.

2. How far can a player kick before it is called "not 15"? Again, 20m is rarely called play-on, sometimes 12-14m allowed.

Our game has changed since the 15m rule was introduced - a faster, more open game is achieved with 20m between bounces and kicking has improved 1000%. I would change the law to 20m, with far stricter interpretations. (If in doubt, ran too far).

Similarly, as much as it hurts my Hawks (why is that even a consideration?) I believe the kicking distance should be also increased to 20m, again with stricter interpretation. (If in doubt, play on)

 

[MinerBoy]

This was called not 15, looks more like 25 based on the 50m arc

No it doesn't look 25 but I'd be happy for it to be paid 15m. Anyway, what's the distance between goal and point post as the kick looks probably double that.

Edit: