Advantage???

[TimeFor11]

Tonight Lovett took the mark on the HFF from behind Polo however Polo grabbed him in what was deemed to be a high tackle. Lovett then ran on and kicked the goal.

Surely he has to go back on his mark, advantage is given if the ball has left the player and is in his teams hands in a more advantagous position.

Am I wrong on this?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Can't remember the incident perfectly, but if Lovett took the mark and then Polo tackled him high to the ground, it should've been 50.

If however Lovett had played on from the mark, then Polo tackled him (which I think is what happened) then it should've just been a standard free kick from which Lovett can play on and the umpire can call advantage for.

 

[TimmehJC"]

Don't think it has to leave the player, I think as long as there is an advantage. This rule still has to be fixed though, too often blokes stop first.

 

[Anti-pow]

This is where this rule combine with the new 50M rule don't work together. There was no leagal way for Polo to stop LM. If he held on, it would have been 50M when he didn't hold on, LM just gets to freely play on!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I hate the advantage rule.

It shits me because, when there is clear advantage, the ump calls it back, but when there is no advantage, the ump calls it.

then there is the umpires blowing the whistle when the player has run 10m, everyone turns around, and the ump calls advantage, it doesnt work like that ump!

 

[Spluff]

I hate the advantage rule.

It shits me because, when there is clear advantage, the ump calls it back, but when there is no advantage, the ump calls it.

then there is the umpires blowing the whistle when the player has run 10m, everyone turns around, and the ump calls advantage, it doesnt work like that ump!

I agree 100% with this post.

The other big issue with advantage is that it is up to the umpires discretion - and even if they are clearly playing on, you can't do anything until they call advantage and the player is already long gone.