AFL - Where 25m is not 15m!

[Toffee Lion]

Is this one of the biggest ongoing issues with the game this season?

Most games I’ve watched are plagued with multiple not 15 calls that are clearly 15m or more. It’s causing a decent level of disruption in matches.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

play on, not 15

 

[Miluxx]

They gotta either go back to 15m kicks or change it to 20m. The dogs were genuinely robbed tonight with one of our comeback goals being kicked after they were called not 15 when it was clearly 20.

 

[Dazb86]

Genuinely cooked

 

[DaicosDisciple35]

Players will adjust eventually but right now it’s the umpires fault in terms of execution and consistency.

I don’t like 10m kicks being called marks.

I HATE seeing a 25m kick called play on.

Umps need to step up here and make it easier for the players.

 

[Mr5000]

You need to kick it 25m in the backline and 10m in the forwardline for it to be called a mark in 2025

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Classic unscrupulous bush league that would rather advise umpires to 'interpret' distance in a way that conflicts with objective reality than just change the rules.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

You need to kick it 25m in the backline and 10m in the forwardline for it to be called a mark in 2025

Different 'interpretations' of distance in the back half from the forward half have been a feature for years.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Rules seem pretty straight forward. Kick it 10m in the forward half it’s a mark.

Kick it’s 25 in defence and it’s play on.

That’s what it’s meant to be right?

Typical AFL making a meal of something that didn’t need addressing.

 

[HairyO]

Is this one of the biggest ongoing issues with the game this season?

Most games I’ve watched are plagued with multiple not 15 calls that are clearly 15m or more. It’s causing a decent level of disruption in matches.

And 8m kicks I50 are still called marks. Defenders need to kick 2 to 3 times as far as forwards for it to be called a mark.

Its yet another attempt by the AFL to increase scoring. And they dont care how dumb it looks.

 

[terrybull]

Why can’t they implant a gps tracker inside the footballs?
If the ball goes less then 15 m than a vibration is sent out on the umps wristbands.

But I prefer it this year then the obvious less than 15 m being paid in the years before..

 

[DaicosDisciple35]

Why can’t they implant a gps tracker inside the footballs?
If the ball goes less then 15 m than a vibration is sent out on the umps wristbands.

But I prefer it this year then the obvious less than 15 m being paid in the years before..

They are doing this

 

[420]

Bush league

 

[cherrypie]

Honestly feel bad for the umpires. It’s clear the AFL give them rules to focus on in random weeks. The rulebook has about 5 different conditions to consider for each potential free, then on top of that they have to spend time focusing on if a kick is 14 or 15m because their boss said that’s the current priority - then the following week they’ll move on and be worried about not focusing on the stand rule because that’s the new weekly trend again

 

[Nvent]

Some clubs and players seem to benefit more from the interpretation

 

[Oscarman]

Some clubs and players seem to benefit more from the interpretation

HQ making it wrestling through this and a few other interpretations

 

[eddiesmith]

Just another interpretation for them to **** up.

BUT, they had got to a stage where ridiculously short kicks were paid and if you compare how far a player can run without bouncing it and you could get 2-3 marks within that same distance…

 

[My_Username]

To be fair, it matches up better with their interpretation of how far you can run with the ball.

You can run 25m and still be considered not to have covered 15...

(to be clear, both are wrong...but it's better to be consistently wrong).

 

[Sentinel]

The clearest example we've had came during the Melbourne-Essendon game when a Melbourne defender standing a couple of metres to the right of the behind post kicked directly across goal where it was marked by a teammate standing a metre to the left of the opposite behind post, and was called play on. It quite obviously went further than the width of the goal and behind face.

The posts are 6.4 metres apart, meaning this kick went 19.2m plus the added distance of the individual posts plus where the players were standing - likely a minimum of 22m. It wasn't the furtherest kick which has been called play on, but the most easily provable.

 

[Orange crush]

25m always isn’t 15m

 

[Carn The Berries]

The clearest example we've had came during the Melbourne-Essendon game when a Melbourne defender standing a couple of metres to the right of the behind post kicked directly across goal where it was marked by a teammate standing a metre to the left of the opposite behind post, and was called play on. It quite obviously went further than the width of the goal and behind face.

The posts are 6.4 metres apart, meaning this kick went 19.2m plus the added distance of the individual posts plus where the players were standing - likely a minimum of 22m. It wasn't the furtherest kick which has been called play on, but the most easily provable.

Was thinking exactly the same thing when I was watching on Saturday night. I know it's maths on the run, but surely the umpires should at least have an idea of the goal post spacing. It's literally the easiest place on the ground to determine distance.

Then there were 2 paid inside forward 50 that may have added up to 15m... Perhaps...

 

[flyinghi64]

This was always one of my pet hates where a 12m kick would be paid a mark and then 10min later an 18m kick would be called not 15 so I was happy to see them get a bit stricter on it.
But like most things AFL they went too far the other way.
Now a defender kicks it 20-25m in their defensive 50 and gets called not 15. A minute later one of the forwards does a dinky 12m kick to a team mate under pressure and it get's called a mark, goes back and kicks goal.
Yep, AFL.

 

[tugga]

Is this one of the biggest ongoing issues with the game this season?

Most games I’ve watched are plagued with multiple not 15 calls that are clearly 15m or more. It’s causing a decent level of disruption in matches.

There are more marks paid for less than 15 than the other way around.
I've loved the crackdown on it.
although last night they reverted back to paying 8 metre marks.

 

[p4p1]

There was one in the Brisbane v Gold Coast game where Zorko kicked it to someone in our backline. The player marked it, was paid and then kicked it straight back to Zorko who had not moved and was called to play on. Both kicks where the same distance, one cannot be a mark and the other be called to play on because it wasn't far enough.
It's laughable at times. It does cost teams goals. We have seen plenty of kicks that probably (and some without a doubt) travelled far enough be a mark be called play on, resulting in turnovers and easy unearned goals for the team without the ball.

 

[DocSholl]

Generally players need to kick it 25 metres in he back half and at least seven metres going inside 50