If you want the 30 seconds to try and kick a goal you have to go for goal

[MightyHawks]

The reason a forward gets 30 seconds to line up is because they are trying to kick a goal

Don't really get how you are allowed to take 30 seconds if you aren't actually kicking for goal - seems like unnecessarily running down the clock

No one else gets 30 seconds so they can carefully pass the ball to a teammate

Simple solution - player has to indicate they are going for goal if they want the extra time to prepare

If they don't go for goal then it's a free kick

 

[hilly]

I don't mind it but how do you police it i.e. a player shoots from 55 and it falls 15m out (kind of similar to Shuey late in last year's GF) - perhaps it was a genuine attempt, perhaps not.

One idea might be marks inside 50 automatically equal 30 seconds.

 

[MightyHawks]

I don't mind it but how do you police it i.e. a player shoots from 55 and it falls 15m out (kind of similar to Shuey late in last year's GF) - perhaps it was a genuine attempt, perhaps not.

One idea might be marks inside 50 automatically equal 30 seconds.

Players can kick for goal and miss the target no worries

Umpires can make a decision on whether they think it's attempt at goal, they are only paying a free kick if they are sure it wasn't a genuine attempt at goal

Passing to a team mate to wind down the clock another 30 seconds or passing to a team mate in a better position would both be obvious free kicks to pay - and they are the two biggest things the rule would be trying to stop

 

[Hoops]

You could stop the clock.
Another solution could be a team 30 seconds, so if you use the 30 seconds and pass it off then the teammates mark only gets the standard 5 seconds or what ever it is.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Time wasting, pure and simple. A $5K fine will put an end to it.

 

[Back2Back2Back]

The problem isn't that players are wasting time by chipping instead of going for goal after taking their allotted 30 seconds. The problem has yet again come from the introduction of a new rule brought in to try and speed the game up, and in turn players have found a loophole that can be exploited.

Get rid of the set 30 second countdown entirely and go back to how it was. It was only ever an issue because Lloyd used to take six weeks to set for every shot on goal.

 

[jesterwester]

The problem isn't that players are wasting time by chipping instead of going for goal after taking their allotted 30 seconds. The problem has yet again come from the introduction of a new rule brought in to try and speed the game up, and in turn players have found a loophole that can be exploited.

Get rid of the set 30 second countdown entirely and go back to how it was. It was only ever an issue because Lloyd used to take six weeks to set for every shot on goal.

It was the Matthew Lloyd rule for sure, but if you take it away every forward will then take an eternity, especially late in games and when sides are in front.

Shuey taking his full 30 seconds was within his rights given he was within 60m (in the current rules) but I would prefer he have been called play on in that circumstance. I’d prefer to see the 30 seconds given only when inside 50. Anything outside that range is so low risk for a set shot; taking that time just allows teams to flood back anyway, for a ball likely to drop 5-10m short.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Just stop the clock and it starts once player has kicked the ball.

 

[hcd199]

This suggestion is just as terrible now as it was every other time it's been made. So now we have the umpires making yet another interpretation (whether the kick was a legitimate shot on goal), we have yet another 'regimented' domain to the game (alongside starting positions and nominee-exclusive ruck contests), and we create yet more 'simple' rules that prohibit reasonable things and/or allow unreasonable things...?

For example, imagine a player takes a great mark deep in the forward pocket, doesn't land upright but gets to his feet reasonably quickly (3 seconds, say - quick enough that time on never gets called). He starts to go back on his line to take the shot, then - 8-10 seconds after taking the mark - spots a teammate loose 20m out directly in front. Presently, he can just chip it to his teammate in a better position, no issue. If the rule changes, can he still do that? It's a free against if he's indicated he'll be shooting for goal, so the chip is only allowed if he hasn't said that - in which case, he should already have been called to play on before he's had much of a chance to go back from the mark, which is at odds with the actual written rule that only requires players to "dispose of the football within a reasonable time". Neither option is a desirable outcome for the sport, and nor is the entirely predictably possibility of umpires deeming a genuine shot not to be a "legitimate attempt", nor the fact defenders get off the hook because they no longer have to guard against a quick pass to a teammate, nor having someone called to play on just because they forgot to tell the umpire what they were going to do...

