That stupid advantage Rule...

[catters05]

It is a joke. Who ever brought it in should be sacked.

 

[Baz_hawk]

The current one is a bit of a joke. Worked fine before they changed it

 

[ioppolo]

What happenend now?

 

[alfy!]

welcome to round 1, 2011

 

[Donakebab]

It's taken you 18 rounds to figure this out?

 

[Cousin Jed]

Ray Chamberlain just paid the worst advantage this year btw.

 

[g-man]

I'd be happy to see no advantage rule at all. Just get rid of it altogether.

 

[jackess]

How they could bring it in without trialling it shows how mickey mouse the administration is.

 

[Moonwatcher]

How they could bring it in without trialling it shows how mickey mouse the administration is.

Had they trialled it in Pre-season it would have been completely shot down by the clubs. The AFL brought the rule in because it does not work. There would have been no benifit from a trial.

 

[magic_johnson!]

What happenend now?

Brisbane get a free kick for holding the ball in their defensive goal square, ball spills out, umpire blows the whistle for the free kick as staker handballs, saying that this handball was staker playing the advantage.He handballed it to a man under pressure who gets tackled and in turn gets called for dropping the ball, giving North a goal.

 

[Snuka]

Ray Chamberlain just paid the worst advantage this year btw.

For those that missed it...

A free kick was paid to Petrie against Maguire but Power had already grabbed the ball and handpassed it behind his head. The handpass misses but gathered by a North player who runs into goal.

So advantage was paid after Power (an opposition player) has grabbed the ball and disposed of it. No problem with the initial free and he may have kicked a goal anyway (not the way he was kicking though ) but it showed that even the umps have no idea with regards to this new rule.

So how can you pay advantage if the ball goes into the opposition's hands after the free kick is paid? Unless his saying that the opposition can choose to take advantage of a team's freekick...? Now i'm confused.

* Edit: magic_johnson has got the gist of it but may have got the players wrong (or maybe I have the players wrong) or we are talking about 2 different incidents.

 

[MF]

How they could bring it in without trialling it shows how mickey mouse the administration is.

This.

WTF is the point of the NAB cup if they're just going to trial ridiculous rules that would never come into the game. Yet a perfect opportunity to highlight the obvious flaws in the new advantage rule is completely overlooked.

The only reason I can see is that the AFL know it would have given fans and the media a chance to complain about it.

 

[theCATSfromHELL]

there was two incidences Snuka

 

[jackess]

Had they trialled it in Pre-season it would have been completely shot down by the clubs. The AFL brought the rule in because it does not work. There would have been no benifit from a trial.

Are you deliberately making absolutely no sense at all?

The benefit would have been the fact that the rule would have not been introduced.

The AFL should cut it before next round because it could ruin the GF which would be a disaster for the sport.

 

[scattman3]

They did trial it in the NAB cup and all the problems that we are having now were seen back then. But i remember them saying they just needed to get used to it and it would start to work. What's the point in trialling it if your going to bring it in even if the trial doesn't work.
Ridiculous

 

[Cousin Jed]

I think he's suggesting that the AFL are incompetent and like stupid rules

Or something to that effect...

 

[Moonwatcher]

My appologies for being obtuse, I just hate this rule.

I am saying that what the AFL define as benificial is different to what the supporters consider benificial.

IMO the rule is designed to speed up the game and the biggest factor is players in a poor position to play on feel compelled. Effectively no free kick is paid.

EDIT: and yes it was deliberate

 

[Last of the Roys]

For those that missed it...

A free kick was paid to Petrie against Maguire but Power had already grabbed the ball and handpassed it behind his head. The handpass misses but gathered by a North player who runs into goal.

So advantage was paid after Power (an opposition player) has grabbed the ball and disposed of it. No problem with the initial free and he may have kicked a goal anyway (not the way he was kicking though ) but it showed that even the umps have no idea with regards to this new rule.

So how can you pay advantage if the ball goes into the opposition's hands after the free kick is paid? Unless his saying that the opposition can choose to take advantage of a team's freekick...? Now i'm confused.

* Edit: magic_johnson has got the gist of it but may have got the players wrong (or maybe I have the players wrong) or we are talking about 2 different incidents.

Yeah there were two incidences and both were absolutely atrocious beyond belief.

Still cannot believe the fourth quarter one where advantage was paid after we the infringing team had quickly picked up and handballed the ball.

 

[Williamc99]

One of the worst rules in the AFL. I hope they scrap it next year and get rid of the Substitution rubbish.

 

[Saints_Supporter]

Yeah there were two incidences and both were absolutely atrocious beyond belief.

Still cannot believe the fourth quarter one where advantage was paid after we the infringing team had quickly picked up and handballed the ball.

Yes, this is a rule that most defiantly needs to be reviewed at the end of the season.

 

[legend166]

I don't think the reasoning behind the rule is all that wrong. The problem is there's absolutely no common sense used when applying it. There was an incident yesterday where Ryan O'Keefe was kicking the ball as the umpire was blowing his whistle, and the umpire called it an advantage.

 

[blues4flag]

No idea why they canned the old rule. Thought it worked fine most of the time.

 

[baja]

I don't think the reasoning behind the rule is all that wrong. The problem is there's absolutely no common sense used when applying it. There was an incident yesterday where Ryan O'Keefe was kicking the ball as the umpire was blowing his whistle, and the umpire called it an advantage.

I agree with this, its a great rule and one that all players like but the problem is with the interpretation, it doesnt need to be black or white (it makes our game unique) there is an area where the umpire needs to show simple common sense and simply bring it back if there was doubt,(not 100% fool proof but what is?) thats how it used to be in the good old days. Umpires these days have no feel for actual football, the game itself.

 

[Strawbs]

Today, Byrnes got a free for HTB, jumped up and ran off. Foley tackled him, so the ump gave Byrnes another chance. I thought the significant change this year was that if the player chooses to take the advantage, then advantage is called. Weird.

 

[LOZWILDA]

To fix this total stuff up, all they have to do is if the umpire blows his whistle you must go back and have your kick/handpass. Only play advantage if the umpire does not blow his whistle and calls out advantage.