- Oct 14, 2011
- 9,668
- 13,508
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Exactly, the most puzzling rule in the afl in terms of affect to penalty.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Which rules would you get rid of?
- Thread starter TheWeapon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Incorrect disposal. Current failure to penalise this is a blight on the game. Players are smart, they know they can just drop the ball when tackled with no penalty.
Also front on contact. Robs us of some of the best and most courageous marks. Players attempting this now face an automatic free kick.
Also front on contact. Robs us of some of the best and most courageous marks. Players attempting this now face an automatic free kick.
- Banned
- #28
the one where a player is following his opponent and the opposition take a mark just infront of him and he tries to run out of 5 metre zone but it's an automatic 50 metre penalty.
Umpire has no leniency even when the player tries to do the right thing and move out of the way as they can't wait but to penalize them.
Umpire has no leniency even when the player tries to do the right thing and move out of the way as they can't wait but to penalize them.
The sliding in to the leg rule has to go. It's shit.
The soft frees for being in the protected area is a blight on the game. Especially since it's a 50m penalty.
I think they should bring back a 15m and/or 25m for all but the worst offences.
Anything that changes the flow of the game because of a soft penalty. Umpires have too much influence on the flow of a game and should be officiating in a way that is sympathetic to the way the game is playing out.
As far as the argument goes for slowing down the game, bring back the scrag, if a player marks the ball and you're close enough you should be able to check/grab him to discourage the quick play on. They used to do it all the time.
Was someone in here saying a few weeks back that umpiring still isn't a profession as such? That Umps aren't full time employees?
If they aren't then they should be. And paid and trained well, to the best possible level.
The soft frees for being in the protected area is a blight on the game. Especially since it's a 50m penalty.
I think they should bring back a 15m and/or 25m for all but the worst offences.
Anything that changes the flow of the game because of a soft penalty. Umpires have too much influence on the flow of a game and should be officiating in a way that is sympathetic to the way the game is playing out.
As far as the argument goes for slowing down the game, bring back the scrag, if a player marks the ball and you're close enough you should be able to check/grab him to discourage the quick play on. They used to do it all the time.
Was someone in here saying a few weeks back that umpiring still isn't a profession as such? That Umps aren't full time employees?
If they aren't then they should be. And paid and trained well, to the best possible level.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
"The AFL is never wrong" rule.
- Jun 27, 2010
- 2,140
- 5,139
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Sturt
Yeah, they're pretty much my biggest bugbears. One of the disconnects about the slide rule is that we're supposed to be worried about concussion, but if a player gets whacked in the head by someone's shin he gives away a free. Was it Robbie Gray today who gave away a free (and a goal) for just naturally chasing after the ball when he was on the ground? He was on the ground from a previous contest, the ball flipped out and was on the ground but he was supposed to get on his feet. Rubbish.
For just going a metre the wrong way out of the interchange gate the penalty should be to turn the ball over to the other side or free kick on the spot, not 50m. If the opposing team actually has the ball and are streaming towards goal, just call 'advantage'. It's not actually game-related - it's a technical infringement and it shouldn't be a big deal.
THIS! For the love of god THIS!!!!
Never been an Umpire but I guess those are very hard to judge at ground level...
- Jul 20, 2010
- 8,179
- 10,827
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #34
GET RID OF:
START PAYING:
- SOFT HANDS ON A BACK - Only pay full on pushes in the f***ing back.
- HIGH TACKLES when a player ducks his head.
- STUPID SLIDING RULE.
- DELIBERATE OOB - Can sometimes be a defenders only choice.
- SOFT ARM SLAPS - Pay a massive chop, not a baby touch.
- SOFT 50's - 15M would suffice for zone frees.
START PAYING:
- DROPPING THE ****ING BALL - Every week I see players consistently getting tackled and just dropping the ball. Reward the ****ing tackle!
- THE BUTCHERING OF POWER FORWARDS - Sick of defenders not being allowed to touch an arm, but they can choke, hug, pull jumpers to almost no punishment. Let them touch the arms and they wouldn't resort to it!