The rule as it stands is far from perfect - the boundary between being 'in range' enough to take 30 seconds is entirely up to the umpires' assessment of player kicking ability, for one - but most of the alternatives are just as problematic (calling time on once a player takes longer than 6 seconds preparing for a shot on goal is fine, I guess, but doesn't resolve the haziness around when they'll be allowed to do that), and the status quo is definitely preferable to radical proposals like this one, with all the new problems and undesirable circumstances it generates.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

This suggestion is just as terrible now as it was every other time it's been made. So now we have the umpires making yet another interpretation (whether the kick was a legitimate shot on goal), we have yet another 'regimented' domain to the game (alongside starting positions and nominee-exclusive ruck contests), and we create yet more 'simple' rules that prohibit reasonable things and/or allow unreasonable things...?

For example, imagine a player takes a great mark deep in the forward pocket, doesn't land upright but gets to his feet reasonably quickly (3 seconds, say - quick enough that time on never gets called). He starts to go back on his line to take the shot, then - 8-10 seconds after taking the mark - spots a teammate loose 20m out directly in front. Presently, he can just chip it to his teammate in a better position, no issue. If the rule changes, can he still do that? It's a free against if he's indicated he'll be shooting for goal, so the chip is only allowed if he hasn't said that - in which case, he should already have been called to play on before he's had much of a chance to go back from the mark, which is at odds with the actual written rule that only requires players to "dispose of the football within a reasonable time". Neither option is a desirable outcome for the sport, and nor is the entirely predictably possibility of umpires deeming a genuine shot not to be a "legitimate attempt", nor the fact defenders get off the hook because they no longer have to guard against a quick pass to a teammate, nor having someone called to play on just because they forgot to tell the umpire what they were going to do...

The rule as it stands is far from perfect - the boundary between being 'in range' enough to take 30 seconds is entirely up to the umpires' assessment of player kicking ability, for one - but most of the alternatives are just as problematic (calling time on once a player takes longer than 6 seconds preparing for a shot on goal is fine, I guess, but doesn't resolve the haziness around when they'll be allowed to do that), and the status quo is definitely preferable to radical proposals like this one, with all the new problems and undesirable circumstances it generates.

It is not difficult for the clock to stop and resume when either the umpire calls play on all the set shot for goal hits the boot.
Not rocket science and no time wasting.

 

[hcd199]

It is not difficult for the clock to stop and resume when either the umpire calls play on all the set shot for goal hits the boot.
Not rocket science and no time wasting.

Like I said, that proposal's fine (I don't really see it as time wasting to pass to a teammate, so it doesn't concern me if the clock is stopped or not for set shots) - but it doesn't resolve the biggest issue with the 6s/30s interpretation of "reasonable time", which is about when a player is or isn't given 30 seconds to dispose.

 

[D-N-R]

So what if they waste some time? 99/100 times a player will have a shot or at least put the ball further into the fwd line. It's used mostly in the fwd 50 or at least 55m from goal and by the time they've used the 30 seconds there's no room to chip it around the 50 anyway.

It's all this complaining about 'time wasting' that brings up brain fart ideas like 'no marks for backward kicks' without any idea how it would work in practice.

Hcd199 has the right idea about the complexity of creating a punishment if not shooting for goal.

Stopping the clock would work but the TV stations have pushed for all these changes to 'speed up the game'. Speeding up the game didn't mean players running faster but getting the quarters finished earlier with less 'down time'.

 

[Topkent]

The reason a forward gets 30 seconds to line up is because they are trying to kick a goal

Don't really get how you are allowed to take 30 seconds if you aren't actually kicking for goal - seems like unnecessarily running down the clock

No one else gets 30 seconds so they can carefully pass the ball to a teammate

Simple solution - player has to indicate they are going for goal if they want the extra time to prepare

If they don't go for goal then it's a free kick

Suck s**t your players didn't man up on the weekend. Your fault not the Melbourne players.

So what happens if it's 50m out they player calls and all of the opposition set up at the other end of the ground then? Are you not allowed to pass it to one of your free players at the top of the Goalsquare?

 

[MightyHawks]

Like I said, that proposal's fine (I don't really see it as time wasting to pass to a teammate, so it doesn't concern me if the clock is stopped or not for set shots) - but it doesn't resolve the biggest issue with the 6s/30s interpretation of "reasonable time", which is about when a player is or isn't given 30 seconds to dispose.

