Minor things that annoy you about the game

[jamaican_eagle]

Forwards know this so they always take the wrong line when caught out wide realising they'll never get pinged for this while the poor old defender gets no second chance.

With regards to a player who marks inside 50 and starts working back on the wrong line, how long before the umpire calls play on? I've seen them ask a player 4-5 times to get back on the right line.

Also, what if a player slowly creeps across and keeps ignoring the umpire? He could probably improve the angle by 10 metres before the umpire calls play on.

 

[jamaican_eagle]

This really irks me: Why is there a different set of rules when the ball is close to the boundary line (I'm not talking about deliberate I'm talking about holding the ball).

For example, a player takes possession, then gets tackled over the boundary line and gets given holding the ball despite no whistle being blown before the ball is declared dead at the boundary line.

The correct call should be deliberate, not holding the ball.

 

[Topkent]

Every end of season review from the experts about the clubs that don't win the flag
' they need more leg speed and people who can use the footy'

Who the * doesn't need more people who can use the footy they don't grow on trees

I also can't think of the last premiership side who won with leg speed .. its the hard contested players who win in September

 

[SSSSSS]

When the umpires keep saying East West.

 

[Topkent]

The Bulldogs cheer squad near the Mics against the Eagles, those women had annoying voices and their chants were s**t

If the whole crowd was doing it it would sound ok but when 3 women are singing a song about Jake stringer ... ugh

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Why is every last minute emergency (e.g. due to an injury during the warm-ups) "Probably eating a pie in the stands"?

If you're an emergency, surely you replicate the pre-match routine as if you were playing as much as possible, until the ball is bounced. I imagine that every team would have a player go down in the warm-ups 1-3 times per season. It's not that uncommon. That's why the emergencies are there (and why you have three of them).

 

[hoianbulldog]

Don't know if it has been mentioned but I hate it when the man on the mark has another player come in for the Shepard. Give the guy on the mark the same space as the guy with the ball.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Don't know if it has been mentioned but I hate it when the man on the mark has another player come in for the Shepard. Give the guy on the mark the same space as the guy with the ball.

Yep, it's ridiculous that that is allowed. A licence to hammer a opposing player, who has no reasonable way to protect himself.

 

[bluespooner]

Don't know if it has been mentioned but I hate it when the man on the mark has another player come in for the Shepard. Give the guy on the mark the same space as the guy with the ball.

It might help if you understand the rules. The player comes into shepard because the umpire has called play-on i.e. as in normal play where you can shepard in Australian football.

 

[MWPP]

Where do I start ....
-The GF being at the MCG
-Our early Friday night games
-Uneven fixturing (I'd rather move to an 17 game season )

 

[bluespooner]

Where do I start ....
-The GF being at the MCG
-Our early Friday night games
-Uneven fixturing (I'd rather move to an 17 game season )

What about the dream run West Coast gets from the umpires there in Perth.

 

[hoianbulldog]

It might help if you understand the rules. The player comes into shepard because the umpire has called play-on i.e. as in normal play where you can shepard in Australian football.

it might help if you watch a game sometime and then try to understand the context of my original post.
This thread is about things that annoy people, it is not a thread about rules being broken.

Now, when you watch a game you will notice the player about to shepard it standing right next to the man on the mark BEfORE play on is called. The fact that the actual shepard doesn't occur until after play on is called makes no difference. I don't like it, it annoys me so I posted in the "what annoys you" thread.

Now run of to the rules thread.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

It might help if you understand the rules. The player comes into shepard because the umpire has called play-on i.e. as in normal play where you can shepard in Australian football.

Yes, but why isn't there a rule against a player from the team that has the free kick loitering right next to the player on the mark, with the obvious purpose of blocking him and letting the player with the ball get an unpressured run and kick away? At the risk of adding more grey to the rulebook, it should be easy enough for an umpire to order the would-be blocker to clear the area as soon as he stands there, since it's pretty obvious what his sole intention is once he positions himself there.

 

[Taranaki AFL]

North Melbourne

 

[SterlingArcher]

It might help if you understand the rules. The player comes into shepard because the umpire has called play-on i.e. as in normal play where you can shepard in Australian football.

Might help if you watched games.

What he's talking about is the kicker gets a 10m space around him, but the shepherder can stand like 1m behind the man on the mark and as soon as play on is called shepherd him.

 

[The Final Word]

Might help if you watched games.

What he's talking about is the kicker gets a 10m space around him, but the shepherder can stand like 1m behind the man on the mark and as soon as play on is called shepherd him.

And if he times it with his teammate who's playing on, he can get a runup to nail a prone opponent.

