Idea - 50m penalty becomes the 50% penalty?

[Dirty Bird]

Rather than giving a 50m penalty from when there's a post mark/free kick infringement, why not go half the distance to the goal?

There was a period with the Saints a while back where they'd give away a 50m penalty in the back 20-30m of the field, so they could set up their compact zone (aka. Flood). Making it a 50% penalty would give up 70-80m rather than 50.

If there's a mark 60m out from goal and the defender holds up the attacker for 1 nano-second (sometimes it's called, others it's not with some inconsistencies) now the 50 takes them to within 10m, 50% takes it to the 30. Not a huge disadvantage and it doesn't r*** a defence as much as a 50m penalty is.

I know it has it's pros and cons. But what do others think?

It's only an idea I want to discuss, I feel it's probably not the best and the status quo might be better, but I just want to see if there's any other opinions others might have that I havn't thought of.

 

[swans4eva]

I quite like it to be honest. Although, logistically I feel it would be pretty hard to implement. How exactly would the umpire know the distance between them and the goal?

 

[swans4eva]

Also, it could become problematic on different sized grounds.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Also, it could become problematic on different sized grounds.

Would it? It might actually be more consistent. 50m at the SCG is arguably more punishing than 50m on York Park or Subiaco. At times it may mean 70m from the backline and 80m at other venues.

It would take away turning a shot from 40 into an absolute gimme for a minor onfringement. From 20m an AFL player should still slot it, but they do sometimes miss.

I'm in two minds as well. This is one of those things that (if the NAB Cup was still knockout) could be trialled in practice games for teamds out of the pre-season comp. If it was to be considered it should probably have a couple of seasons of trials before being used, as the effect would not always be seen a lot of times in every game and it needs a decent sample size to make a decision from.
Therefore if the rules committee get wind of it, they will implement it mid-season.

 

[swans4eva]

Would it? It might actually be more consistent. 50m at the SCG is arguably more punishing than 50m on York Park or Subiaco. At times it may mean 70m from the backline and 80m at other venues.

Sorry, my point was from a logistical point of view. How are you meant to know how far you are from the goals on Subiaco as opposed to the SCG? But yeah, I agree that it would make it more consistent in that respect.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeah, I guess it could be hard to judge. Maybe an umpire further forward could mark the halfway point, trying to find a point where the goal and incident seem roughly equidistant.
It wouldn't have to be perfect, umpires struggle with 0 metres and 15 metres as it is.

Another reason why it would need a long period of being trialled in practice games before a decision was mad either way.

 

[PastiesPeake]

It would take away turning a shot from 40 into an absolute gimme for a minor onfringement. From 20m an AFL player should still slot it, but they do sometimes miss.

If a player get's a 50m penalty after marking the ball 40m out on the boundary line, he ends up dead in front on the goal line.

If this new penalty is applied, will the player end up 20m hard up on the boundary line or 20m directly in front?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If a player get's a 50m penalty after marking the ball 40m out on the boundary line, he ends up dead in front on the goal line.

If this new penalty is applied, will the player end up 20m hard up on the boundary line or 20m directly in front?

I would think the same angle as the original mark. But the angle will never be too bad from that far out, it would certainly be in from the boundary somewhat.

 

[cryptor]

For measuring the halfway point it could easily be done via the umpires radio link by the guys who do the scoring review upstairs. They just look at a full shot of the ground and measure and take the halfway point between the infringement and goal. It could easily be done with computers so even a chimp could find the right spot.

As for the penalties within the 50m arc. They should all just become a shot straight in front from 10m out as they are currently. You'd be stupid to give away a penalty that close to goal in the first place. And 40m out on a tight angle is arguably the preferred shot as opposed to 20m out on a tight angle (the angle of the boundary towards goal is far tighter than at 40m out). You'd want to at least place the new mark curved in towards goal from the boundary if you're applying the 50% penalty in those cases otherwise you're penalising the wrong player/team.

