Melbourne’s 6-6-6 stuff up

[Philhawk]

No doubt we’re all glad it happened simply for the theatre, but can someone explain why the Dees had to return to the setup before the free was awarded?

Seems like nonsense to me?

What is it cumbersome on the team to return to their old position before a free is awarded?

 

[HairyO]

No doubt we’re all glad it happened simply for the theatre, but can someone explain why the Dees had to return to the setup before the free was awarded?

Seems like nonsense to me?

What is it cumbersome on the team to return to their old position before a free is awarded?

Becsuse youd put all 18 players in defence..

 

[flamethrower]

No doubt we’re all glad it happened simply for the theatre, but can someone explain why the Dees had to return to the setup before the free was awarded?

Seems like nonsense to me?

What is it cumbersome on the team to return to their old position before a free is awarded?

They must have 6 in their forward 50, 4 in the centre square, 2 on the wings and 6 in the back 50 for the free kick OR it is a 50m penalty.

However it doesn't matter who is in the centre square and where they stand - the nominated ruck must be on the mark until the free is paid but the other 3 can be all the way back just inside the square and the 2 wings can be all the way at the back of the square too.

No reason for Max Gawn to be the ruck - push him back and send a short defender into the centre. And why was Viney standing where he was and not on Caminiti who had pushed to the forward edge of the centre square. Also Trak, Pickett and the 3rd mid who came in late should be starting at the very back of the centre square. They can always run forward if the Saints had chosen to run the ball for a long shot at goal rather than the set play Naz and Marshall had set up.

 

[Philhawk]

Becsuse youd put all 18 players in defence..

But talk it through? Who would do that? I’m still trying to figure out why the rule says the team who infringes has to go back to original positions before they can flood back?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

So in trying to protect a draw of all things they cost themselves the game. Probably lucky the Umpire didn't award a 50 against them.

 

[HairyO]

But talk it through? Who would do that? I’m still trying to figure out why the rule says the team who infringes has to go back to original positions before they can flood back?

Because the rule is 6-6-6. So you reset then the free kick is given.

 

[Mop]

This doesn’t feel like that difficult a concept to grasp.


The whole point of the 6-6-6 is to stop negative defensive all numbers behind the ball football from stoppages. If you allowed all 17 players less the man of the mark to sit defensively then you’d argue perhaps it would be advantageous to give the 6-6-6 free kick away in order to give time to set up for the play, no?

As it is now and as it was enforced, it’s an active deterrent.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

This doesn’t feel like that difficult a concept to grasp.


The whole point of the 6-6-6 is to stop negative defensive all numbers behind the ball football from stoppages. If you allowed all 17 players less the man of the mark to sit defensively then you’d argue perhaps it would be advantageous to give the 6-6-6 free kick away in order to give time to set up for the play, no?

As it is now and as it was enforced, it’s an active deterrent.

Except there's nothing in the rules stating that 6-6-6 field positions must be retained for an infringement. It's only for a centre bounce. Once a free is paid in the middle, it's no longer a centre bounce and positions don't need to be maintained.

18.2.2 (a) says that with an infringement, the umpire simply signals time on and awards the free.
Had he done that, it's arguable that Saints might not have even had time to secure a mark, as time on is signalled prior to giving the ruck the ball and everyone from both teams will be scrambling for position. It was simply handled terribly by the umps.

 

[Sentinel]

Except there's nothing in the rules stating that 6-6-6 field positions must be retained for an infringement. It's only for a centre bounce. Once a free is paid in the middle, it's no longer a centre bounce and positions don't need to be maintained.

18.2.2 (a) says that with an infringement, the umpire simply signals time on and awards the free.
Had he done that, it's arguable that Saints might not have even had time to secure a mark, as time on is signalled prior to giving the ruck the ball and everyone from both teams will be scrambling for position. It was simply handled terribly by the umps.

Disagree. The umpire did exactly as he should have - he refused to actually pay the free kick until players were back to their correct starting positions. It's the same as for a 6-6-6 warning where they don't give it until the field has been set correctly and they are ready to go. Only once the free kick was paid, the players were free to run where they liked.

Had the Melbourne players refused to return to their starting positions following instruction, or ran out of their area early, you could easily argue contravention of rule 18.2.2.e, which would have resulted in a 50m penalty.

It seems possible that the time keeper made an error in not starting the clock immediately when the free was paid (in any case, NWM marked the ball within 8 seconds of that occuring, although the siren took longer), but perhaps they treat it like an out on the full free kick where the clock is stopped until the player kicks it/plays on given it was a restart of play rather than continuation (as is the case with out on the full)?

To me, it was a textbook handling by the umpire. Possibly not by the timekeeper, but that was inconsequential anyway if so.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Disagree. The umpire did exactly as he should have - he refused to actually pay the free kick until players were back to their correct starting positions. It's the same as for a 6-6-6 warning where they don't give it until the field has been set correctly and they are ready to go. Only once the free kick was paid, the players were free to run where they liked.

Had the Melbourne players refused to return to their starting positions following instruction, or ran out of their area early, you could easily argue contravention of rule 18.2.2.e, which would have resulted in a 50m penalty.