- DIVING - Suck it up North fans, about to use the brat as an example. Start giving away frees against players like Thomas or Hams. Difference: Selwood plays so that players f*** up and give him frees, Thomas pretends that a player has done something to reward a free.
What he said. These are crap rules and should go.
Hands in the back
This new double action/he touched a blokes arm rule. (It's not a push its just not)
Sliding
And at this point push in the back, out side of a marking contest.
Seriously the amount of knee droppers in our game today are disgusting even local footy is infested with it, the ump's clearly cannot make the correct decision so just restrict it to only be payed in an attempted mark.
Legitimate attempt: either he had prior or he didn't. If no prior get in there and ball it up, **** off these scrum's.
you change the ruling so that if a player when tackled rakes the ball under them it's considered they had prior opportunity, free kick paid straight away (this includes dodgy bastards forcing the ball under an opponent as well)
This new double action/he touched a blokes arm rule. (It's not a push its just not)
Sliding
And at this point push in the back, out side of a marking contest.
Seriously the amount of knee droppers in our game today are disgusting even local footy is infested with it, the ump's clearly cannot make the correct decision so just restrict it to only be payed in an attempted mark.
Legitimate attempt: either he had prior or he didn't. If no prior get in there and ball it up, **** off these scrum's.
you change the ruling so that if a player when tackled rakes the ball under them it's considered they had prior opportunity, free kick paid straight away (this includes dodgy bastards forcing the ball under an opponent as well)
I think for me it'a the plethora of 50 metre penalties for nothing infringements that annoy the hell out of me. The penalty is just too severe.
Many years ago the 15 yard penalty was introduced to penalise blatant time wasting. 50 metre penalties are being dished out for just about anything these days and it's time this was stopped. The biggest time wasters these days are umpires themselves.
Also, I'm sick of seeing players gather the ball, get pounced on by three opponents and ridden into the ground before he's even had a chance to think about his disposal, let alone get rid of it, has his arms pinned, and the stupid umpire says it's holding the ball because he made no attempt.
AFL clubs really should invite umpires to practice one night, throw a ball to them, and then have three players apply a tackle .. .and then ask them why they didn't get rid of the ball. Maybe then they'd understand.
Many years ago the 15 yard penalty was introduced to penalise blatant time wasting. 50 metre penalties are being dished out for just about anything these days and it's time this was stopped. The biggest time wasters these days are umpires themselves.
Also, I'm sick of seeing players gather the ball, get pounced on by three opponents and ridden into the ground before he's even had a chance to think about his disposal, let alone get rid of it, has his arms pinned, and the stupid umpire says it's holding the ball because he made no attempt.
AFL clubs really should invite umpires to practice one night, throw a ball to them, and then have three players apply a tackle .. .and then ask them why they didn't get rid of the ball. Maybe then they'd understand.
When 2 players are on their knees (laying a tackle or fighting for poss) they should never pay those dinky embarrassing high over the shoulder or in the back bullshit frees & if someone obviously plays for a free it's play on, even if their a slight (head high or in the back)
The 50m penalty for a player in the (restricted 5m zone) is a shocker, overall the 50m needs to be reduced to 30m & only for serious infringements, if it's only a player questioning an umpires decision it should be a 15m penalty
The 50m penalty for a player in the (restricted 5m zone) is a shocker, overall the 50m needs to be reduced to 30m & only for serious infringements, if it's only a player questioning an umpires decision it should be a 15m penalty
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,273
- 9,732
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Not if they're watching the ball (which they should be), they don't.
25 metre penalty.
raskolnikov
Hall of Famer
All of them. Players are allowed to use any means neccesary. No holds barred. Would make an enthralling spectacle.
