Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
The Protected Zone

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
glasseyevfx 



Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Location: Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:13 pm
Post subject: The Protected ZoneReply with quote

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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Cam Capricorn

Nick's BB Member #166


Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
glasseyevfx 



Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Location: Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:13 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ 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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Rolling Eyes
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Skids Cancer

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

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
the fuzz 

Fuzz loves Bruzz


Joined: 11 Aug 2008


PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:23 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Rolling Eyes


Totally agree. The nominating rule is as ridiculous as the grey Carlton guernsey
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Collingwood Crackerjack 



Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
tbaker 



Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Wasn't it the martian (Kevin Sheedy) who pushed for that?
_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
npalm 



Joined: 01 May 2005


PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:23 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Rolling Eyes


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.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.'
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Rd10.1998_11.1#36 

rd10.1998_11.1#36


Joined: 18 Jul 2018
Location: Sevilla, Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

‘The Protected Zone’ should be the name of a TV show... shits all over The Bounce and On The Couch
_________________
https://forever.collingwoodfc.com.au/sav-sinks-the-dockers/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
The Boy Who Cried Wolf 



Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:46 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

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!!!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Re. ruck rules:

Dangerfield free kick 'not in the spirit of the game'

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-free-kick-not-in-the-spirit-of-the-game-20180723-p4zt3n.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Page 1 of 1   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group