My issue here is that you are only given the extra time because you are supposedly having a kick for goal.

Players don't get extra time to pass the ball anywhere else on the ground

Why should a player whose 45m from goal be able to have additional time to pass it to a team mate when a player 75m doesn't get that luxury?

So what if they waste some time? 99/100 times a player will have a shot or at least put the ball further into the fwd line. It's used mostly in the fwd 50 or at least 55m from goal and by the time they've used the 30 seconds there's no room to chip it around the 50 anyway.

It's all this complaining about 'time wasting' that brings up brain fart ideas like 'no marks for backward kicks' without any idea how it would work in practice.

Hcd199 has the right idea about the complexity of creating a punishment if not shooting for goal.

Stopping the clock would work but the TV stations have pushed for all these changes to 'speed up the game'. Speeding up the game didn't mean players running faster but getting the quarters finished earlier with less 'down time'.

No issue with players kicking backwards around the field, if you want to take your 5 or 6s and pass the ball around no worries - it's up to the opposition to man you up. Just shouldn't be receiving 30s to do so

Suck **** your players didn't man up on the weekend. Your fault not the Melbourne players.

So what happens if it's 50m out they player calls and all of the opposition set up at the other end of the ground then? Are you not allowed to pass it to one of your free players at the top of the Goalsquare?

Do you English?

 

[D-N-R]

My issue here is that you are only given the extra time because you are supposedly having a kick for goal.

Players don't get extra time to pass the ball anywhere else on the ground

Why should a player whose 45m from goal be able to have additional time to pass it to a team mate when a player 75m doesn't get that luxury?


No issue with players kicking backwards around the field, if you want to take your 5 or 6s and pass the ball around no worries - it's up to the opposition to man you up. Just shouldn't be receiving 30s to do so


Do you English?

I don't think this rule gets abused so much that we need to compound it with another rule which will create another interpretation by the ump. Was he shooting for goal or did he genuinely miss and fall short in his team mate's arms?

Topkents point might be that if a player is 45 out and having a shot then the defenders don't need to man up any more. Players aren't allowed to pass it so why bother even defending.? Might as well set up for a possible point.

All rules will be bent by coaches. Clarko is one of the best. 6 second rule meant he could get his players to be running onto their opponents just as they were called to play on which lead to the protected area being enlarged which has lead to 50m penalties which enrage fans even more.

Fans just need to deal with these minor annoyances and stop trying to perfect the game because it will never happen.

 

[MightyHawks]

I don't think this rule gets abused so much that we need to compound it with another rule which will create another interpretation by the ump. Was he shooting for goal or did he genuinely miss and fall short in his team mate's arms?

Topkents point might be that if a player is 45 out and having a shot then the defenders don't need to man up any more. Players aren't allowed to pass it so why bother even defending.? Might as well set up for a possible point.

All rules will be bent by coaches. Clarko is one of the best. 6 second rule meant he could get his players to be running onto their opponents just as they were called to play on which lead to the protected area being enlarged which has lead to 50m penalties which enrage fans even more.

Fans just need to deal with these minor annoyances and stop trying to perfect the game because it will never happen.

The time on suggestion solves the time being wasted on the clock issue

Under Topkents suggestion there'd be nothing stopping a player attempting a 45 metre low kick or dribble kick for goal that a team mate could intercept. Defenders also can't go too far from their opponents as it's highly likely that the kick will either go out of bounds, go through for a point or not make the distance

I don't think it's too hard to assess if someone is attempting to go for goal. If a player intentionally kicks to the top of the square or intentionally kicks it deep into the pocket where it's knocked over for a throw in he's not going to be pinged by the umpire. Players are given the benefit of the doubt in a lot of cases with the interpretation of the deliberate rule - we know watching the game that players "cleverly disguise" their intent to put it out of bounds knowing that if it's not clear cut the umpires won't pay a free kick. Yes we've seen times where a hurried kick from a player comes off the side of the boot and they are unjustly free kicked for deliberate out of bounds, but it would be much easier for an umpire to tell from a set shot whether it's a miskick or not

 

[2Knights]

The problem isn't that players are wasting time by chipping instead of going for goal after taking their allotted 30 seconds. The problem has yet again come from the introduction of a new rule brought in to try and speed the game up, and in turn players have found a loophole that can be exploited.