My point was that players don't even try it, because some of the maggots perceive any contact of any kind on a player running towards the ball as an infringement now. Much safer to try to punch without making body contact than to try to mark with the risk of some contact.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 34,607
- 118,567
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
My problem with the 25m penalty is that players would use it as a professional foul. If your opponent has marked on the half backline and has teammates streaming forward on the rebound, and they are looking at an easy rebound goal because of the numbers, you'd just dump the guy and give away 25m, which would get him to the half way line at best and give your defenders a chance to get back.
The other thing is, it's really really easy not to give away a 50m penalty. Play to the whistle and don't overstep the mark or enter the exclusion zone or kick the ball away or dump your man.
These aren't hard rules to follow.
If you half the penalty, players will use it as a professional free kick IMO.
That's what happened in the 1980's with the 15m.
Sheedy himself referred to a trick Essendon used to exploit the rule. The VFL had to act. So they tried reporting the players for time-wasting. When that failed, it introduced the 50m penalty.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Except that about half the 50s that get paid are so unbelievably technical that it's hard to work out what some are for.
Often they are for going into the "protected area", even when it's impossible not to or an opposition player has led the player through. Often they are for going over the imaginary line that the umpire has placed 2-3 metres in front of where the mark/free actually happened. Often they are for tackling a player who is playing on as they run past, while the stupid umpire focuses on the fact that he hasn't called play on (incorrectly) rather than the fact that the bloke has actually played on.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,470
- 3,280
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I'd adjust the Holding The Ball rule to remove the 'genuine attempt' provision - if the player tackled has no prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, then it should be a ball up. As it stands, the rule serves no purpose except to force players to pretend they want it out - if they didn't have a chance to get rid of it beforehand, why should they have to try now? Diving on the ball shouldn't automatically bring about a HTB decision; rather, the rule should be, like in every other circumstance, about prior opportunity. If you dived on it, and had an opportunity before being tackled to dispose of it, then fine, holding the ball. Otherwise, ball up, no prior opportunity.
Most other rules are fine when they're enforced correctly; it's poor enforcement of the rules, whether by the individual umpires or because of directions from above, that causes most of the frustrations many have with the umpiring. A good example of this is the 'deliberate' frees: for rushed behinds, you'd have to practically tell the umpire you were under no pressure before handballing it across the line, yet for out of bounds, any action which takes the boundary into account (whether to kick it long for distance, tap it forward trying to keep it in, etc.) is penalised. I agree that the standard between the two should be different, but not to such an extent.
The 15m distance should be enforced, correctly and as the rule stands at the moment. In the first quarter of the Carlton v Melbourne game currently on, Garlett ran from roughly 55m out to the top of the goalsquare taking one bounce - a clear infringement which went unpenalised. Jetta last year in the prelim is another example.
The interchange rule needs altering: there needs to be someone watching interchanges so that there are never 19 on the field (so I'm fine with a team being penalised when the player coming on steps on the field before the other is off), but other infringements should, at most, be fines.
The sliding rule is, in my opinion, superfluous; any "forceful contact below the knees" worth paying a free for is surely a trip, and any contact not constituting a trip is meaningless.
As a postscript, one thing I can't abide is people missing the point of things. Plenty of comments in this thread trying to justify their ideas on the rules by how exciting the change would make the game. The AFL hasn't helped this by doing much the same (rule changes to reduce 'congestion' and increase flow, rule changes to slow the game down and prevent injuries, etc.). Excitement has no relevance to the rules of the game; rules that supposedly add or assist in adding excitement to the game really serve the opposite purpose, by reducing the different types of game you can actually end up with. A defensive, congested scrap with 7 goals each and a 25 goal apiece shootout can both be enjoyed in their own distinct ways and on their own merits. Shaping the game through rules because one of them is perceived as less interesting than the other pushes towards a bland and uniform archetype of a perfected game - one that is simply unattainable.
