Should the 15m running bounce rule be changed?

[SHOGUN_31A]

The 15m maximum running-without-bouncing rule is rarely correctly enforced. So my simple question is, is it time we change the rule?

To name but one of many weekly examples of this, today Puopolo gained possession of the ball just passed the centre circle and disposed of the ball essentially on the 50m arc without once bouncing. With the centre square box 50mx50m, he probably ran 25m, well over the 'allowed' distance.

The hypocrisy of the 15m running bounce rule and the 15m kick/mark rule is a joke. A kick that travels half the length of the centre square would almost certainly (and correctly) be paid a mark every time, yet a player running with the ball that far will almost always get away with carrying the ball that distance without bouncing.

The umpires are ultimately at fault for not enforcing this rule, but it is a very difficult rule to enforce. In my opinion, moving to a step count (similar to basketball) would make this rule easier to enforce consistently. A maximum of 10 steps (with perhaps a one or two step allowance in practice) would equate to roughly 15-20m for most players, and thus should not impact significantly on the way the game is played.

Views/thoughts? (especially those from any current/former umpires, at any level)

NB/ The last time this rule was changed was in 1981, when the maximum distance was increased from 10m to the current 15m.

 

[kickazz]

Yep increase it to 20m and then enforce it properly.

15m is simply too short in modern footy with zoning, etc. We still want to encourage attacking plays like running with the ball.

INB4 Leavethegamealone.

 

[Engimal]

The problem with a step count is that it takes Aaron Sandilands less steps to cover a distance than it does Brent Harvey and that's unfair. Measuring by metres isn't consistent, but it's fair.

 

[Jugada]

The way they enforce the rule now is fine, i wouldnt want that to change. Obviously though they do let them run further than 15m now so if they wanted to change the rule to 20-25m i would have no problem so long as they didnt start then letting players run 40m in the game

Basically the interpretation should stay the same but they could increase the distance in the rule book to fall into line with what they are actually allowing now

 

[SHOGUN_31A]

The problem with a step count is that it takes Aaron Sandilands less steps to cover a distance than it does Brent Harvey and that's unfair. Measuring by metres isn't consistent, but it's fair.

Physical differences always give some players an advantage. For instance, allowing shepherding with your arms means that Sandilands can protect a much bigger space than a Brent Harvey. In fact, one Sandilands could probably hold back two Brent Harveys, whereas one Brent Harvey would struggle to hold back one Sandilands. Is that fair?

However, like with so many things in footy, these advantages tend to balance out. For instance, a Brent Harvey has the advantage of being quicker, thus being able to more easily get his arms into an effective shepherding position than a Sandilands. Equally, with the step count, although Sandilands would be able to cover more of a distance before bouncing, he would not be able to take those steps as quickly as a smaller player, thereby nullifying the advantage that you speak of. You could also argue that it is harder for a taller player to bounce the ball - the ball travelling further makes the skill harder to execute and probably slows down their speed by more than a shorter player. (e.g. http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-06-08/running-bounce-not-sandis-forte)

 

[blitzer]

Even if they changed the rule they wouldn't be able to enforce it accurately. I'm happy with the current interpretation which basically allows the player to get away with 20-25 metres in most instances but doesn't allow a player to just run forever. Lets face it, running plays are really exciting and I'm happy with it to be adjudicated in that spirit.

No formal change of rules is required here.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Leave the game alone.

 

[quotemokc]

What if a player takes a bunch of small steps within a 3m zone to avoid opponents?

Distance should be the factor not number of steps, which is probably even harder for umps to keep track of among other things

 

[SHOGUN_31A]

What if a player takes a bunch of small steps within a 3m zone to avoid opponents?

Distance should be the factor not number of steps, which is probably even harder for umps to keep track of among other things

That situation you speak of would be rare (assuming 10+ steps max requirement before bouncing). But here's an idea of how it might look like to get out of such a situation whilst having a bounce:

 

[juss]

Is rarely a noticable problem. People pick one example and cry rule change. How often have we looked back on a round of footy and said "gee the running with ball interpretation was rubbish all weekend, its killing the game"

Just let this one go

 

[SHOGUN_31A]

Is rarely a noticable problem. People pick one example and cry rule change. How often have we looked back on a round of footy and said "gee the running with ball interpretation was rubbish all weekend, its killing the game"

Just let this one go

That's not the issue here. Rather, the issue is that there is a rule that is enforced incorrectly on a regular basis. Why not at the very least change the rule to match enforcement (which to me seems in practice to be a 15 step count), and hopefully we will bring in some more consistency.

 

[richoatthedisco]

It's very noticeable and it pisses me off. Matt White ran at least 100m for his goal of the year last year and bounced the ball three times. Enforce it!

 

[DarwinRoo]

Keep it the same but enforce it.

 

[benbanjo]

It's very noticeable and it pisses me off. Matt White ran at least 100m for his goal of the year last year and bounced the ball three times. Enforce it!

he is a serial offender.

The rule is very much a grey area and its super hard to enforce it.... unless they grid the field and say you cant enter more than 3 sqaure without bouncing, but that would turn the game to shit so not much we can do about it....unless the umpires review it when it results in a goal...

 

[Chism]

Keep it the same but enforce it.

Agree.

The Umps choose to pay it whenever they want and counting the amount of steps a player takes is a great guide as anymore than 15 is breaking the rule more or less when in full stride running forwards down the ground, I reckon only 1 in 20 players that offend are called for running to far.

It is like so many other rules and the Umps go hard on it early then relax later on in the year and the holding the ball rule has been like this this season with the Umps pinging everyone but rest assured come finals time they will not be paying them like they are now.

 

[cyril4brownlow]

It definitely needs to be assessed. The rule is in absolute shambles at the moment with little regard taken by the umpires to enforce, through little fault of their own. The rule could be much easier to enforce if every 10 meters or so was marked on the football field like in the NFL. I myself wouldn't be totally against this idea, although, i could see this being a very unpopular opinion with tradition a major obstacle for many people.

 

[golazo]

It's another one of those rules the umpires forget about. Just like how they rarely call holding the ball on players who bounce when getting tackled..or dropping the ball isn't called unless you've had it long enough to be called for holding the ball.

Yet if you put a fingernail on someone's back, you're ****ed.... unless you're putting your hands on them to enable yourself to jump on top of their shoulders of course.