The new 50 meter penalty requirements are bad.

Dr Tigris

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
5,302
Likes
10,928
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Richmond
This'll be like the protected zone last year. Absolutely silly first up, then slowly relaxed until there wasn't much difference to previously.

Except that fast players can exploit the rule and cause havoc - i.e. any Rioli. You can easily have a quick talented player running into forward 50 and you cannot do anything to stop them. There will be some easy goals from this, that look awful for the game. Then the AFL will 'adjust' the interpretation mid season, probably mid-weekend, and everyone will be confused. Then in the finals they will ease off in a big way. Probably dead in 2020.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

aussierulesrules

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Posts
26,880
Likes
45,431
Location
Heaven. I mean Victoria.
AFL Club
St Kilda
I like the fact that you can now play on at any time after you've been given a 50m penalty (as it actually penalises you if you've got someone free ahead of you, but you have to wait until the mark gets set 50m away before you can kick it- by which time they're likely to have been manned up, along with everyone else up there).

The only problem so far has been the ignorance of the rule change. Once they all know what they need to do and are used to it, they'll have no-one to blame but themselves, if they get in the way, or don't get back first and fastest.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
2,353
Likes
2,534
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
IF they don't get rid of protected zone entirely (I have no issue with actual physical obstructing the player being another 50m), then I would modify so that the mark is where the umpire is.

If the attacking player runs forward of the umpire, then that's the end of his advantage. He can plan on at any time, and has a protected zone (around the umpire which is the moving mark), but if he overtakes the umpire, it's now play on.
This could be even messier. The player with the 50 walks really slowly or doesn't move while the umpire is running back, then the protected zone stretches out in front of the player up to 50m long. Anyone in this zone or crossing this zone, even 40m in front of the player with the ball would give away another 50.

Calling play on when the player overtakes the umpire might sound OK until you have a slow umpire or the umpire trips over.

The mark has to move with the player. The problem will be making sure he stays on his line and setting the mark ahead.

Perhaps the umpire nearest could stand where the original free kick has been given and another umpire could set the mark 50m up field. The umpire standing the original mark can make sure the player is running on his line.

Playing on from a 50 is a good idea in theory but messy to umpire in the chaotic nature of our game.
 

Luv_our_club

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Posts
5,175
Likes
9,088
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The weakest justification for this new rule has been that players give away 50 meters penalties on purpose to waste time or slow down the play. That doesn't happen.

Fifty meters are given for brain fades or highly technical breaches, not strategic play.

A fifty meter penalty always hurts your team.
 

Howard Littlejohn

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
13,349
Likes
6,747
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The weakest justification for this new rule has been that players give away 50 meters penalties on purpose to waste time or slow down the play. That doesn't happen.

Fifty meters are given for brain fades or highly technical breaches, not strategic play.

A fifty meter penalty always hurts your team.
Pretty much. That was why the 15 became 50 in the first place though. 15m often really wasn't much of a penalty and it was worth holding up play to allow defence to set up.
Fifty metres is entirely different, it would be very rare that its worth giving up that much territory even with modern defensive set-ups.

That said, I don't mind the idea behind the new rule. Its arguably not necessary, but allowing the option of playing on seems reasonable enough.
It just isn't working. If it was just being trialled this pre-season, looked at, refined, and trialled again next pre-season, that would be fine. But they seem to have decided to implement it in competition, regardless. Do the trials and tweaks out of competition (not **** a competition over even more, like they did last year with trial rules in the VFL). If it takes a couple of year to get right, that's better than blindly implementing another botched rule.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Posts
18
Likes
11
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It’s actually like this in field hockey for any free- but the afl made a mistake in how you do it.

The way it should be setup is that once the free is conceeeded you can’t impede the player unless you have moved more than x distance away from him. In hockey it’s 5m but they should do like 10m. So if you get 10m away you could come back to him. It basically makes the act of running along side someone useless because you have to get so far away from someone before you come back you could never catch up- as if they are running forward you would basically have to run sideways 10m before chasing after them, putting you 10-15m behind. Also similar to hockey - if you tackle or block a kick or handball that’s another penalty. On the other hand if someone runs straight at you (which is less likely to happen in footy as going laterally isn’t as big a part of the game) the umpire can consider reversing it.

