AFL to "Crack Down" on Deliberate Time Wasters

[wagstaff]

Just saw in the Dogs/Hawks game Daniel Howe taking a shot 50m out and while preparing to take the shot the umpire yelled out to him to hurry up and then called him to play on with 10 seconds left on the countdown clock.

Howe went on to kick the goal but this would’ve never have happened without this week’s new directive. Didn’t seem Howe was wasting time at all.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Just saw in the Dogs/Hawks game Daniel Howe taking a shot 50m out and while preparing to take the shot the umpire yelled out to him to hurry up and then called him to play on with 10 seconds left on the countdown clock.

Howe went on to kick the goal but this would’ve never have happened without this week’s new directive. Didn’t seem Howe was wasting time at all.

This is the problem. We're expecting umps to be mind readers. It looked to me like he was right on his range, and wanted to have a look around. Got back and took his time (As he should be entitled to when 50m out from goal.

 

[hcd199]

AFL calling Daniel Howe to move the ball on repeatedly while having a genuine shot on goal. I'm getting angrier and angrier at the bullshit the AFL is doing to our great game.

Classic example of overzealous umpires implementing the "rule of the week", even when it's clearly not there. It's a rule that should exist, IMO, but only to be used only in blindingly obvious cases (like Stringer last week, where it was already competently applied) - not while players are, quite reasonably, simultaneously preparing to shoot for goal and looking for better options. Maybe the 'you should be forced to kick for goal if you're taking more than 6 seconds' types are having an influence, if merely looking for other options is enough to deem you to be not genuinely preparing to shoot now...

At least with these "crackdowns", the rule usually goes back to being umpired correctly within a week or so. Still, surely the obvious solution is just to trust umpires to apply the rule properly in the first place? They're far from perfect, but they're usually worse when daft directives are foisted onto them...

 

[HairyO]

Just saw in the Dogs/Hawks game Daniel Howe taking a shot 50m out and while preparing to take the shot the umpire yelled out to him to hurry up and then called him to play on with 10 seconds left on the countdown clock.

Howe went on to kick the goal but this would’ve never have happened without this week’s new directive. Didn’t seem Howe was wasting time at all.

Im all for this rule if you are 60 metres out. But Howe was 49m out. That was just ridiculous.

Brilliant kick. He should have had a word in the umpire's ear.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Seems they are going to look for players having a look at the clock. Someone else should just be screaming out the countdown so they don't have to look

 

[deck]

Had to laugh at BT claiming Mckernan was called to play on because he was looking at the clock. No BT he actually had used up the allotted 30 seconds.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Just saw in the Dogs/Hawks game Daniel Howe taking a shot 50m out and while preparing to take the shot the umpire yelled out to him to hurry up and then called him to play on with 10 seconds left on the countdown clock.

Howe went on to kick the goal but this would’ve never have happened without this week’s new directive. Didn’t seem Howe was wasting time at all.

I agree, and the real worry is once play on is called, then the man on the mark can run forward and smother the kick. That would be a nice shock for a player taking a set shot at goal. I think for memory, only 16 seconds had expired before the play on call.

I always laugh at the thought of time wasting when umpires waste as much time as anyone when it comes to bouncing the ball. The instructing players where they are going to run, the composure and concentration, the wiggle of the backside and eventually the bounce ... followed by the inevitable re-bounce. Worried about time wasting? Just instruct umpires to throw the bloody ball up.

 

[DuckToaster]

Gosh the AFL have some balls don't they? "We're going to put a countdown clock on the scoreboard, but you're not allowed to look at it."

 

[Tex9798]

Im all for this rule if you are 60 metres out. But Howe was 49m out. That was just ridiculous.

Brilliant kick. He should have had a word in the umpire's ear.

But how does the umpire decide how far is too far?

60m for someone like Buddy and a few others is doable.

Even the Melbourne player kicked a 60m+ torp for goal last year.

Just a dumb rule really. A player taking a set shot from what the umpire thinks is too far, but Ben Brown taking a 50m run up is not wasting time?

