Blowing the whistle and calling advantage

[HawkMongrel]

Why do our umpires first blow the whistle, and then call advantage?

Using soccer as an example, when a referee plays advantage for a foul, he'll produce two arms forward and allow play to continue without interruption. No whistle is used unless there is no advantage, in which event he'll whistle and bring the ball back.

In AFL the whistle is first blown, leading to most players stopping to see what's happened, and then the player with the ball runs off and gets a nice head-start on any defenders who happened to stop.

It's a massive disadvantage. It flows far better in soccer with nobody stopping when advantage is played.

Should AFL umpires be simply yelling "advantage" before blowing the whistle, and then if there is none, blowing and bringing the ball back?

I'm curious to see people's thoughts on this.

 

[Maddo11]

Yes, advantage is one of the many rules that is broken. If a free is paid within 30m of goal and a teammate picks the ball up and snaps a behind simultaneously with the whistle the ump pays advantage 90% of the time despite the clear advantage being having a set shot.

On the other side of the coin, twice this weekend a mid kicked the ball into the forward 50 and was infringed for high contact as they kicked. Despite marks being taken by team mates 30m out from goal (reiwoldt and buddy) the ump stopped play for 10 seconds and brought the ball back to the middle while the opposition defenders flood back.

And THEN there's the occasions where there's a 50/50 call and everyone stops except one bloke that runs off and that's advantage.

Having the ump just start pointing in one direction and yelling advantage would change this easily

 

[Doggstats]

Something needs to change. The first thing you're taught in footy is to play to the whistle. It's stupid when you see every player on the ground stop to look at the ump whilst 1 player gambles and gets lucky and runs off with the ball without any resistance.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Something needs to change. The first thing you're taught in footy is to play to the whistle. It's stupid when you see every player on the ground stop to look at the ump whilst 1 player gambles and gets lucky and runs off with the ball without any resistance.

Case in point.

And the worst bit is that that gamble can sometimes result in an unlucky 50m penalty because the player thinks it's their free and kicks away, only for the call to go the other way and said player then gets burned double, or triple if it results directly in a goal.

 

[ManInWhite]

The rule was changed a few years ago. Prior to that, the umpire would decide if it was advantage play and call accordingly. The change made a few years ago was that we now watch what the player does - if the player takes the advantage, we have to call play on.

In some ways I would prefer a play on call without the whistle - problem is that from a distance, many people watching will think it was a missed free kick.


17.3 THE ADVANTAGE RULE


Where the field Umpire intends to or has signalled that they intend to award a Free Kick to a Player, the field Umpire may, instead of awarding the Free Kick,
allow play to continue if a Player of the Team who receives the Free Kick has taken the advantage.

 

[HawkMongrel]

It doesn't really matter what people watching at a distance think. If they can't see an ump signalling, too bad. It's about the flow of the game itself.

I can't ever remember a whistle not being blown before advantage being called.

 

[HairyO]

The whistle indicates the free kick? Do we want a system where sometimes we have whistles and sometimes we dont?

Wouldnt that just lead to more confusion?

What if they call advantage but then realise the play has stopped, or there is no advantage?

 

[2notepockets]

The whistle indicates the free kick? Do we want a system where sometimes we have whistles and sometimes we dont?

Wouldnt that just lead to more confusion?

What if they call advantage but then realise the play has stopped, or there is no advantage?

The whistle should be used to stop play only.

When there is a free kick the umpire would call/signal (high contact Selwood/Geelong) allowing play to continue where there may be an advantage to the team receiving the free. when it is clear there is no advantage and play needs to be stopped blow the whistle play stops mark is set kick taken.

 

[Helfarch]

NRL seems to get this pretty right, official indicates there is advantage without stopping play.

 

[peppy la pew]

The whistle indicates the free kick? Do we want a system where sometimes we have whistles and sometimes we dont?

Wouldnt that just lead to more confusion?

What if they call advantage but then realise the play has stopped, or there is no advantage?

Not at all, you are taught to play to the whistle. No whistle you play on

It's so very simple

 

[Confuscius]

One of my pet hates. Signal advantage let play go on. Bring it back if the first possession of advantage doesn't work (and by that only if it results in opponents hands or out of play, if they go backwards still let play continue).

It's especially infuriating when they blow whistle and advantage works out yet umpire calls it back because he didn't see the advantage taking place. Just let things play out and things will make so much more sense imo

 

[HawkMongrel]

The whistle indicates the free kick? Do we want a system where sometimes we have whistles and sometimes we dont?

Wouldnt that just lead to more confusion?

What if they call advantage but then realise the play has stopped, or there is no advantage?

The rest have pointed out where you're wrong here.

Whistle to bring it back, otherwise just keep playing.

 

[HairyO]

The rest have pointed out where you're wrong here.

Whilstle to bring it back, otherwise just keep playing.

Im sure it works fine in a non contact sport but without a whistle I can see players getting crunched repeatedly.

But more importantly how does Champion data assign free kicks for and against?