The problem in afl is not that the players run at each other with the ball or along side as a defender. That’s just practice. Is that you have to man the mark and nobody knows where that is. And the umpire is slower than the player so he can’t get there to mark it out.

That’s the problem that will spoil this change.
 

Dr Awkward

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Posts
4,046
Likes
1,081
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
San Antonio Spurs
So revisiting this. Has the sky fallen yet? Can't recall any 100m penalties in the first 3 rounds.
The 50m rule is mickey mouse crap. Looks completely at odds with the rest of the game and goes against players instincts.

People go to the football to see contests and great play, all these goals teams kick from 50m penalties given for minor technical offences are rubbish.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
13,022
Likes
8,260
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Not sure what you're arguing about, again. The player is sprinting towards goal, aware he has the 50m to dispose of the ball at any time without waiting for the umpire, with no opposition player able to enter his protected zone. The player also has the choice to take the full 50m before having to dispose of the ball, or having the umpire call play on if he stands there and hesitates for too long, or is deemed to 'play on' instead of disposing the ball, allowing the nearby opposition players to now encroach. This is exactly what happens with normal free kicks. Like I said, natural extension of the protected zone free kick.
Or player sprints the 50 and there’s no one on mark as defending side has no way of knowing where it is so then plays on from there.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fishbone

Debutant
Suspended
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Posts
79
Likes
110
AFL Club
Sydney
I still say the 50m free is one of the shittiest aspects of any code I have watched. The way it punishes a team for a really minor infraction is just pathetic. Games have been won and lost from this stupid rule, careers ruined and coaches sacked.

I can understand dishing a 50m for a pretty severe action but to punish a team for something as stupid as "you didnt return the ball properly" or "you stepped over the mark" is akin to sentencing someone for 50 years for stealing a gummy bear from the corner store.

It should be 15 metres for crappy anal breaches and 50m for severe things.
 

W.C. Fry

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Posts
6,029
Likes
6,291
Location
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
49ers, Liverpool
It should be 15 metres for crappy anal breaches and 50m for severe things.
Terrible idea. They used to have that, in the WAFL at least. Think about it for a minute.

How quickly can a team move the ball 15m?
How quickly can the ump pay 15m, bring the player back, set the mark and call time back on?
How often do you think teams will abuse that by giving away 15m just to hold the team with the ball up?
 

Fishbone

Debutant
Suspended
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Posts
79
Likes
110
AFL Club
Sydney
Terrible idea. They used to have that, in the WAFL at least. Think about it for a minute.

How quickly can a team move the ball 15m?
How quickly can the ump pay 15m, bring the player back, set the mark and call time back on?
How often do you think teams will abuse that by giving away 15m just to hold the team with the ball up?
25m like they do in the SAFL
 

Grrr

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
3,188
Likes
6,144
Location
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
The one Stack got to kick his goal was ridiculous. The GWS player came in at about 75º instead of 90º about 20m away from Stack with absolutely no impact on the play at it was 50. Would happen 30 times a game. Which by the way like a lot of 50's these days was closer to 70m. Don't umps have enough impact on games without taking the law to the enth degree. And then when giving a dicey one, they give a massive one.
50 should be 35m unless it is a malicious or very deliberate time wasting ploy.
 

WestCoast05

All Australian
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
966
Likes
2,833
AFL Club
West Coast
Adelaide got one against Sydney
If I'm recalling the right one, the Sydney player was a complete idiot and grabbed the Adelaide players shoulder when he started running the initial 50. You could even see McVeigh yelling at himin the end for what he had done.
That's not allowed under the old rules let alone the new rules.

I like the new rules. A 50 should reward the receiving team not penalise them as the defending team mans up on everyone and floods the territory.
 
Top Bottom