This 50m crap for dumping after disposal

[longsuffreosupp]

This is probably the worst rule out of the lot. It's a penalty with great consequence, and something that can easily happen given the pace of our game.

However watching the Crows vs Saints game last night, there would've been easily half a dozen moments where the player was dumped after disposing of the ball, that just didn't get picked up because of the pace of the game. And the ones that did get picked up, wow, very soft. It's poor how the team you're playing could pass back, the tackle just lingers a bit, and whammo, have a shot for goal.


It's just another shitty rule that is going to be inconsistant and piss supporters and coaches off.

 

[Soul_Pie]

It is an absolutely terrible rule. The AFL needs to bite the bullet and scrap it, because all we're seeing is players getting done for piddly little holds and with absolutely no consistency applied by the umpires.

 

[donnie5]

I actually like the rule, if you take a player out of the contest you should be penalised.Yes it may be inconsistent but isnt every rule?

 

[Danog]

It should be a free kick, not 50m.

 

[hawks_time]

Free kick or if they're going to give away 5 50m penalties a game go back to the 15m penalty.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

50m penalties are crap full stop. The problem is the umpires. They seem to display absolutely no common sense. They continuously award them for the softest of indiscretions at crucial stages of a match. Seriously, we're 60m out from goal, a player doesn't throw the ball back with centimetre perfect trajectory, so I'll ping him for 50 and cost his team a certain goal.

 

[Murph_S13]

The intent of the rule is terrific — players should have every opportunity to influence the next contest after disposing of the ball. The problem is the tiggy-touchwood/netball interpretation applied by some adjudicators, which means the application is inconsistent. One penalty awarded in Saints-Crows was absolutely ludicrous.

Release the Giesch!!!!

 

[mollyfud]

It should be a free kick, not 50m.

I think the rule came in a year too early as the Hawks where the only one that had used this ruling as a tactic and so it wasn't seen enough to be an issue.

They gave a free kick last year but the kick was virtually never taken as it was always in a case where the team getting the Free where on the run anyway but the player taken late was take out of the play.

So I think if this rule hadn't come in, more teams would have used the tactic and so we would all identify the need for the rule!

I think the problem with the rule now is as it comes out of the blue, the player is held up and so the team giving the 50 get the advantage of holding up the play. I thought that the ruling should be that the 50m is paid but the play isn't stopped. The player with the ball gets to run his 50m, no need to bounce and can get rid of the ball any time with in that 50. Its not a perfect system but I think if no rule was implemenented then that would have caused uproar.

For all those that say how will the Hawks get by with the rushed rule, it won't worry them. This one could!

 

[sir_jaycee]

The problem with the rule is that now the players are staging to get that free kick.

2 instances last week , Joel Corey and i think the other was stokes.

Both players staged and were rewarded the 50 meter penalties.

Because players can stage for this type of free kick , then it should be scrapped

 

[damochandler]

it isnt worth a 50 for something like the rule interpreted. it's only worth a free kick.

 

[Arecsa]

Right now we need less rules. Scrap this stupid one. It's just another one for the umpires to consistently apply inconsistently.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

The problem with the rule is that now the players are staging to get that free kick.

2 instances last week , Joel Corey and i think the other was stokes.

Both players staged and were rewarded the 50 meter penalties.

Because players can stage for this type of free kick , then it should be scrapped

Too right SJ,

Hopefully the umpires are focussing on the vicinity of the ball, which means any dives 5-10m off the ball will catch the umpires' peripheral vision. Easily staged for.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I think the rule came in a year too early as the Hawks where the only one that had used this ruling as a tactic and so it wasn't seen enough to be an issue.

They gave a free kick last year but the kick was virtually never taken as it was always in a case where the team getting the Free where on the run anyway but the player taken late was take out of the play.

So I think if this rule hadn't come in, more teams would have used the tactic and so we would all identify the need for the rule!

I think the problem with the rule now is as it comes out of the blue, the player is held up and so the team giving the 50 get the advantage of holding up the play. I thought that the ruling should be that the 50m is paid but the play isn't stopped. The player with the ball gets to run his 50m, no need to bounce and can get rid of the ball any time with in that 50. Its not a perfect system but I think if no rule was implemenented then that would have caused uproar.

For all those that say how will the Hawks get by with the rushed rule, it won't worry them. This one could!

Can everyone make sure you read this post before you post rubbish like 'should just be a free kick'.

It already was a free kick, knobends.

Oh, and I saw Hodge and I think it was Williams stage last week, and Bateman too.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

While the umpires will not always get it right, the reasoning behind this rule is very sound. It stops the deliberate tactic of taking out a player to stop them influencing the next play. In most instances a free kick would do nothing.
It also penalises the cheap sniper who previously could infringe without penalty.