 

[HairyO]

But how does the umpire decide how far is too far?

60m for someone like Buddy and a few others is doable.

Even the Melbourne player kicked a 60m+ torp for goal last year.

Just a dumb rule really. A player taking a set shot from what the umpire thinks is too far, but Ben Brown taking a 50m run up is not wasting time?

Because everyone should get a shot from 50m out.

Only the known big kickers from 60m out.

And yes, Brown should be called on his ludicrous run in.

 

[wagstaff]

Just a classic case of the AFL not thinking the consequences of rule changes leading to new problems and more knee-jerk changes and new ‘interpretations’.

 

[Tex9798]

Because everyone should get a shot from 50m out.

Only the known big kickers from 60m out.

And yes, Brown should be called on his ludicrous run in.

So do the umpires have to carry a list of known big goal kickers around? What if there is a 10m breeze behind the kicker? What if there is a howling wind into the kicker and they won't make the distance?

 

[HairyO]

So do the umpires have to carry a list of known big goal kickers around? What if there is a 10m breeze behind the kicker? What if there is a howling wind into the kicker and they won't make the distance?

What if someone tackles a player from the side and the player rolls on to their front to play for a free? What if a player is tackled from behind but then is rolled to his side? What if a player has run a fair way and is then tackled and its hard to tell when they got off a clean handball?

I would think the answer to all these questions is that the umpire would use their trained judgement to make the most appropriate decision.

That's why they get paid a lot of money.

 

[Tex9798]

What if someone tackles a player from the side and the player rolls on to their front to play for a free? What if a player is tackled from behind but then is rolled to his side? What if a player has run a fair way and is then tackled and its hard to tell when they got off a clean handball?

I would think the answer to all these questions is that the umpire would use their trained judgement to make the most appropriate decision.

That's why they get paid a lot of money.

I don't think the umpires should be making these decisions, if the player thinks they can make it they should be allowed to have a crack.

Friday night Seedsman had a shot at goal where he would had to have kicked 55m+ and he comfortably made the distance.

It would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have made the distance but he did so comfortably and the umpire did not call play on.

Then Saturday night Daniel Howe wasnt afforded the same luxury.

 

[hcd199]

But how does the umpire decide how far is too far?

60m for someone like Buddy and a few others is doable.

Even the Melbourne player kicked a 60m+ torp for goal last year.

Just a dumb rule really. A player taking a set shot from what the umpire thinks is too far, but Ben Brown taking a 50m run up is not wasting time?

This is where, for me, the "6 seconds"/"30 seconds" thing does fall apart a bit - players shouldn't be denied the opportunity to shoot from long range on a capacity judgement from the umpire. But I'm not sure what solutions are really available: either we move to a uniform time around the ground, say 15 seconds (making set shots worse, and making it easier to soak up time with chip kicks in the backline), or the threshold remains; if the threshold remains, it either applies to everyone (so either anyone is allowed 30 seconds from long range, or no-one is), or there's a capacity judgement to be made (which seems more than a little unfair). Or, alternatively, as some suggest, players should be forced to shoot, or concede a free - an abhorrent idea, IMO, since it makes set shots a completely different, less advantageous thing to a normal mark/free (which you can dispose of at will).

The way the rule has worked thus far, excluding the Howe decision on Saturday night, hasn't been especially problematic; some seem to think taking 15-20 seconds before passing off is unfair, but I'd say a player should be entitled to prepare to shoot for goal then change their mind when a better option presents itself, and I'd rather that to players being told by the umpire they can't prepare to shoot for goal because they don't reckon he'll make the distance. As I said earlier in this thread, I think they're going to apply the time-wasting rule excessively now, in the name of a "crackdown", but hopefully it'll revert to normal in a couple of weeks, used only for egregious cases like Stringer in Round 15.

 

[falcons2]

So simple. If you take the 30 seconds you must have a shot. If you don’t, a free against.

 

[hawkman]

So simple. If you take the 30 seconds you must have a shot. If you don’t, a free against.

I agree but only for outside 50 shots