 

[peppy la pew]

Im sure it works fine in a non contact sport but without a whistle I can see players getting crunched repeatedly.

But more importantly how does Champion data assign free kicks for and against?

Players are constantly getting crunched that isn't the point, if an illegal act happens but the ball bounces to the offended players advantage then play on.

It's been the rule in soccer and works very well.

 

[HawkMongrel]

As somebody pointed out it also works in Rugby and that's a fierce contact sport.

 

[flyinghi64]

How about one whistle indicates a free kick has arisen and play can continue with a call of advantage. 50m penalties should be a little more lenient in this case.
2x Quick sharp whistles indicate stop of play by all. This could be a free kick or ball up but a stop of play. 50m penalties after 2x whistles should be more strict.

 

[legend166]

On the other side of the coin, twice this weekend a mid kicked the ball into the forward 50 and was infringed for high contact as they kicked. Despite marks being taken by team mates 30m out from goal (reiwoldt and buddy) the ump stopped play for 10 seconds and brought the ball back to the middle while the opposition defenders flood back.

This is the most infuriating.

 

[HawkMongrel]

This is the most infuriating.

And this is one great reason to allow the ball to go unless it has to be pulled back.

 

[grimface_87]

Im sure it works fine in a non contact sport but without a whistle I can see players getting crunched repeatedly.

But more importantly how does Champion data assign free kicks for and against?

The umpire still signals the free kick, just doesn't blow the whistle so it will still get added to the stats

 

[go_the_dockers]

The current rule is a shocker. There is nothing worse than seeing everyone stops except for one person, the ball goes past 3 people who leave it and then one person picks it up and runs off and gets an advantage call. (Except when it is your favour)

Brad Hill's goal against the bombers should not have been allowed. The Essendon player clearly left the ball once he heard the whistle, letting Brad pick it and run in to an open goal.

 

[Orange C]

For all the tinkering with the rules over the years this is the simplest solution to a genuine problem that exists and it absolutely baffles me why it has never been addressed.

I can't even think of a single way in which advantage is currently officiated superior, every other sport with the rule doesn't blow the whistle and signals play on. It actually makes so much sense I sort of understand why no one on the rules committee has never thought of it.

 

[HawkMongrel]

For all the tinkering with the rules over the years this is the simplest solution to a genuine problem that exists and it absolutely baffles me why it has never been addressed.

I can't even think of a single way in which advantage is currently officiated superior, every other sport with the rule doesn't blow the whistle and signals play on. It actually makes so much sense I sort of understand why no one on the rules committee has never thought of it.

This is the same rules committee that decided taking away every tool a defender ever had to defend their goal would be a good idea for the game.

I hope everybody is enjoying the fruits of their labor (i.e. The current under-12s 36-man pack flood that follows the ball no matter where it goes on the ground).

 

[Strahany]

I think the whistle is important, as it lets the team know that they have the option to stop play and take the free kick. For example, if a player is tackled high in a congested part of the field and the ball spills, their teammate would opt to swoop on the ball and clear it forward for pure metre gains. However, if they hear the whistle then they know they can stop and opt for the free kick.

Choosing not to blow the whistle is predicated on the understanding of the teammate of the player receiving the free kick that said free has been awarded. Given that modern umpiring is a complete lucky dip, the whistle remains necessary.

 

[D-N-R]

The current rule is a shocker. There is nothing worse than seeing everyone stops except for one person, the ball goes past 3 people who leave it and then one person picks it up and runs off and gets an advantage call. (Except when it is your favour)

Brad Hill's goal against the bombers should not have been allowed. The Essendon player clearly left the ball once he heard the whistle, letting Brad pick it and run in to an open goal.

That was ridiculous. The Bombers even had possession when the free was called and, as you said, one player let the ball go over his head when the play stopped. I'm not sure how it can be construed as 'continuous play' when the opposition has the ball in the next move.

There were other situations on the weekend where the umpires let play continue when a player blindly kicked a ball moments after the whistle had gone. There was no advantage to his team.

The rule needs to go back to being the umpire's decision. They need to judge it using a little common sense about how advantageous the next play really was and how much pressure the player was under at the time of disposal. If a player fluffs an advantage kick under no pressure, then let the play continue. If he just slams it on the boot to a contest or an opponent, then use some common sense and call it back.

 

[HawkMongrel]

I think the whistle is important, as it lets the team know that they have the option to stop play and take the free kick. For example, if a player is tackled high in a congested part of the field and the ball spills, their teammate would opt to swoop on the ball and clear it forward for pure metre gains. However, if they hear the whistle then they know they can stop and opt for the free kick.

Choosing not to blow the whistle is predicated on the understanding of the teammate of the player receiving the free kick that said free has been awarded. Given that modern umpiring is a complete lucky dip, the whistle remains necessary.

There shouldn't have to be "an option". It's stupid.

Remove the option idea, let the ump call play on and if there's no immediate advantage, pull it back. Simple. Fair for all.