The new 50 meter penalty requirements are bad.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brolga

Grumpy Old Git
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Posts
312
Likes
417
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
#52
In a game where goals are prized, and fought so hard for, having a cheap giveaway like this is a terrible look for the game.
I would be frustrated to have one of these awarded against my team, and embarrassed and bemused to receive one. (although I grudgingly would still accept the goal :)
 

harrythetiger

Summited Everest 30/9/17
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Posts
10,015
Likes
25,193
Location
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
#53
No doubt there needs to be an option to play on when you get a 50. But it’s swung too far the other way.
They say players downfield need to man the mark but how on earth are they going to know where it is if the umpire isn’t there yet.

The player with the ball should be allowed to play on, but only by overtaking the relevant umpire. As soon as they overtake it’s play on. The player manning the mark should be allowed to run alongside the umpire. That allows the play on but doesn’t have the same grey ‘protected area’ that a player needs to push to its limits in order to defend.
 

spudmaster

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Posts
10,749
Likes
13,212
Location
Melbourne, Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
McLaren-Mercedes F1
#55
How does the umpire know where 50m is if the player has sprinted 10m infront of them. You are forcing a critical decision under pressure. Then you will have a situation where the player has run 60m gets tackled an the umpire calls another 50 because he hasn't signalled play on yet.

You'll see goals from D50 kicked because of 2 players being close to someone. That's a disgusting state in our game
A backman to win the coleman this year!
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
2,353
Likes
2,535
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
#57
The issue to me is where is the mark?

A: Is it the umpire tracking back? If so, then you can't get between the umpire and the man with the ball (protected area) and if the man with the ball passes the umpire, then it's play on.

B: Is the mark wherever the man with the ball is? If so, then an opponent should be able run in front of the player as long as he doesn't get overtaken or doesn't prevent the player with the ball overtaking him.

C: is the mark 50m up the ground? If so, then there is a massive corridor of a protected area between the man with the ball and the mark 50m away.

Judging by the way it has been interpreted then it's not A or C. But it's not B either if you can't be within one metre in front of the advancing player or just off to the side but still ahead of the player. The protected zone is a straight line across the mark. Impeding a player has to involve contact. If you are off to one side but still ahead then the man with the ball has to go off his line to make contact with you, which is play on.
 

DEVO

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 8, 2000
Posts
9,116
Likes
3,898
Location
Canberra, ACT, Australia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
CUFC RCFC OM ACF RCDLC LFC KSC LAL
#58
Jack Ziebell was given a 50m penalty yesterday.

40m down field, without playing on, a Port player pushed him. Umpire ignored it.

Other incidents were assessed differently during the same game.

Standard AFL.
That's what got me yesterday, the inconsistency of the application of the penalty.
The AFL has changed this rule for the umpires administer, yet they are unable to be consistent in the interpretation of the other rules during the course a game. This has the potential to be a diabolical change that could cost teams games, or perhaps even their season.
 

grimface_87

Premiership Player
Joined
May 27, 2008
Posts
3,342
Likes
1,439
Location
Melbourne territory
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#59
The issue to me is where is the mark?

A: Is it the umpire tracking back? If so, then you can't get between the umpire and the man with the ball (protected area) and if the man with the ball passes the umpire, then it's play on.

B: Is the mark wherever the man with the ball is? If so, then an opponent should be able run in front of the player as long as he doesn't get overtaken or doesn't prevent the player with the ball overtaking him.

C: is the mark 50m up the ground? If so, then there is a massive corridor of a protected area between the man with the ball and the mark 50m away.

Judging by the way it has been interpreted then it's not A or C. But it's not B either if you can't be within one metre in front of the advancing player or just off to the side but still ahead of the player. The protected zone is a straight line across the mark. Impeding a player has to involve contact. If you are off to one side but still ahead then the man with the ball has to go off his line to make contact with you, which is play on.
The way it was paid against Higgins it was C. So effectively a 50m x 10m protected area. The ump was telling Higgins to get out just like a normal protected area

Anyway the intent of the rule is great, to give the infringed player more flexibility but it is way to unbalanced as it is now. They effectively need to make it the same as with a free kick, so the player can choose to take advantage and play on but they obviously need to be aware of opponents nearby (risk vs reward)
 

JT_the_Man

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
Posts
10,142
Likes
9,516
Location
Wonders
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LCFC, LAL, Stars, 49ers, Canadiens
#60
I can already see how this could be exploited.

Sprint of on opponent, forcing them to start sprinting to keep some sort of close distance in case he plays on, then slow the **** down to force another 50 as the opponent runs ahead.