 

[SJ]

I'm sure it's been done to death, but the deliberate rule, FML it's bad. It fails the very simplest test - all fans hate it. I sat and watched the Haw v Dees today with supporters from both, and everyone just boggled at the dumb sh1t going on.

Demons player kicks out from last line of defence, under pressure, gains 50m... Hawthorn free kick.

Hawthorn player slaps it forward from a boundary throw in, gains valuable meters in shocking wet conditions, ball goes out, Demons free kick.

FFS WHY?! How is this good?

Completely agree.

To me, both of those actions are positives for their team.

How on earth can you penalise that in the game of Australian football?

 

[Hoops]

Players who infringe into a players protective zone with a toe nail "berrrrp" "50 meters!". Unless of course it's a player from the same team "please stay out of the protected area".

If it's that bad and easy to abide by that it can result in a 50m, then reverse the free or preferably call "play on".

 

[Arc1]

Completely agree.

To me, both of those actions are positives for their team.

How on earth can you penalise that in the game of Australian football?

I'm not sure you can argue it just based on whether it's positive for the team, because in that case eg. whacking the opponent's star midfielder would also be OK...

But I was thinking more about this - I think it's more an over-correction by the AFL, and produces illogical results.

If you go back a few years, deliberate was virtually never paid, and that was stupid because it sometimes allowed players to pretty blatantly slow the game up. Not good for fans.

But now it's gone to the opposite extreme, where it's got elements of "who touched it last" coming in, and it's being paid for actions where the player is advancing the ball downfield to the advantage of his team. That seems really stupid to me, even though I get that the idea is to maximise the entertainment by encouraging teams to keep the ball in play.

On top of that, you get situations where a player can intentionally punch the ball out of play, even when marking is a perfectly viable option, and even if they're punching *backwards* - eg. often in the defensive pocket.

I don't see the logic in that "punch out" being OK, given the same player could take possession, kick the ball 40-50m downfield and then get done for deliberate, potentially conceding a free shot on goal.

Acknowledge it's never simple to get the rules exactly right, but with this one it seems to me it needs one element where you can get done for just blatantly putting it out (by any means - kick, handball, punch, drop, lunging over in a tackle), and another where you can get done if the disposal doesn't give your team any realistic chance to take possession nor gain any significant meters.

It's probably that last bit that's the tricky part.

But for example, that formulation would mean when the ball is thrown in, you can't just belt it straight back out, and when you're clearing from defence, you can't just dribble it to the boundary. I thought those were the sort of cynical and time wasting plays that the AFL was trying to get rid of.

 

[SickQwon]

I think a push in the back and a tackle from behind should be two different things.
It annoys me when I see a player get penalised for a chase-down tackle instead of being rewarded for hard work.

 

[kenberger]

Commentators not calling out clear umpire errors and then picking a 50/50 out of their ass to forensically analyse 5 minutes later for the opposition. Either speak up about all the shitty umpiring or don't mention it at all

 

[hoianbulldog]

Yes, but why isn't there a rule against a player from the team that has the free kick loitering right next to the player on the mark, with the obvious purpose of blocking him and letting the player with the ball get an unpressured run and kick away? At the risk of adding more grey to the rulebook, it should be easy enough for an umpire to order the would-be blocker to clear the area as soon as he stands there, since it's pretty obvious what his sole intention is once he positions himself there.

I agree this needs to be stopped but it would a difficult one to implement without causing other problems. For it to work there will need to be a no go zone around the player on the mark, maybe 10 meters. While this would work in theory I fear that it will create a lot more of those stupid 50 meter penalties where there is no intent to impede the no go zone.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I agree this needs to be stopped but it would a difficult one to implement without causing other problems. For it to work there will need to be a no go zone around the player on the mark, maybe 10 meters. While this would work in theory I fear that it will create a lot more of those stupid 50 meter penalties where there is no intent to impede the no go zone.

Not sure about that. Since the player that would theoretically be infringing would be on the team that had the ball and the whole point of them trying to do it is to get the ball moving on quickly., the penalty doesn't have to be heavy handed at all. The umpire would just tell him to piss off, call the player with the ball back (if he's taken off) and then continue the game, giving the defending team valuable time to get numbers back.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Not sure about that. Since the player that would theoretically be infringing would be on the team that had the ball and the whole point of them trying to do it is to get the ball moving on quickly., the penalty doesn't have to be heavy handed at all. The umpire would just tell him to piss off, call the player with the ball back (if he's taken off) and then continue the game, giving the defending team valuable time to get numbers back.

Good point. Let's do it.

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

Umpires having to tell the players at EVERY ball up or bounce that he will be running straight backwards and signaling backwards. Have you ever seen one signal they will go any other way. AFL wants to speed up play get rid of it.