Should the protected area rule only be applied when if affects player?

[kaiserchief13]

As the heading says should the umpire only apply the 50m penalty when player kicking is clearly obstructed by the player within the protected area? Sometimes they pay the 50m penalty when the player with the ball is running backwards so obviously they aren't going to be kicking at that stage....just seems stupid

Thoughts?

 

[00Stinger]

Logical ideas like that are not trusted by the AFL

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[JHF1870]

I agree somewhat with this, however this could be a tactic by players to prevent the player taking the kick from playing on. And if I was a player taking the kick and someone was a few meters away, I would deliberately run into him.

 

[Thetrader15]

How about a 25m penalty instead - 50m almost always ends up in a goal and the umps aren't exactly great at estimating 10m

 

[Cincinnatus]

I think the only reluctance I have is that it then becomes another interpretation which leads to inconsistency and fury.

At least with this zone its 10m and that's that.

I was open to 25m instead of 50m but some people think this becomes open to abuse and I tend to agree.

 

[Big_Birdy]

As the heading says should the umpire only apply the 50m penalty when player kicking is clearly obstructed by the player within the protected area? Sometimes they pay the 50m penalty when the player with the ball is running backwards so obviously they aren't going to be kicking at that stage....just seems stupid

Thoughts?

Pretty sure that was the rule which worked fine for my entire life watching football.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Add another shade of grey into the game?
Rules fine, if players are dumb enough not to understand it tough luck.

 

[ManInWhite]

Making the whole thing open to interpretation will just make it worse. The opponent might not be obstructing the player with the ball but if that player wants to play on, his opponent has an unfair advantage by being closer.

What about situations where a player is kicking for goal from a tight angle. Opponent might be off to the side (and therefore not obstructing) but shouldn't be allowed too close to the kicker. Will get messy.

 

[churner]

As the heading says should the umpire only apply the 50m penalty when player kicking is clearly obstructed by the player within the protected area? Sometimes they pay the 50m penalty when the player with the ball is running backwards so obviously they aren't going to be kicking at that stage....just seems stupid

Thoughts?

Tend to agree. Those who object to interpretive adjudications such as this are typically the first to get riled up for a correct black/white, rulebook decision that is otherwise deemed exceptionally harsh. Best umpires are always those who have a 'footy feel'.

 

[big_e]

Get rid of the rule completely, IMO. Is there anything wrong with expecting a player with the ball to have some situational awareness?