The AFL clarifies Advantage rule

[Shinboner Schem]

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=114319

• Blow the whistle to indicate a free kick has been awarded.
• Communicate which team is it to receive the free kick eg. "Free kick, Collingwood".
• If a player from that team (Pendlebury) doesn't stop or signal he doesn't want to take the advantage, the umpire will follow up by calling 'advantage, advantage,' and also indicate this by waving his arm.
• If the player from that team (Pendlebury) elects not to take 'advantage' by immediately stopping or signalling to indicate he wishes not to take advantage the umpire will ensure the ball is returned to the original recipient of the free kick (Wood).
• The umpire may then, if time permits, clarify the reason for the free kick by saying. 'Cameron Wood, contacted high by Ottens in the ruck contest' whilst at the same time signalling a high tackle.

Therein lies the problem!
Just move the whistle blow two down the order and merge it with when the player elects not to take advantage, and job done!

 

[JuddsABlue]

all of that in half a second

seems reasonable

 

[PieBeast]

So no more "players have stopped" or "I've blown time on" bullshit?

 

[TownleyTime]

Geisch is dumber than I thought. No whistle. Watch how Rugby Union refs pay advantage. So simple yet the whistle complicates everything.

The trouble is umpires give absolutely no margain for error with 50's. That is why players stop b/c they are too worried about giving away a 50 metre penalty. A rule, which directly contradicts the advantage rule.

 

[FRUMPY]

there is nothing wrong with the rule and doesnt need to be changed. The umpires have just been making mistakes. It is obvious that if the play continues then it is advantage. If the opposition stops it is there own fault.

All this talk during the week we need to change the rule because the umpire stuffed up the pendlebury advantage. Pretty sure it was razor ray too, no surprise there.

 

[kosifantutti]

. It is obvious that if the play continues then it is advantage. If the opposition stops it is there own fault.

So why blow the whistle if everyone should just keep going? It makes no sense.

 

[Woodson]

It's a flawed practice, simple as that.

Moving along. If you had to take up field umpiring, wouldn't it be wiser to 'discuss with your fellow umpires' how you intend to interpret the many rulings before setting foot on the field? This is the most obvious problem with egomaniacs controlling the game that RIPS the 'professionalism' out and presents us with incompetence and sheer frustration.

Looking at the Carlton - StK MMF game, the umpires obviously made up a sound decision to 'let it go' for much of the night and that's the way a result will work itself out. Less whistles, less second guessing, less controversy.

The problem with having two umpires within the same 50mrtres of play will either confuse players with whistles on plays where the ball is still moving and the defenders will be denied any opportunity to react without being penalized unnecessarily. If Giesh had a brain, he'd instruct his umpires to watch the play unfold and only blow the whistle if he intents to 'stop the play'. Is it that hard to work out???

 

[Gizza]

there is nothing wrong with the rule and doesnt need to be changed. The umpires have just been making mistakes. It is obvious that if the play continues then it is advantage. If the opposition stops it is there own fault.

But that right there is exactly what is wrong with the rule. The meaning of the whistle right now is completely ambiguous. The whistle should mean one thing and one thing only, STOP!

In pretty much every case of advantage there is a least half the players around the ball who stop. Advantage as it is isn't the result of continuous play, but rather the result of one guy taking the chance that his team has the free and getting clear of the play before others react. A lot of the time is pays off, some of the time it results in a 50m penalty for the other team.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

The answer to the advantage rule is so simple and has been posted already by a few in this thread.

When a free is warranted the ump should call "advantage (Team)" and let play continue until the advantage is either used or lost.
If the advantage is used the call is "advantage over".
If the advantage is lost or does not eventuate the umpire blows the whistle.
Blowing the whistle should always mean stop, because that is the response that is programmed.

Blowing the whistle before calling advantage requires players to read the umpire's mind.
Plenty of umpires can't even read their own mind.

 

[Snake Livermore]

Agree with everyone else who has stated that not blowing the whistle is the answer. Amazed by the dumbness of the AFL in this regard, and the arrogance as well - only sport in the world where a whistle is blown and THEN advantage is played. All other sports that play advantage eg soccer, rugby union, hockey don't blow the whistle until it is clear there is no advantage.

Why does the AFL think they right and everyone else is wrong? When there is so much confusion on a weekly basis...

 

[topdon]

Geish keeps on bringing up a trail that the AFL conducted one pre-season in the 90s. Talks about how the AFL got some backlash from the players as they liked to know if they had the free kick and wanted the whistle blown. Why can i not remember this? They dismissed it after one pre-season after player backlash? Since when has that stopped them? They introduced the sub rule into the H&A season without ANY consultation!!

 

[kosifantutti]

Tonight's stuff up.

Umpire blows his whistle for a free to Carlton in the middle of the ground.

Ball spills to Diugan who picks it up and handballs. Umpire calls advantage. So far so good as far as the current rules go.

The recipient of the handball, Thornton, decides he's under pressure and just holds the ball in the air. The umpire then brings it back saying something about it being "immediate".

Surely if Diugan takes the advantage and the umpire calls advantage there is no going back from there.

 

[Summer Nights]

Jeff reckons that they once tried not blowing the whistle when paying advantage, but it "didn't work" because players were getting annoyed at the umpires because they thought the umps weren't paying free kicks.



Gee I would have thought it would be quickly solved when the player realised that umpire yelled "Advantage!".

Honestly, that's his excuse for persisting with blowing the whistle. Can you believe that?

 

[guitarded]

imagine packaging our game to international prospects at the moment.

centre bounce. whistle blows. free kick. infrigement in centre sqaure.

kick to full forward marking contest.

whistle blows. free kick. hands in the back.

centre bounce. whistle blows. free kick, infrigement in ruck contest.

kick to half forward hard ball get.

whistle blows. free kick. in the back. player takes advantage everyone stops, play comes back.

The game has become choked by the umpires, which is obviously a directive from higher up.

 

[markr]

Gee I would have thought it would be quickly solved when the player realised that umpire yelled "Advantage!".

My concern is whether the players can hear the umpire yelling when there is a big crowd. I can just see some forward getting mugged in the goal square late in a close final with the crowd going nuts, umpire calls advantage, a crumber grabs the ball and has a snap and misses and the umpire considers the team to have taken advantage and passed on the set shot from the goal square despite no-one hearing it.

It wasn't great, but just going back to how it was last year is probably about as good as we can do.

 

[Marklar_33]

My concern is whether the players can hear the umpire yelling when there is a big crowd. I can just see some forward getting mugged in the goal square late in a close final with the crowd going nuts, umpire calls advantage, a crumber grabs the ball and has a snap and misses and the umpire considers the team to have taken advantage and passed on the set shot from the goal square despite no-one hearing it.

It wasn't great, but just going back to how it was last year is probably about as good as we can do.

The shot at goal is a tricky one. Should the result of said kick be taken into consideration for an advantage taken immediately? I think it should

Anyway, no whistle is the best way to do it. If the players whinge about not getting frees when their own player is streaming down the ground with the ball then they are dumb players anyway!