 

[stmookeyj]

I assume you want to hear the umpire announce over the loudspeakers....FIRST DOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN!

Seriously though if anything the penalty will be reduced to 25m before we start trying to work around percentages and fractions given half the nation struggles to add up, substract, multiply and divide properly.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

And 40m out on a tight angle is arguably the preferred shot as opposed to 20m out on a tight angle (the angle of the boundary towards goal is far tighter than at 40m out). You'd want to at least place the new mark curved in towards goal from the boundary if you're applying the 50% penalty in those cases otherwise you're penalising the wrong player/team.

It would just be done in a straight line, not along the boundary line.
Which is exactly what would happen now if a 50 was given away 70 metres out. The angle doesn't change, meaning the player is in from the boundary. The only difference would be a shot from 35 metres instead of from 20.

It could be the greater of 50% or 50 metres, but that just confuses things further.

 

[HugeJohnson]

So if a player gave away a 50 on the goal line (might not be there but the umpire has called it), the opposition would take their free kick from the centre circle? Seems a bit harsh IMO.

 

[TassieEagle]

Given the incidents 50m penalties are given for we should be REDUCING the distance, not increasing it. 25m penalty seems like a much better idea to me. For inside the forward 50 it basically would be a 50% rule anyway.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Bring back the 25 metre arc!

 

[CAS79]

For measuring the halfway point it could easily be done via the umpires radio link by the guys who do the scoring review upstairs. They just look at a full shot of the ground and measure and take the halfway point between the infringement and goal. It could easily be done with computers so even a chimp could find the right spot.

Another good idea. Get the chimps to do the score review too and we should see improvement there as well.

 

[kickazz]

Been suggested before http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/50m-penalties-a-simple-solution.960466/

I think it would be good, especially in the forward half of the ground. The full-back to centre cicle penalty could seem a bit harsh but so be it.

 

[kickazz]

There was a period with the Saints a while back where they'd give away a 50m penalty in the back 20-30m of the field, so they could set up their compact zone (aka. Flood). Making it a 50% penalty would give up 70-80m rather than 50.

Also brings up a thought a mate had - should you be allowed to play on and kick before you reach 50, this is sometimes better than going the full distance, waiting for the ump to set the mark, etc.

The pace of the game these days.......

 

[FLYINV]

Not a bad idea at all, infringements in the forward half become less severe and ones in the back half become more severe.

 

[The Speaker]

Would rather see them introduce a smaller penalty for smaller infringements.

 

[melbournemartin]

I would think the same angle as the original mark. But the angle will never be too bad from that far out, it would certainly be in from the boundary somewhat.

Maybe maybe it 50% towards the top of the goal square, not the goal line. A negligible difference for 50 metre penalties on the other side of the ground but if on the boundary you're brought closer and given a slightly easier angle.

I honestly think this idea has merit, although I think going from very full back to the middle of the ground, for what are often ticky-touchwood penalties, is too much.

I also think the umpires don't give out 50s. They give out 30s to 70s. The ground dimensions are pretty bloody simple for 50s as the centre square is 50x50 and there are those arcs, yet they get it wrong consistently. Asking them to do a percentage would be asking for trouble.

How about we just keep 50s but you cannot be brought closer to 30m from goal?

 

[melbournemartin]

Would rather see them introduce a smaller penalty for smaller infringements.

True, although I think a 25m for minor holds would lead us back to the days of someone taking the mark and being man handled for a good couple of seconds, as 25m isn't a lot these days with full ground defense and flooding.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

A two tier punishment would be better. 25m for the ticky touchwood stuff. 50m for the bad stuff.

 

[EaglesInMyBlood]

i like it!

 

[Dirty Bird]

I was just looking at some of my old threads (**** I was terrible in 2011-12) and came across this one.

What are peoples thoughts on this idea?

 

[kickazz]

Great idea should do it.

50 these days is not enough from deep in defence, often gives time to set up your zone.

50 is too much from say 65 out, but 30 35 would be about right