Should there be a penalty for not taking a shot on goal?

[quotemokc]

If you opt to take 10+ seconds for a set shot but decide not to?

If a player takes a mark and lines up for goal and wastes time on the clock because they are entitled to for a set shot but then after using up time they then just kick it to the top of the square etc.

Should there be a penalty for that to some degree? Maybe just a ball up from the mark instead?

Now I am not talking about a player missing a shot or having it falling short, it is quite obvious when a player takes a shot at goal vs kicking to the top of the square (or even to a lead).

When a player not named Buddy takes a mark 60m from goal at an angle and lines up to take a shot most people know it won't actually be a shot but they burn clock doing so anyway.

 

[Topkent]

If you opt to take 10+ seconds for a set shot but decide not to?

If a player takes a mark and lines up for goal and wastes time on the clock because they are entitled to for a set shot but then after using up time they then just kick it to the top of the square etc.

Should there be a penalty for that to some degree? Maybe just a ball up from the mark instead?

Now I am not talking about a player missing a shot or having it falling short, it is quite obvious when a player takes a shot at goal vs kicking to the top of the square (or even to a lead).

When a player not named Buddy takes a mark 60m from goal at an angle and lines up to take a shot most people know it won't actually be a shot but they burn clock doing so anyway.

Stupid stupid stupid.
So a bloke calls for a shot and all the defenders immediately spring up the field because he has to either score or concede a free kick.
You could have 17 free players inside the 50 and he's not allowed to kick to them nor play on because he thought a goal was his best option originally.

Delete this thread

 

[Benny78]

Umpires wouldn't have the sense to use it correctly and would abuse it in clutch moments of the game.

 

[threesixpio]

My brain broke

 

[Orange Agent]

Nup.

 

[sobrave]

If they choose not to have a shot they should have to handball it to Josh green's ankles

 

[Wallaby]

Just enforce the <10 secs rule they have around the ground. It's silly that they have one rule for a certain distance out from goal, and one for another. And as the OP points out, you can't tell which rule is in force until the player actually takes the kick.

Take the mark, go back, kick the goal or pass it off. 10 secs. Oh dear - too hard? Well, tough.

 

[sobrave]

Just enforce the <10 secs rule they have around the ground. It's silly that they have one rule for a certain distance out from goal, and one for another. And as the OP points out, you can't tell which rule is in force until the player actually takes the kick.

Take the mark, go back, kick the goal or pass it off. 10 secs. Oh dear - too hard? Well, tough.

Do you want goal kicking in the game to get even worse?
What if someone takes a screamer and winds themself, needing a moment to get up? Strip the ball off them?

 

[RandB]

Umpiring is getting worse because they have too many things (rules) racing through their minds as it is.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Ow, my head

 

[chiwigi]

Do you want goal kicking in the game to get even worse?
What if someone takes a screamer and winds themself, needing a moment to get up? Strip the ball off them?

No, I think it would work in that if they don't pass it off within 10 seconds they have to take shot for goal (and still have the rest of the 30 to do so).

It seems fairer than getting 25 more seconds to pass because you are within 60m of goal.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I think The real issue is the pressure on players disposing after a mark or free kick has increased too much when not taking a shot. Some of the play on calls on the weekend seemed to be because the player looked like he just might be thinking about playing on. There's meant to be some advantage when taking a set kick, and the quick play on is to the teams advantage if there's a good option. I think it's a bad idea to force quick ball movement.
If all set kicks were given the same time the problem goes away.

 

[Gydafud]

Definitely an exploitable part of the game, but still a risky one. Even if it was enforced that you HAVE to kick for goal, there is still a lot of grey area.

 

[Jarman3]

Good call. What the game definitely needs is more rules. Just this very weekend I was sitting there watching on TV thinking that we really need to find a way to get the umpires involved in the game more.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Isn't the penalty for not having a shot on goal that you don't get any points added to your team's score?

 

[Power Raid]

If you opt to take 10+ seconds for a set shot but decide not to?

If a player takes a mark and lines up for goal and wastes time on the clock because they are entitled to for a set shot but then after using up time they then just kick it to the top of the square etc.

Should there be a penalty for that to some degree? Maybe just a ball up from the mark instead?

Now I am not talking about a player missing a shot or having it falling short, it is quite obvious when a player takes a shot at goal vs kicking to the top of the square (or even to a lead).

When a player not named Buddy takes a mark 60m from goal at an angle and lines up to take a shot most people know it won't actually be a shot but they burn clock doing so anyway.

the next player receiving the mark and set shot at goal should be limited to a normal mark.

In fact, I'd prefer all shots on goal just have the normal time allowed for a mark

 

[Captivating]

Just enforce the <10 secs rule they have around the ground. It's silly that they have one rule for a certain distance out from goal, and one for another. And as the OP points out, you can't tell which rule is in force until the player actually takes the kick.

Take the mark, go back, kick the goal or pass it off. 10 secs. Oh dear - too hard? Well, tough.

what he said

 

[Captivating]

Do you want goal kicking in the game to get even worse?
What if someone takes a screamer and winds themself, needing a moment to get up? Strip the ball off them?

Dumb example as if the player takes a screamer and winds themselves around the ground, they are permitted to get to their feet, get the ball and walk back from the mark before the 10 seconds starts.

 

[Trav 20]

Shot "at" goal.

 

[Juggs Magnetic]

If we are really worried about time wasting, fix the goal review system.

 

[sobrave]

Dumb example as if the player takes a screamer and winds themselves around the ground, they are permitted to get to their feet, get the ball and walk back from the mark before the 10 seconds starts.

That's not what happend when charlie dixon took that mark against geelong on and they called Play on and cost us the game.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Jesus christ.

Give it 9 months to the off season when we have a rule change and you will all scream bloody murder about more rule changes!!1!

I get that it's frustrating but unfortunately it would just end up worse by trying to `fix` things like this. You arent going to improve the game by trying to dabble in s**t like this.

 

[quotemokc]

If we are really worried about time wasting, fix the goal review system.

Clock isn't running during a review

 

[master bate]

So your team is losing in the last minute - they have had 79 minutes without getting the lead.

Then they've conceded a mark or free kick somewhere inside 60m from goal.

And somehow there needs to be a rule change to help them? Nope.

 

[Juggs Magnetic]

Clock isn't running during a review

Sure, and perhaps they are not comparable, but I don't see why a player taking 10 seconds or so and wasting some time is a worry?
Overall, it doesn't really affect the game.
When, in comparison, you have a goal review system which doesn't waste actual game time but can take minutes to get right affecting the actual game and stopping momentum of the teams.