Why do free kicks overrule marks everytime?

[Greenac]

Why the hell do umpires insist on paying a free kick to a bloke who has literally just marked the ball. He marked it, you don't need to pay a free.

I've also seen the ball change hands from the bloke who marked it to his teammate who was apparently held right next to him simultaneously...why? It just slows the attack down for the team, they haven't gained an advantage. That should only happen if the free was further down the field.

All this does is sow confusion, slow down the ball, inflate free kick counts and offer zero actual positives.

 

[Taylor]

You want the umpires paying the frees they see, as they see them. The whistle is going to the mouth to pay the holding free before the vision of the mark is being processed and ultimately it doesn't make a difference unless it's the circumstance where a different player ends up with the set shot.

 

[Greenac]

You want the umpires paying the frees they see, as they see them. The whistle is going to the mouth to pay the holding free before the vision of the mark is being processed and ultimately it doesn't make a difference unless it's the circumstance where a different player ends up with the set shot.

I think it slows things down unnecessarily for the benefitting team. If we have an advantage rule it can easily apply to a marking contest. If the team that was going to get the free marks it anyway, just let play continue.

 

[Quivorir]

2 years ago I swear they started paying the mark over the free kick. I think they even announced that they would do that. It seems to have reverted back now though.

 

[ManInWhite]

Problem is that if they don't, it sends a message out that no infringement was made and players will be inclined to do it again and give away a free and then complain that everything is inconsistent.

 

[Wallaby]

I remember a classic case in the last quarter of a match against Collingwood. We were coming back hard, needing one more goal, ball gets kicked to the hotspot 30 out straight in front. Richmond were playing 2 key forwards - Schulz who didn't get it much, but was a deadeye when he did, and Richo who .............. was Richo.

Schulz takes a clear mark - you beauty, set shot, 30 out, to take the lead.

Umpire comes in and pays a free to Richo for ............. whatever. He saw something nobody else did.

And, now boys and girls, you get to finish the story yourself.

 

[Greenac]

Problem is that if they don't, it sends a message out that no infringement was made and players will be inclined to do it again and give away a free and then complain that everything is inconsistent.

A simple arm straight up in the air to indicate that there was an infringement but would not be paid due to a mark being taken would suffice.

 

[Generalissimo]

They don't always, and it's a great way for the umps to pay some evener upperers. Pay a couple of junk time "infringement" frees to someone who's already comfortably taken the mark and you can turn a 22-11 free kick line to a 22-14 and suddenly it doesn't look so one-sided.

 

[ManInWhite]

A simple arm straight up in the air to indicate that there was an infringement but would not be paid due to a mark being taken would suffice.

The timekeepers would then think that was time on being added.

 

[Greenac]

The timekeepers would then think that was time on being added.

Sure. The sign doesn't matter, pick anything other than a straight arm out upwards and forwards 45 degs that isn't already being used and make it that.

 

[kickazz]

Yeah it's stupid.

It is the clearest cut example of the advantage rule. Play is continuous.

If they want it known that a free was paid then surely it's easy to come up with a hand signal or umpire command ("advantage mark" would do) to communicate this fact without unnecessarily slowing the game down.

I guess the exception may be in forward 50 where a good kicck for goal is infringed and a poorer kick for goal on the same team marks it. In that case you should be given the choice of who has the kick.