Whoever keeps changing the rules needs to be banned from having a say.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cold Sober

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
2,492
Likes
2,432
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man U .White Sox;Storm,Victory
#63
******* joke the way this game is heading. The once hardest game in the world is no longer, how many years before women are playing with men?
The softer they make the game the sooner it will happen.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
2,353
Likes
2,535
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
#64
The way it was paid against Higgins it was C. So effectively a 50m x 10m protected area. The ump was telling Higgins to get out just like a normal protected area

Anyway the intent of the rule is great, to give the infringed player more flexibility but it is way to unbalanced as it is now. They effectively need to make it the same as with a free kick, so the player can choose to take advantage and play on but they obviously need to be aware of opponents nearby (risk vs reward)
Referring to the video on the AFL site;

Higgins was behind his man so he was in the protected area and had to leave it but chose to keep going forward. That's clearly B.

The one against Westhoff is harder to adjudicate because you can't tell if he went off his line to make contact. But still B.

The third one you could argue there were two extra 50m penalties. The first player in the way was passive and just caught in the way so you could give him the benefit of the doubt but the second one pushed the NM player so that was clearly another 50. Badly umpired.

It will cause some problems for sure but you should be able to stay in front of your opponent without any problems. Just don't let them make contact.
 

Rusty Brookes

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Posts
4,500
Likes
3,983
Location
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
#66
Jack R exploited this shitty rule perfectly last night, got the 50 and ran off with no one near him, looks around and see's Frawley and Jack slows down so Frawley who was not clued on got close and bingo bango another 50 and Jack walks to the square.

Smart players will exploit this to within an inch of it's life and 100m penalties will be the order of the day.

AFL will make excuse's and the rule will remain because they are too stubborn to admit one of their rules has backfired considering the big tantrum they chucked regarding the state of the game and they don't want to be seen as having made a mistake.
Yeah, kudos to Jack for quick thinking but geez, I would have been livid if it happened in a real game.

As usual the AFL get it half right. What the rule should be is you can kick or handball while you are running to the new mark. I remember in my playing days being awarded a 25 metre penalty (VAFA rules). I was in the backline. While I was running up to my new mark, I saw our best player by himself and played on to him: the ball had to come back to me because the mark hadn't been set. It would have been far more advantageous to have the ball in his hands because a) he was clear with space in front of him b) he could probably kick the ball 25 metres further than me and c) he was far better than me.

In other words, you don't have to take the full 50 metres if you don't wish to. It will move the game as it is the setting of the mark that stops the play and allows the opposition to flood back. Protected zones have nothing to do with it.
 

JT_the_Man

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
Posts
10,142
Likes
9,516
Location
Wonders
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LCFC, LAL, Stars, 49ers, Canadiens
#69
The mark is wherever the man with the ball is, until the umpire sets it at 50m.
So basically you either run the whole field untouchable and kick an easy goal or get another 50m penalty and kick a goal?

Great thinking AFL. Absolutely incredible.
 

Forward Press

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
26,386
Likes
33,646
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
#70
So basically you either run the whole field untouchable and kick an easy goal or get another 50m penalty and kick a goal?

Great thinking AFL. Absolutely incredible.
No, it's the 50m corridor from the location of the offence towards the goals of the attacking team that now has the protected zone because you can opt to resume play without having to go the whole 50m. If you get to 50m without playing on it's business as usual - dispose of the ball, or play on (and then the protected zone no longer applies).
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
2,353
Likes
2,535
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
#72
No, it's the 50m corridor from the location of the offence towards the goals of the attacking team that now has the protected zone because you can opt to resume play without having to go the whole 50m. If you get to 50m without playing on it's business as usual - dispose of the ball, or play on (and then the protected zone no longer applies).
The protected zone is behind the player with the ball as he moves forward. The player is the mark and the mark moves as the player moves. If not, then someone 40m in front of the play who crosses the protected zone would be infringing. Then it would be a dog's breakfast.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Posts
144
Likes
75
AFL Club
West Coast
#73
It should be adjudicated the same as last year except you can play on stuff the "protected area" thats rubbish because if a player can play on then once they do you should be able to tackle them as with any other free kick. And if they get infront of the umpire playon too (totally agree). If they wanted to change the rules of the 50 the way they have they should have changed it to 25m instead (agree also).
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Posts
4,236
Likes
2,754
AFL Club
Collingwood
#74
It should be adjudicated the same as last year except you can play on stuff the "protected area" thats rubbish because if a player can play on then once they do you should be able to tackle them as with any other free kick. And if they get infront of the umpire playon too (totally agree). If they wanted to change the rules of the 50 the way they have they should have changed it to 25m instead (agree also).
That’s the whole freakin point of the protected area and this rule change. If someone is hovering around you you can’t just play on because you’ll be immediately tackled.

Teams were starting to deliberately risk conceding a 50 in their forward half because they could hold up play for their zone to set up and barely be disadvantaged

It’s pretty simple it’s just that afl players, pundits and fans are often more simple, alas
 
Top Bottom