The Advantage Rule

[Wallaby]

You think ?
I know.
There was unofficial advantage. If there was a clear advantage the umpire simply would not blow his whistle
as that would disadvantage the team in possession. It was as if the umpire had never seen the infringement.
You would see it outside of Victoria where grounds were firmer and play was more open.

But that's not an advantage rule. It could be that the ump actually didn't see the infringement. An advantage rule only applies IF the umpire confirms he has seen the infringement, but indicates he is not stopping play because he believes it would disadvantage the team who won the penalty.

This happens in soccer (ref calls 'play on' without blowing his whistle, sometimes waves the play on signal), rugby (ref indicates penalty via holding out his arm, without blowing the whistle, waiting to see if an advantage accrues), netball (call is usually 'Advantage contact' indicating they have seen the infringement, but haven't blown the whistle, field hockey, lacrosse and probably quite a few others. All have three things in common regarding their advantage rule -
1. The rule works.
2. The umpire indicates he has seen the infringement, and
3. HE DOESN"T BLOW THE WHISTLE.

But, the AFL, in their infinite wisdom etc.......

Hey - now let's discuss why we don't think the current AFL administration should be introducing new rules or changing old ones.

 

[gillon]

This rule has been a joke for years. When the umpire blows the whistle, whatever is happening on field stops. The play is completely compromised. Literally every single time it is called you can see players stop or react to the whistle before reacting again to the advantage call.

 

[RedV3x]

But that's not an advantage rule.

Tell me something that I don't know. Did you even read what I said ?
If there is clear advantage then play on if not pay a free kick.
What I don't like is that two-bites-of-cherry bs of other sports.
"oh, you didn't make use of your advantage so we'll give you a penalty" = absolute farce.
There should be no advantage rule. It should be a disadvantage rule, that is,
an umpire shouldn't stop play if it is to disadvantage the penalised side
just because he saw a free kick and is afraid the observers will mark him down for a missed free kick.
The advantage law was brought in not for the players benefit but to assess AFL umpires.
It just suddenly appeared out of no where.

 

[RedV3x]

let's discuss why we don't think the current AFL administration should be introducing new rules or changing old ones.

Exact opposite. Let's simply and clarify some of the existing laws.
1. One deliberate o.o.b. law.
2. One boundary kick o.o.b. law.
3. One rucking law.
4. One kick-in law.
5. Make a goal as a between the two uprights.
let's quantify some laws.
1. We have 15m for running and marking.
2. We have two steps off-line as play-on.
3. We have 6 seconds to play-on.
4. We should have 30 seconds only for a shot-on-goal.
5. The law used to "immediate disposal" and that's how it should be umpired.
6. Prior opportunity should be have some minimum guideline like one second.
7. All bounce-downs should be like the centre bounce-down with 10m exclusion (bar rucks) around umpire

 

[BF Tiger]

Seemed like the advantage rule was used well last night. Umpire let play continue, assessed if a genuine advantage had been taken and if not called the ball back within a suitable timeframe.

 

[DirtySandman]

Don’t look at soccer for the advantage rule, it’s been bastardised over the last twenty years, extending the length of time a referee will allow before deciding to bring it back.

Several passes can be made, a player can advance 20 meters or more and have a shot......if they miss, the referee may bring it back.

The decision to allow advantage should be made much sooner, is having a shot an advantage ?yes/no. But don’t bring it back because they missed.

It’s become like rugby, and footy is following.