Opinion Non-Crows AFL 11: Footy's Back At Last

[GreyCrow]

I thought it was changed to a free/50m but a fine for paperwork breach ie interchange stuff up

 

[FR0GGY]

Current laws of the game say:

• Request must be made by captain or vice-captain or team runner to umpire
• Penalty for more than 18 on the field is a free kick, 50 meter penalty, infringing team loses entire score gained in the quarter and the incident will be reported for further examination/sanctions

Laws of the Game - Play AFL

play.afl

Yeah so it’s not score wiped any more.

 

[Scorpus]

Yeah so it’s not score wiped any more.

The score is wiped for the quarter, not the entire match

I thought it was changed to a free/50m but a fine for paperwork breach ie interchange stuff up

That would be if the umpires make the call that there was an interchange infringement. There is only the chance of the score for the quarter being wiped if the captain/vice/runner requests a head count

 

[whattagun07]

Some high draft picks have turned into rather vanilla players.
Walsh, Mcgrath, Rozee.

A little harsh. Walsh and rozee are still very good players. They have their flaws but would walk into our side, and are still top 50(?) players in the comp.
McGrath however, has never really impressed me at any stage.

 

[Scorpus]

There is not one ‘superstar’ picked after Ned in that draft.

A case could be made for Bobby Hill but the rest are B-grade at best.

At least a lot of those B grade players are still on lists, unlike McHenry

And probably a bit harsh on players like James Rowbottom, Connor Idun, Lachie Schultz, Tom Sparrow, Justin McInerney and James Jordon who are all MUCH better than McHenry

 

[spenze]

Sam Walsh has been handed the Marc Murphy batton of being able to accumulate a lot of touches and having zero impact on games.

Samcro24

Of course, the only touches he got in that last quarter was post match handshakes with Hawthorn players. Lachie Murphy has put up more dominant last quarter displays than Walsh did last night.

 

[Tex Danger]

Current laws of the game say:

• Request must be made by captain or vice-captain or team runner to umpire
• Penalty for more than 18 on the field is a free kick, 50 meter penalty, infringing team loses entire score gained in the quarter and the incident will be reported for further examination/sanctions

Laws of the Game - Play AFL

play.afl

The infringed club can also request a review after the game if an on-field request wasn't made at the time, and the infringing club can be fined, sanctioned or have the result reversed

Why is it still up to the opposing captain in a professional league who has paid employees to monitor interchanges?

Surely those officials both detect it happening at the time (and before it becomes an advantage / impacts the game) and communicated it to the umpire via earpiece, who stops the game, awards free kick and 50m (or even more appropriate would be a free kick 30m out from goal) and the extra player is removed

 

[AFC979810]

Why is it still up to the opposing captain in a professional league who has paid employees to monitor interchanges?

Surely those officials both detect it happening at the time (and before it becomes an advantage / impacts the game) and communicated it to the umpire via earpiece, who stops the game, awards free kick and 50m (or even more appropriate would be a free kick 30m out from goal) and the extra player is removed

No room for common sense in the game mate.

 

[Scorpus]

Why is it still up to the opposing captain in a professional league who has paid employees to monitor interchanges?

Surely those officials both detect it happening at the time (and before it becomes an advantage / impacts the game) and communicated it to the umpire via earpiece, who stops the game, awards free kick and 50m (or even more appropriate would be a free kick 30m out from goal) and the extra player is removed

I agree. That said the rules are also supposed to cover community footy where you wouldn't be able to do that

 

[arrowman]

I agree. That said the rules are also supposed to cover community footy where you wouldn't be able to do that

Also, I wonder if the officials don't have enough on their plate managing their own team's interchanges without having to keep an eye on the other team as well.

Edit: Maybe they could make it like election vote counting, where they have scrutineers.

 

[Cleric]

Isaac Keeler getting his debut game for St Kilda this week. As a Crows NGA that we didn't elect to take, it will be interesting to see how he goes.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Reckon they abolished that rule

They need to amend the rule.

There should be a penalty, but a sensible one. Perhaps penalised a goal per minute you have an extra player.

Also, based on a video replay check by AFL not opposing captain

 

[Cromulant]

They need to amend the rule.

There should be a penalty, but a sensible one. Perhaps penalised a goal per minute you have an extra player.

Also, based on a video replay check by AFL not opposing captain

Last night it was noticed before the ball was bounced after a goal.

Free kick was absolutely the correct call.

 

[Mutineer]

harvey Langford omitted back to the VFL where a host of new draftees are debuting in VFL Round 1.
Interesting Lachie Gollant not named for Williamstown after playing well in the trial games so must have picked up an injury I take it, Will Hammill's Frankston have the bye this week.

 

[Vader]

They need to amend the rule.

There should be a penalty, but a sensible one. Perhaps penalised a goal per minute you have an extra player.