Most other rules are fine when they're enforced correctly; it's poor enforcement of the rules, whether by the individual umpires or because of directions from above, that causes most of the frustrations many have with the umpiring. A good example of this is the 'deliberate' frees: for rushed behinds, you'd have to practically tell the umpire you were under no pressure before handballing it across the line, yet for out of bounds, any action which takes the boundary into account (whether to kick it long for distance, tap it forward trying to keep it in, etc.) is penalised. I agree that the standard between the two should be different, but not to such an extent.
The 15m distance should be enforced, correctly and as the rule stands at the moment. In the first quarter of the Carlton v Melbourne game currently on, Garlett ran from roughly 55m out to the top of the goalsquare taking one bounce - a clear infringement which went unpenalised. Jetta last year in the prelim is another example.
The interchange rule needs altering: there needs to be someone watching interchanges so that there are never 19 on the field (so I'm fine with a team being penalised when the player coming on steps on the field before the other is off), but other infringements should, at most, be fines.
The sliding rule is, in my opinion, superfluous; any "forceful contact below the knees" worth paying a free for is surely a trip, and any contact not constituting a trip is meaningless.
As a postscript, one thing I can't abide is people missing the point of things. Plenty of comments in this thread trying to justify their ideas on the rules by how exciting the change would make the game. The AFL hasn't helped this by doing much the same (rule changes to reduce 'congestion' and increase flow, rule changes to slow the game down and prevent injuries, etc.). Excitement has no relevance to the rules of the game; rules that supposedly add or assist in adding excitement to the game really serve the opposite purpose, by reducing the different types of game you can actually end up with. A defensive, congested scrap with 7 goals each and a 25 goal apiece shootout can both be enjoyed in their own distinct ways and on their own merits. Shaping the game through rules because one of them is perceived as less interesting than the other pushes towards a bland and uniform archetype of a perfected game - one that is simply unattainable.
If it's so easy not to give away 50m, why are so many being called? If the harsh penalty doesn't stop them then theAFL has to ask 'why?' and the answer is because the offender is human and can make negligent mistakes occasionly. so perhaps the AFL have it wrong and adjust the penalty accordingly
Here is some interesting propaganda on the rule changes in recent time.
http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/file...of_the_Game/LawsoftheGame_2013RuleChanges.pdf
the interchange violation rule is the worst.
Bingo.
I wonder how many people realise that the sliding rule is not actually new to 2013. Yes, a stricter interprtation has been introduced, but there were clear examples of it on the 'rules DVD' last year.
I have seen some weak interpretations of it, but if done properly, it's really just applying the trip rule, which has been in existence as long as I remember.
Purple_Snapper
Debutant
- Apr 8, 2013
- 75
- 57
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
No changes in the rules just the umpires that don't follow them need to be changed
As other people have pointed out, the sliding rule is superfluous - the law against tripping adequately covers contact beneath the knees.
Free kicks for pushing in marking contests serve a useful purpose and must stay. Players should not be able to forcefully push their opponent out of the marking contest with their arms, whether in the side or in the back, and take an easy uncontested mark. But fighting for marking position with upper body strength or is OK.
The 15m minimum distance for marking is failing badly. Too many marks from 10-12 metre kicks are being awarded and this gives the team in possession an unfair advantage. If the 15m distance is in doubt the umpire should call play on.
Allowing forwards to shepherd defenders away from the path of a kick travelling towards the goal (ON THE FULL) is a travesty of the law against blocking in marking positions - this should be a free to the defender, every time. Protect the player playing the ball, not the man.
Free kicks for pushing in marking contests serve a useful purpose and must stay. Players should not be able to forcefully push their opponent out of the marking contest with their arms, whether in the side or in the back, and take an easy uncontested mark. But fighting for marking position with upper body strength or is OK.
The 15m minimum distance for marking is failing badly. Too many marks from 10-12 metre kicks are being awarded and this gives the team in possession an unfair advantage. If the 15m distance is in doubt the umpire should call play on.
Allowing forwards to shepherd defenders away from the path of a kick travelling towards the goal (ON THE FULL) is a travesty of the law against blocking in marking positions - this should be a free to the defender, every time. Protect the player playing the ball, not the man.