Protected Area nonsense

Remove this Banner Ad

Hamingja said:
It's a s**t rule but I don't know how you can argue that one.

He should have ran straight out to the right of screen when Kolo took the mark.

Instead he ran left of screen and hooked back around the back of Kolo.

He was not following a man.

That was the exact reason the rule was brought in. Kolo couldn't have swung left to play on because the Melbourne player was illegally running around the back of him.
Click to expand...
The rule is a pile of s**t.
 
No protected area tonight?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Swert said:
Why do the AFL change the interpretation on umpire contract in the middle of the season yet they can't change the Ridiculous, Arbitrary, Over officiated, Harsh, Gamechanging bullshit rule that is the 'Protected Area' rule?

It was never an issue for 100 years. Now it's confusing players, destroying momentum and wrecking games.

The AFL is meant to be a sport about skill and athleticism. Not about getting too close to somebody during a period when the game is paused.

Why aren't commentators talking about it more? Where are the articles from Robbo, Carro, Sam Newman?

It's a blight. Has been all year, every game. Change the rule!
Click to expand...

Let them be in the protected area. As long as they dont interfere with the player with the ball, (ie block him or tackle him immediately after hes played on), who cares. If the player with the ball wants to play on and run directly at and around that player ...who cant tackle him.....even better. Use him as a shield. Part of the punishment for him being there!!!!

They should be allowed to be in that area but they have to realise that if they are in that area they are taking themselves out of play.
 
I still honestly cannot understand this rule.

The 50m penalty against Guelfi in the game against St. Kilda last night.... should that have been enforced based on how the rule is written, or did the umpire make a simple mistake and think Guelfi ran through the mark?!?
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Let them be in the protected area. As long as they dont interfere with the player with the ball, (ie block him or tackle him immediately after hes played on), who cares. If the player with the ball wants to play on and run directly at and around that player ...who cant tackle him.....even better. Use him as a shield. Part of the punishment for him being there!!!!

They should be allowed to be in that area but they have to realise that if they are in that area they are taking themselves out of play.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the 'offside' rule in rugby.

It's not a penalty to be offside but if that player obstructs, tackles, receives the ball or otherwise gets involved in the play, then and only then is the whistle blown.
 
Last edited:
Its a terrible look for the game. Players are now constantly trying to fake out the player on the mark to get a cheap 50.

The one with guelfi looked like the st kilda player intentionally went past the other side of the mark at the last moment and guelfi had no time to react to change direction. I think fairer would be if the st kilda runner is in the protected area the essendon player should be allowed as well
 
They are saying that 'to the letter of the law' the ump was correct. My question is, at what point was Guelfi afoul of the rule? To my eye, his opponent revered and Guelfi made a beeline out of the zone, by the shortest path. Was that it? Or was the infringement before that?
 
If a player of the team in possession enters the protected area and/or runs through the mark his opponent should be allowed to follow him through. How hard is it?

Would instantly stop these cheap 50's players draw by faking out their opponent at the last second. If umpires are incapable of using common sense take it out of their hands.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Swert said:
Reminds me of the 'offside' rule in rugby.

It's not a penalty to be offside but if that player obstructs, tackles, receives the ball or otherwise gets involved in the play, then and only then is the whistle blown.
Click to expand...


That’s an old post of mine but I stanD by it.. can I add this too….. re the stand rule ( if we have to have one and I’ll put that debate to one side….the rule in general has its merits).

The man on the mark shoukd be permitted to run backwards away from the mark. That does not interfere with the kicker and in fact the opposite applies. It gives them the opportunity to steal a few extra metres shoukd they so choose.
 
My favourite part of the rule is the umpires Instructing a basically dead prestia to vacate the protected area.

Didn't have a stoppage to be able to pause the game though.
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Surely a simpler rule is that any player in the protected area is not allowed to interfere with the kicker. Basically an off-side rule. You can be there but you can’t block the kicker or tackle him after he’s played on.... unless you are chasing an opponent who chooses to drag you in there.
Click to expand...

Even simpler is calling Play On if a team mate runs inside the protected area or runs across the line between the player with the ball and the man on the mark.

If the team with the ball dont need the protected area then they dont get the protected area.

Stops any abuse by the attacking team and means the area is only protected when protection is needed.

Im pretty sure it used to be Play On when a team mate ran across the mark - back in the good old days.
 
HairyO said:
Even simpler is calling Play On if a team mate runs inside the protected area or runs across the line between the player with the ball and the man on the mark.

If the team with the ball dont need the protected area then they dont get the protected area.

Stops any abuse by the attacking team and means the area is only protected when protection is needed.

Im pretty sure it used to be Play On when a team mate ran across the mark - back in the good old days.
Click to expand...
Waay too good and simple of a solution and easy for umpires to adjudicate on so it’ll never happen.
 
kozi said:
Waay too good and simple of a solution and easy for umpires to adjudicate on so it’ll never happen.
Click to expand...

If the rules were simplified Gil wouldnt have his rules committee and there wouldnt be grey areas for the AFL / umpires to hide behind.

Same with MRO and Tribunal. They could have simple penalties but they are more worried about the Brownlow and Grand Final than player welfare.
 
HairyO said:
Even simpler is calling Play On if a team mate runs inside the protected area or runs across the line between the player with the ball and the man on the mark.

If the team with the ball dont need the protected area then they dont get the protected area.

Stops any abuse by the attacking team and means the area is only protected when protection is needed.

Im pretty sure it used to be Play On when a team mate ran across the mark - back in the good old days.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that was ever a rule. A player might be legitimately running to position. If the player following him is allowed to follow him as long as he doesn’t interfere with the kicker, then there’s no incentive to try and draw the 50 in the first place. If the kicker plays on and the “ offside” player is too close, then he just has to stand there and let him run past him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top