20 Metre Minimum Kick

[SirJimi05]

http://www.answers.com/topic/almost

Is this your way of saying that you were wrong?

You stated that it is almost impossible for players to spot a team mate on the lead over 20m in the forward line.

I replied that you are either delusional OR every single AFL player in the comp is a spud if it is almost impossible to do this.

You then reply that no one said it is impossible.

Why bring "impossible" into it when it was never mentioned in the first place. You are stating the obvious by saying no one said it was impossible.

What is your point?

Are you still trying to say it is almost impossible or you just try and change the subject by saying none said it is "impossible".

Either way it makes you look very foolish.

 

[SirJimi05]

The longer the kick, theoretically the harder it is to judge. Just watch a few NAB Cup games, you will see.


No one is saying it’s impossible (only almost impossible), but it takes away from the game. Trying to pinpoint a short pass when about 15 players are in your attacking zone is hard enough with a 15 metre kick, let alone 20! Think about it for a second.

This is what you meant to say.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

i dont mind it. But then again, i dont mind the normal one either. It is inconsistancy in a match that i do get frustrated with.
I see in many matches (nto just hawthorn) when a player will clearly kick the ball well over 15m and get called play on, and then, seconds later, the oppositiongets a mark from a ball which would have been less than 5m. however, i think the umpires get caught in the moment, and that is the biggest drawback. if they changed it to 20m permanently, you would find that players would kick 15 and it will be payed, and it will iliminagte the dodgey 5m chips

 

[AlecDuncan]

The rule is there to stop the chip-chip-chip passing that ruins the game.

The chip-chip-chip passing only exists because the other team is flooding. It's not chip-chip that's detracting from the game - it's constant flooding.

This idiotic rule is supposed to stop flooding, but it only encourages it. The flooding team isn't penalised, only the team trying to defeat it. It rewards flooding by forcing attacking teams to go long - and there's no way to pin-point a long kick into a flooded forward line. The flooders get a turn-over and rebound. Flooders love this rule.

I sometimes wonder about the morons on the rules committee. Whenever there's a problem, they come up with the exact opposite of a solution and just make the original problem worse.

They should have reduced the length of a legal kick to 5m. It's impossible to flood against such short kicks so flooding would disappear overnight. You'd have to be right next to an opponent and playing in front to beat that. There would be no chip-chip anymore because you'd have one-on-ones all over the ground.

So I expect the rules committee will see the worsening flooding and of course increase the length of a legal kick to 30m.

 

[Beckers]

The chip-chip-chip passing only exists because the other team is flooding. It's not chip-chip that's detracting from the game - it's constant flooding.

This idiotic rule is supposed to stop flooding, but it only encourages it. The flooding team isn't penalised, only the team trying to defeat it. It rewards flooding by forcing attacking teams to go long - and there's no way to pin-point a long kick into a flooded forward line. The flooders get a turn-over and rebound. Flooders love this rule.

I sometimes wonder about the morons on the rules committee. Whenever there's a problem, they come up with the exact opposite of a solution and just make the original problem worse.

They should have reduced the length of a legal kick to 5m. It's impossible to flood against such short kicks so flooding would disappear overnight. You'd have to be right next to an opponent and playing in front to beat that. There would be no chip-chip anymore because you'd have one-on-ones all over the ground.

So I expect the rules committee will see the worsening flooding and of course increase the length of a legal kick to 30m.

While i agree with you totally in regards to bad rules and knee jerk reactions, i don't think the 20 mtr kick or play on for kicking backwards are such bad rules. They may not FIX the flooding issue but they do restrict a defensive issue that has slowly been creeping into the game.

I also think that after a deliberate rushed behind, the ball should be bounced at the top of the goal square instead of rewarding the defenders with a kick in.

 

[hellfire]

Stupid rule. Sometimes the ball goes 25 and it's called play on. 25m is WAY too far to be considered play on, so is 20m. Leave it at 15, leave the game alone FFS! I don't see why they feel they need to change rules all the time, when the vast majority of supporters don't want changes...nor the players. WE should have a say in what happens, not a couple of people who think they have to change something every year so that they actually believe they're doing something.

 

[AlecDuncan]

They may not FIX the flooding issue but they do restrict a defensive issue that has slowly been creeping into the game.

It's not that it "may not fix" flooding, it's that it will definitely make it worse.

It will make it worse by rewarding flooding. If you want less of something, penalise it - don't reward it.

 

[Beckers]

It's not that it "may not fix" flooding, it's that it will definitely make it worse.

It will make it worse by rewarding flooding. If you want less of something, penalise it - don't reward it.

Ok, off topic a little and i am not in anyway condoning any of the changes, but so far the law makers of the game have been totally unsuccessful in stamping out flooding. Some of the worst games i have seen occurred in 2007.

So far they have tried the 'quick kick in after a behind' (which i personally hate), trialled kicking backwards = no mark and the 20mtr kick for a mark. What are your suggestions to stamp out this blight on our game?.

Offside perhaps if there are more than 7 defenders in the back 50

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

How to fix?

Any disposal by foot that is caught by another player results in a Mark.

Flooding gone.

Was it that hard?

 

[Beckers]

How to fix?

Any disposal by foot that is caught by another player results in a Mark.

Flooding gone.

Was it that hard?

How does that fix anything? The flooding team will still sit back and wait for the error.

 

[AlecDuncan]

How does that fix anything? The flooding team will still sit back and wait for the error.

AFL footballers - even Richo - can't miss a teammate over 5m.

And you can't sit back and intercept a 5m pass. The only way you can stop someone marking a 5m pass is to be on their hammer all the way. That's called one-on-one footy - the opposite of flooding.

Now at 20m, sure you can sit back and wait for the errors. They'll come too.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Thanks AD, although one thing that people must also consider, is that if you can keep posession with these little chips (5m or less), then the whole game would be reduced to it. (as teams will keep chipping until guaranteed shot on goal).

Flooding is something we are stuck with atm, and given other sports around the world, may be for good.

 

[chrisjie]

The rule is there to stop the chip-chip-chip passing that ruins the game. I think it has more to do with umpiring inconsistency.

Yeah but players/coaches already sorted that out themselves. Refer to Geelong.

 

[hawka187]

i like this rule, cause 15 metre is just way to short

 

[GO EAGLES]

As the other guy stated, the umpires have had to judge the length of the kick for 100 years so how is it now just become comical?

There is no difference in judging 10m,15m or 20m.

And if you truly think it is almost impossible for players to spot up a player over 20m, around the 50m line you are seriously deluded OR all AFL players are absolute spuds.

my god,

please think, carefully.

the 20 metre rule for a start is destroying a great spectacle of our game.
the short daisy cutter stab pass.

NOW IF YOU COULD NOT PICK THAT. SOMETHING AS BASIC AS THAT