And he was right.
Just left out the other bit about him and his rules committee mates.
1 Like
Iâd also go withâŚ
2002: Minimum distance of ball travel for a mark increased from 10 metres to 15.
2003: Play-on to be called if a player unnecessarily delays disposal after mark or free.
Shepherding at centre bounce ruck contests outlawed.
Player catching ball from centre or field bounce or throw-in to be deemed to have had prior opportunity to dispose of it.
2006: Removal of the requirement of a player kicking in after the scoring of a behind to wait until the goal umpire completes waving the flag. The kick-in can occur as soon as the goal umpire signals the score as a behind.
Allowance of a set shot at goal from a mark or free awarded within the goalsquare to be taken from directly in front.
2007: Introduction into official laws of the game of an automatic free kick to a player with his head over the ball if any high contact made in any way. This also became an automatic reportable offence.
2009: Umpires empowered to recall an errant bounce at a stoppage and replace it with a throw-up
A player in possession of the ball, when the play is stopped for stretcher usage, to retain it when the game restarts.
If an umpire impedes a player when setting the mark for a shot at goal, play to be stopped and the mark to be re-set to avoid a disadvantage.
2011: The infringed player, rather than an umpire, given the power to determine the advantage rule.
A player who elects to apply a bump in any situation will become liable if he makes forceful contact with the head, unless: the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not be reasonably foreseen.
But yeah, leave the game alone.
1 Like
Its just another rule change that nobody was really complaining about, 3rd man up , so what?
Protected area. I dont remember the public complaining about this. Classic umpires rule, it must have annoyed them so they got a rule added. impact of the so called infringement is so non existent, yet the impact of the penalty can change a game. â â â â rule get rid of it
holding the ball has almost become irrelevant. so many of them paid are guessed imo. frantic in close, arms hands and bumping going on everywhere, was the ball knocked out in the tackle? did he drop it? did he have time? did he try to get rid of it? did he drop the ball then kick it? or did he do a drop kick?
God almighty, what a terribile rule to have to try and figure out. As a result they maybe at best get half o them right by their own standard. I dont mind a chase down tackle paid, or a clearly caught with the ball, but I think in the heat of in close play, incorrect disposal in frantic play should go, Paying these frees half the time is worse than letting the play just go. Paying excessive frees adds to congestion, gives players that little bit of extra time to flood.
Every time they add a technical rule it makes the game worse, Should be a moratorium on rule changes IMO
Possibly even take some of these tiggy crap rules out of the game and see what impact that has
You can see why it was required tho.
Smart teams like hawthorn would flood their players back as close to the player with the ball as possible.
It slows down play, stops players switching, stops players playing on, forces them to kick over the mark.
The way they do it now is a player runs in at 45degree angle pointing to the other player to run down field and man up. Has the same impact, but they make it look like theyâre just âdirecting trafficâ
Means the opposition know pretty much where the ball will go, or can tackle immediately.
Youâre welcome.
1 Like
I felt the umpiring this week was almost as biased as the West Coast game.
Some absolutely classic moments where it was clear that they were much happier to wait on the whistle for North but whistle happy for Essendon infringements.
I have no idea how you lay 68 effective tackles, win the clearances and contested ball, win the inside 50s and have twice the free kicks paid against you.
13 Likes
Margetts
2 Likes
Yes, but something changed after half time.
2 Likes
Only one rule changeâŚ
You canât interchange a forward after they have kicked a goal.
1 Like
Fixed.
That umpire, I think it was Maggots who pointed the wrong direction when giving a free kick, admitted he made a mistake and said; âmy bad,my badâ; does that prove he is a bad umpire as one, he made a mistake, and two, he actually admitted itâŚ?
This must go against official afl protocol.
Someone needs to tell Margetts to Mar-gett F****D
1 Like
Agreed. Perfectly emblematic of the state of AFL officiating.
Why canât it be that if a player is merely running past and doesnât impact the player with the ball at all, no call. If the player is in the protected zone and then moves to tackle the player with the ball after play on is called, then rule it a 50 metre penalty.
Weâve got to stop this notion that a player who just mindlessly runs past a player, not affecting the game at all, needs to be so heavily penalised for it.
1 Like
He did it twice.
We need no more proof. OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Whats the go with kicking for goal??
You get 30 seconds to kick for goal right?
So why foe 10 seconds did an umpire tell stringer to hurry up and kick it, and make him kick it with 10 seconds to go on the clock ?
If thats the case when are they going to start making ben brown hurry up and kick it quicker, cos he generally gets extra time with his run up by exploiting the system
2 Likes
I read âThe umpire impeding whilst setting the mark ruleâ as the old use the half wit umpire as a screen to play on - knowing that the man on the mark will be blocked. If that rule was actually used and the umpire recognised that he was a dope and actually called him back it would fine. However, I have never seen them do so. It would just be easier to train them to stand on the boundary side and thus not get in the way whilst also maintaining a view of the playing field.
The whole ruck shepherding rule, in a way forces ruckman to jump at the ball and each other in the centre circle which in affect increases the chances of injuries which they were trying to prevent in the first place.
1 Like
Whilst there needs to be a punishment for infringing the protected zone there also needs to be a bit of common sense applied, if the player runs on the boundary side and is in no way effecting the play then they should be given a little bit more latitude than when a player is âcongesting the corridorâ. Also the penalty is a bit stiff too, 25m and maybe having the ball centralised would be a more proportional penalty in my opinion.