Get rid of the set 30 second countdown entirely and go back to how it was. It was only ever an issue because Lloyd used to take six weeks to set for every shot on goal.

This. The 30 second countdown was a silly idea. It adds nothing to the game, and legalizes time wasting. Scrap it.

 

[D-N-R]

If a player intentionally kicks to the top of the square or intentionally kicks it deep into the pocket where it's knocked over for a throw in he's not going to be pinged by the umpire.

Then the rule won't work and fans will become just as annoyed as they do now when players don't shoot for goal when they have 30s to do it.

It doesn't happen often enough to worry about is my view.

 

[Sentinel]

If they insist on keeping the shot clock then I think a team should get one 30 second allocation per chain of possession - which means if a player indicates he's having a shot he gets the full time, but if he then passes it his teammate gets only the 8 seconds or so you'd get for a normal field kick. And it only resets for another 30 second attempt when the team loses posession.

Is a simple fix and wouldn't be hard to police/interpret. If a player marks a legitimate shot that falls short they just have to take their shot quickly.

 

[Piledrive]

The reason a forward gets 30 seconds to line up is because they are trying to kick a goal

Don't really get how you are allowed to take 30 seconds if you aren't actually kicking for goal - seems like unnecessarily running down the clock

No one else gets 30 seconds so they can carefully pass the ball to a teammate

Simple solution - player has to indicate they are going for goal if they want the extra time to prepare

If they don't go for goal then it's a free kick

What they should do is this:

When a player wastes time like this, Remove Carlton from the AFL

 

[Captivating]

Seems harsh. Player might initially want to take a deliberate shot on goal. but if then a team mate finds space because of poor defending, you can't pass it off? Seems a bit silly.

 

[Wallaby]

I don't see why we allow the players 30 secs to have a shot anyway. We don't on the rest of the field - why is a shot at goal more 'precious'.

Rules should be consistent all over the ground. Why don't we allow half-back flankers 30 secs to ensure they can hit a target out of defence accurtately? That's a critical skill, but they get the standard 6-8 seconds.

If you can't compose yourself for a shot at goal in 6-8 seconds, who decided 30 seconds was the magic number? What if I'm a player who has a set-shot routine that takes 40 secs? - 'Bad luck. AFL said 30 seconds only'.

This rule was brought in to prevent time-wasting by a few forwards (not just Lloyd). The intent was to hurry them up a bit. What it's actually done is slow EVERY OTHER PLAYER down, because they now decide to ALL use 30 seconds - 'because it's allowed'.

Same thing happened in tennis. Watch a game from the 70s or 80s. Play the point, back to the service line - serve the next point. But because a Few players were taking a bit long, they brought in the 30-second rule (or is it 25? Whatever). Now every player uses 30 seconds. Play the point, walk slowly back to the service line, ask ball-boy for towel (because of the huge sweat build-up caused by the last 5-second rally), check coach in stands, adjust shorts, look up at sun -'Yep, still there', think 'Why am I here? Oh, yeah , playing tennis', look at opponent - 'Oh, him!', bounce ball 5-6 times, stop bouncing and shuffle 2 mm along service line, bounce ball another 5-6 times, toss ball in air, catch ball because - I don't know, global warming, or the plight of the Bilby, or something - start routine again.

Golf was similar - again a rule brought in to speed up a couple of slow players that stipulated 'maximum times' for shots or rounds, now results in 'maximum times' being the norm for everyone.

 

[Seth]

Yeah why not, lets bring in another rule for interpretation that the flogs can stuff up and use it to enhance their celebrity status on games.

 

[KermitJagger]

I agree with this in principle, but it's hard to enforce. As others have mentioned, the clock should stop when a player signals they want to take a shot.

There's also the fact that Ben Brown gets 30 seconds to line up and then 30 extra seconds to saunter in.

 

[KermitJagger]

Seems harsh. Player might initially want to take a deliberate shot on goal. but if then a team mate finds space because of poor defending, you can't pass it off? Seems a bit silly.

You can't take a mark on the wing and spend thirty protected seconds for someone to free themselves, why should you get a pass for that in the forward line?