There was one paid to Lindsay Gilbee against Freo where he gave a handball to run past and receive on 50, but was dragged out of the play. Would have had a shot from inside 50 without the interference, but a free kick would have left about 65 out. The 50 metre penalty placed him where he goaled and no other penalty would have given that opportunity.

While the umpires will get it wrong from time to time, the easy way to avoid the penalty is to not infringe after disposal. That seems pretty simple.

 

[gbatman]

I like the rule.

 

[Arecsa]

Good one paid against Richmond a minute ago, just cost them a goal. You can't stop tackling someone mid-tackle. Ridiculous rule, get rid of it.

 

[Cameron_K]

Disgraceful call in the Geelong Richmond match that cost Richmond a goal.

 

[PHX]

Its an awful rule that cant be implemented even over 50% correctly after what they pay and what they miss.

It has to go.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Good one paid against Richmond a minute ago, just cost them a goal. You can't stop tackling someone mid-tackle. Ridiculous rule, get rid of it.

Yeah sure, if you're a muppet who just goes by what the commentators say.

The part after the they cut off the replay which you didn't see was Jackson laying all over Joel Corey and stopping him from getting up to get to the next contest.

 

[flamethrower]

Re: 50m for dumping after disposal. Great rule.

This is a great new rule.

Last year teams would try to slow the Bulldogs down by "taking out" our runners like Gilbee, Cooney, Griffen, Giansiracusa, Eagleton et al. The only option the umpires had was to pay a free kick, which more often than not stopped our momentum.

Now we get that free kick 50 metres closer to goal.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: 50m for dumping after disposal. Great rule.

If anything the rule does not go far enough. Any player who is trying to make the play from behind the ball (that is running forward to create an option) should earn the penalty if they are unfairly infringed.
In other codes this type of infringement would result in a send off. The 50 metres is not as harsh as that.
The rule creates more attack allowing overlap play.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Re: 50m for dumping after disposal. Great rule.

Ie - makes the game go faster

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Scenario 1:
Player gives off a clean disposal then after that someone blocks their run or crunches them to the ground taking them out of the next contest. This is what the AFL should be trying to target.

Scenario 2:
Player disposes of the ball while being tackled. The tackle continues a bit longer than it should have. This does NOT deserve 50m penalty. The guy took himself out of the next contest anyway by taking too long to dispose of it.

Scenario 3:
Player never had the ball and is blocked from running forward. Player isn't taken to ground, just has his run impeded. I don't think this deserves a free or a 50m penalty. The ground has up to 50 people on it at once with all the trainers, part of the challenge is weaving through all that and getting to enough contests.

Scenaroi 4:
Player never had the ball and is taken to ground to stop him getting to the next contest. Probably what the AFL is really trying to stop. Unfortunately players are start ing to fall over for the fun of it. Great reward, especially when you've got no intention of really getting to the next contest anyway.


Overall - not good for footy. WAY too many free kicks this season.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Scenario 1:
Player gives off a clean disposal then after that someone blocks their run or crunches them to the ground taking them out of the next contest. This is what the AFL should be trying to target.

Scenario 2:
Player disposes of the ball while being tackled. The tackle continues a bit longer than it should have. This does NOT deserve 50m penalty. The guy took himself out of the next contest anyway by taking too long to dispose of it.

Scenario 3:
Player never had the ball and is blocked from running forward. Player isn't taken to ground, just has his run impeded. I don't think this deserves a free or a 50m penalty. The ground has up to 50 people on it at once with all the trainers, part of the challenge is weaving through all that and getting to enough contests.

Scenaroi 4:
Player never had the ball and is taken to ground to stop him getting to the next contest. Probably what the AFL is really trying to stop. Unfortunately players are start ing to fall over for the fun of it. Great reward, especially when you've got no intention of really getting to the next contest anyway.


Overall - not good for footy. WAY too many free kicks this season.

Scenario 1
blocking - probably not a free
crunched to ground - deserving of the free 50 metres downfield.
Scenario 2
Not deserving of Free - UNLESS thrown to ground after ball has gone. Then free 50 metre downfield justified. Also justified if tackler holds player on the ground to prevent him getting up.
SCenario 3
No free just play on
Scenario 4
Free 50 metre downfield

Note that as it currently exists a player who is 50 metres forward of the ball and impeded gets the free kick now. Why should a team not benefit as much for their playmaker being illegally prevented from influencing the contest.

 

[sir_jaycee]

The question is scenario 3 and 4 could be a shepherd, which in the rules you are allowed to do.

There are too many holes in this rule and makes it very difficult for the umpire to adjudicate.

When the player disposes the ball the umpire will naturally look at the next contest , not what happens seconds after the contest.

What gets me though and what will start to piss people off is when the players start to stage for them.

I have seen a few already after 2 rounds.