Yeah I can see your point and appreciate your perspective on the potential for professional frees. But I don't think that is as big a problem as the inequity in the penalty that is applied for a free that occurs at one end or the other to where the ball is.Still a disadvantage to the attacking team, a guaranteed set shot in the goal square is always better than a kick inside 50.
If the rule is play the free where the ball is, players can give away legitimate free kicks to gain an advantage which will just be abused from players at key moments that umpires have to pay even if they know it's against the spirit of the game.
As the rule currently is, it only falls down when there is umpire error.
As far as rules go you'd always rather it be an issue of umpire error than deliberate abuse of loopholes by players. Take the rushed behind rule, what's worse, Hawthorn rushing 12 behinds in a game or the risk that once or twice a year a side gets a dodgy rushed behind free kick that maybe wasn't there?
Sorry, I'm an umpire.
I think the rule probably made sense at a time when there was no advantage rule, because as you say there is potential to disadvantage an attacking side by using a foul forward of the ball. But there'd be no such issue if the advantage rule was used to ensure that an attacking side isn't disadvantaged by a free kick for.





