View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
glasseyevfx
Joined: 01 Jul 2017 Location: Gold Coast
|
Post subject: The Protected Zone | |
|
There's been a lot of talk about 'the protected zone' on free kicks in the last few weeks. The most popular sentiment seems to be that if the infringing player isn't interfering with the play the free shouldn't be paid. I think at the end of the day this is how it will be played out and we won't see so many unexpected decisions.
However I'd like to see it taken one step further - if a team mate uses the zone to lose his tag it should be a ball up. Almost every other free kick sees a teammate run around or by a free in an attempt to lose a tag and frankly I don't think its in the spirit of the game - its a free kick not a free handball; making it harder to dish it off might be what the game needs. It seems the tactic is somewhat dishonest. _________________ We shall set our course by the stars and not ships that pass in the night |
|
|
|
|
Cam
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002 Location: Springvale
|
Post subject: | |
|
A simple 'must kick' it would make things interesting. That would be an easy rule to implement, no grey areas involved. If injured, someone else must kick it. _________________ Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
glasseyevfx
Joined: 01 Jul 2017 Location: Gold Coast
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ suspect it will slow down the play too much for it to happen; but gaming the system like that is not pretty part of the game. _________________ We shall set our course by the stars and not ships that pass in the night |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
The current rule is fine imo......as long as it's only applied in clear deliberate cases. The same goes for most of our rules. Only pay them when they are clear cut.
FWIW, I reckon we have too many umpires as it is, let alone plans to have more. The more umpires we have the more frees will be awarded and the slower the game will become.
And while we're talking umpires and rules, can anyone explain the logic behind requiring teams to nominate a ruckman at stoppages? Surely, the rule could be simplified to say that only one player from each team can contest a ball up or throw in. Then leave it to the players themselves to work out who goes up. I guess that's just too logical and simple for the AFL hierarchy to comprehend. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think 50m is too harsh a penalty for this, and some other infringements.
I'd like to see the 15m penalty reintroduced for minor indiscretions, with the 50m applied for more serious ones. _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
the fuzz
Fuzz loves Bruzz
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | The current rule is fine imo......as long as it's only applied in clear deliberate cases. The same goes for most of our rules. Only pay them when they are clear cut.
FWIW, I reckon we have too many umpires as it is, let alone plans to have more. The more umpires we have the more frees will be awarded and the slower the game will become.
And while we're talking umpires and rules, can anyone explain the logic behind requiring teams to nominate a ruckman at stoppages? Surely, the rule could be simplified to say that only one player from each team can contest a ball up or throw in. Then leave it to the players themselves to work out who goes up. I guess that's just too logical and simple for the AFL hierarchy to comprehend. |
Totally agree. The nominating rule is as ridiculous as the grey Carlton guernsey |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018 Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
Post subject: | |
|
They seemed to have changed their interpretation of the protected zone rule in the Crows/Cats game. Several instances that were paid 50m in the previous weeks, but not then. Can't speak for the Saints/Blues game as it was so boring I switched off at half time. _________________ I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008 Location: Canberra
|
Post subject: | |
|
Cam wrote: | A simple 'must kick' it would make things interesting. That would be an easy rule to implement, no grey areas involved. If injured, someone else must kick it. |
I think they tried that in the 80's....yep, 88-90
http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rule-changes-18582013 _________________ "The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018 Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ Wasn't it the martian (Kevin Sheedy) who pushed for that? _________________ I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
npalm
Joined: 01 May 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: |
And while we're talking umpires and rules, can anyone explain the logic behind requiring teams to nominate a ruckman at stoppages? Surely, the rule could be simplified to say that only one player from each team can contest a ball up or throw in. Then leave it to the players themselves to work out who goes up. I guess that's just too logical and simple for the AFL hierarchy to comprehend. |
I was hoping that someone could answer Rudeboy's question as it's something I've also been wondering about for some time. I've tried to google it without success.
I think the answer has something to do with the rule that protects ruckmen from being blocked in their run at the ball i.e. a midfielder can stand body to body with another midfielder at a stoppage but can't do the same to the opposition ruckman. This means the umpire needs to know who the ruckman is. However, this has always been the case and shouldn't have anything to do with the third man up rule.
So why was the requirement to nominate the ruckman brought in at the same time as the third man up rule?
Can anyone shed some light? _________________ Side by side. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
npalm wrote: | ...
I was hoping that someone could answer Rudeboy's question ...
So why was the requirement to nominate the ruckman brought in at the same time as the third man up rule?
Can anyone shed some light? |
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/afls-new-third-man-up-in-the-ruck-rule-backfiring/news-story/7f8f4c21a999c64469e95a8e0b9769de
G. Denham (4/4/17):
'Insisting on “nominating ruckmen” was brought in from a safety point of view, with the league not wanting rucks to be blindsided at stoppages. Critics of this safety-first approach argue there is no such rule for the protection of players elsewhere — in a marking contest for example.
During round two, there were several incidents where the implementation of the rule exposed a loophole in the process.
In the final quarter of the Richmond-Collingwood game on Thursday night, Tigers midfielder Shaun Grigg was awarded a free kick and booted a goal courtesy of a new rule played out in a manner that was against the spirit of why it was introduced.
The Grigg free kick came after he nominated to contest the ruck then stood slightly out of the firing line and was blocked by a not-so-quick thinking Collingwood defender Brayden Maynard. Grigg exploited the situation by being smart and under the current rule, the correct decision was paid. But his tactic, repeated twice by other players on Saturday, has a bad look and feel about it.
The Richmond veteran, who appeared to have no intention of contesting the ruck, milked a free kick by cleverly positioning himself so that Maynard blocked his path, which is an automatic free kick as he was not given a clear run at the ball as a ruckman.
...
Collingwood captain Scott Pendlebury suggested ahead of the Pies-Richmond match that umpires should nominate two players to contest the ruck.
After the match he said the Grigg incident was not in the spirit of the game and forecast other teams taking advantage of the loophole in the rule.
“Every side will think, ‘Gee we might be able to steal one if we can do this’. It might happen,” Pendlebury said of smaller players trying to pinch an opportunity.' |
|
|
|
|
Rd10.1998_11.1#36
rd10.1998_11.1#36
Joined: 18 Jul 2018 Location: Sevilla, Spain
|
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
Post subject: | |
|
Skids wrote: | I think 50m is too harsh a penalty for this, and some other infringements.
I'd like to see the 15m penalty reintroduced for minor indiscretions, with the 50m applied for more serious ones. |
Agreed Skids _________________ All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|