It seems possible that the time keeper made an error in not starting the clock immediately when the free was paid (in any case, NWM marked the ball within 8 seconds of that occuring, although the siren took longer), but perhaps they treat it like an out on the full free kick where the clock is stopped until the player kicks it/plays on given it was a restart of play rather than continuation (as is the case with out on the full)?

To me, it was a textbook handling by the umpire. Possibly not by the timekeeper, but that was inconsequential anyway if so.

Happy to stand corrected if that's how it should happen, but there's literally nothing in the rules about resetting the field before the free is taken.
But 18.2.2 (a) specifically says that the ump signals time on and awards the free.
18.2.2 (e) is for a deliberate breach of 6-6-6 in rule 13.1 which just specifies the number of players allowed in each area and also doesn't mention field resets.

 

[BomberManU]

They must have 6 in their forward 50, 4 in the centre square, 2 on the wings and 6 in the back 50 for the free kick OR it is a 50m penalty.

However it doesn't matter who is in the centre square and where they stand - the nominated ruck must be on the mark until the free is paid but the other 3 can be all the way back just inside the square and the 2 wings can be all the way at the back of the square too.

No reason for Max Gawn to be the ruck - push him back and send a short defender into the centre. And why was Viney standing where he was and not on Caminiti who had pushed to the forward edge of the centre square. Also Trak, Pickett and the 3rd mid who came in late should be starting at the very back of the centre square. They can always run forward if the Saints had chosen to run the ball for a long shot at goal rather than the set play Naz and Marshall had set up.

Agree with all this, and I'd have to watch it again, but it appeared that all of the players were directed to stand at the centre circle until the free was awarded??

 

[Pistol Night]

The Demons lost a game to the Saints due to a 666 incident? The AFL are trolling us

 

[Sentinel]

Happy to stand corrected if that's how it should happen, but there's literally nothing in the rules about resetting the field before the free is taken.
But 18.2.2 (a) specifically says that the ump signals time on and awards the free.
18.2.2 (e) is for a deliberate breach of 6-6-6 in rule 13.1 which just specifies the number of players allowed in each area and also doesn't mention field resets.

You're correct that there's nothing specifically written into the rules that they must (or must not) reset the field before awarding a free (or give the warning), but this is consistent with what has happened since implementation of the rule. Given play was yet to recommence, nothing states he had to blow the whistle immediately.

Basically, the umpire can effectively decide at what point to actually award the free kick and in this case he did it in line with every other 6-6-6 infraction we've seen. Had he awarded it immediately, i.e. before the field was reset, it would have been an exception rather than the norm.

 

[mike14]

Doesn't 13.1 talk about the need to meet the starting position requirements prior to play recommencing? So even though the free is paid under 18.2.2, the ground still needs to be set as per 13.1 the same as for any other recommencement after a goal

 

[Sentinel]

No changes after 6-6-6 breach: Umpires' boss clarifies little known rule

Stephen McBurney says players must return to their same starting positions when a free kick is paid for a 6-6-6 infringement

www.afl.com.au

No comment on the timekeeper, but the umpire was correct in ensuring players had returned to correct starting positions.

 

[Soggy2112]

Interestingly, during the Showdown, Rankine gave away a free kick after a goal to Butters, so free was taken from the centre circle. However, the 6-6-6 was not enforced, was that umpire error, or is there a different rule for an off the ball free vs a 6-6-6 infringement?

Inconsequential given the margin but you’d hope this gets raised before a significant error occurs.

 

[BomberManU]

"We are clarifying with clubs that for a 6-6-6 breach, play must recommence with starting positions observed … they're not permitted to change personnel from their starting positions for the restart," McBurney told AFL.com.au.

"The clubs understand the rule and by and large this issue doesn't arise, but this was a unique situation because there was only eight seconds left in the game.

"If this had occurred halfway through the last quarter, it would have proceeded as per a normal 6-6-6 breach and none of this would have eventuated".

First sentence clarifies the rule, great.
What does the last sentence mean?

 

[Soggy2112]

"We are clarifying with clubs that for a 6-6-6 breach, play must recommence with starting positions observed … they're not permitted to change personnel from their starting positions for the restart," McBurney told AFL.com.au.

"The clubs understand the rule and by and large this issue doesn't arise, but this was a unique situation because there was only eight seconds left in the game.

"If this had occurred halfway through the last quarter, it would have proceeded as per a normal 6-6-6 breach and none of this would have eventuated".

First sentence clarifies the rule, great.
What does the last sentence mean?

Does it say in the article/interview what the process is if it is a regular free kick before the bounce occurs?

 

[BomberManU]

Does it say in the article/interview what the process is if it is a regular free kick before the bounce occurs?

No, it didn't. This was from a Fox interview with Stephen McBurney.
I don't understand what the difference is between what happened, and a 'normal' 6-6-6 breach. Is he saying that if it had occurred earlier in the game, they wouldn't have made the players take up their starting positions??

 

[Soggy2112]

No, it didn't. This was from a Fox interview with Stephen McBurney.
I don't understand what the difference is between what happened, and a 'normal' 6-6-6 breach. Is he saying that if it had occurred earlier in the game, they wouldn't have made the players take up their starting positions??

Yeah I’m not sure on that one.

 

[Oscarman]

Read somewhere that there was no-one from either team in the Saints attacking goal square., which would mean both teams breached. Did the Saints get a warning for this?