Also, based on a video replay check by AFL not opposing captain

Teams found to have 19 players have their entire score for the quarter wiped.

The AFL have people monitoring the interchanges. There is absolutely no reason why the interchange officials shouldn't be able to notify the umpires whenever a team has 19 players on the ground. This won't work at lower levels, where there are no interchange officials, but it could definitely be made to work in the AFL.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Teams found to have 19 players have their entire score for the quarter wiped.

The AFL have people monitoring the interchanges. There is absolutely no reason why the interchange officials shouldn't be able to notify the umpires whenever a team has 19 players on the ground. This won't work at lower levels, where there are no interchange officials, but it could definitely be made to work in the AFL.

Again your confusing the actual rule with what I think should happen... as clearly the post was my opinion.

The penalty is too big, so the AFL just doesn't enact it when it occurs... so how about we hane a more realistic penalty so they do enact it when there is an infringement.

 

[Vader]

Again your confusing the actual rule with what I think should happen... as clearly the post was my opinion.

The penalty is too big, so the AFL just doesn't enact it when it occurs... so how about we hane a more realistic penalty so they do enact it when there is an infringement.

The rule is being applied correctly. The rule is defined in the Laws of Australian Football (attached), in Section 5.5 - Counting of Players.

The rule requires:

The captain or vice-captain of a Team or Team Runner(s) may at any time during a Match request that the field Umpire count the number of Players of the opposing Team who are on the Playing Surface.

If there is no request from the captain or vice-captain, then there is no action to be taken.

I am proposing that the rule be changed. My proposal is that the AFL's interchange officials should be able to flag/notify the presence of a 19th player to the field Umpires, without requiring a request from the captain or vice-captain.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The rule is being applied correctly. The rule is defined in the Laws of Australian Football (attached), in Section 5.5 - Counting of Players.

The rule requires:


If there is no request from the captain or vice-captain, then there is no action to be taken.

I am proposing that the rule be changed. My proposal is that the AFL's interchange officials should be able to flag/notify the presence of a 19th player to the field Umpires, without requiring a request from the captain or vice-captain.

So tell me then when the rule was last effective!!!

It's not!!!

Hence my point to make it effective, otherwise what is the point of an unused rule.

 

[Vader]

So tell me then when the rule was last effective!!!

It's not!!!

Hence my point to make it effective, otherwise what is the point of an unused rule.

I agree that the rule is ineffective - hence my suggested change, to remove the requirement for a captain/vice-captain request.

You said that the rule wasn't enacting the penalty, because it was too harsh. This is incorrect. The rule is being adjudicated correctly, it's just written to be completely ineffective.

The rule was changed after Sydney were found to be deliberately cheating, having a 19th player on the field during the last minutes in a game against North Melbourne, back in 2008. Initially the AFL came up with the post-it note rule, which was widely ridiculed. Eventually they came up with the current rule, which is even more toothless than the original pre-2008 rule.

I think we're both in agreement that the rule needs to be updated, in such a way that it is actually enforceable and prevents clubs like Sydney from cheating.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I agree that the rule is ineffective - hence my suggested change, to remove the requirement for a captain/vice-captain request.

You said that the rule wasn't enacting the penalty, because it was too harsh. This is incorrect. The rule is being adjudicated correctly, it's just written to be completely ineffective.

The rule was changed after Sydney were found to be deliberately cheating, having a 19th player on the field during the last minutes in a game against North Melbourne, back in 2008. Initially the AFL came up with the post-it note rule, which was widely ridiculed. Eventually they came up with the current rule, which is even more toothless than the original pre-2008 rule.

I think we're both in agreement that the rule needs to be updated, in such a way that it is actually enforceable and prevents clubs like Sydney from cheating.

I said the rule is too harsh meaning the AFL would be unlikely to enact it & it should be handled by the AFL not the opposition captain.

I'm glad you got there eventually...

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I know the rule has changed but I hate that people get pinged for HTB without prior opportunity.

 

[Vader]

I said the rule is too harsh meaning the AFL would be unlikely to enact it & it should be handled by the AFL not the opposition captain.

I'm glad you got there eventually...

There's 2 separate things here.

Firstly, it's written in the Laws of Football, so the umpires absolutely have to enforce it if a request is made. You are dead wrong on this one.

Secondly, we are both in agreement that the rule needs to be changed, removing the need for the request.

On SM-A5360 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

There's 2 separate things here.

Firstly, it's written in the Laws of Football, so the umpires absolutely have to enforce it if a request is made. You are dead wrong on this one.

Secondly, we are both in agreement that the rule needs to be changed, removing the need for the request.

On SM-A5360 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Which i said in my 1st post!!

The AFL should have a practical rule that can be applied, otherwise what is the ****ing point...

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Lobbs haircut is more offensive than anything Rory Atkins ever did.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Lobbs haircut is more offensive than anything Rory Atkins ever did.

True, but Lobb is a decent footballer when not flakey.