"Advantage rule"

[clarkoscluster]

Did anyone see the advantage paid after Djerkurra got a free kick? One of the most rediculous interpretations I've seen. The Dogs player picked it up, took a couple of steps and stopped when he heard, what I assume was the whistle. Advantage was paid, ball was lost and the the Saints went down the other end and booted a goal. Direct 12 point turnaround. Rule has to change.

 

[seanoff]

yep, absolute travesty.

the umpiring has been trash tonight. terrible all around.

 

[Bennett.]

Yep, that was a really, really bad call.

5 minutes later, dropping the ball not paid in dogs goalsquare.

Shit umpiring.

 

[Probst]

Yep, that was a really, really bad call.

5 minutes later, dropping the ball not paid in dogs goalsquare.

Shit umpiring.

Its been just as bad on us, you know.

 

[beez]

We all know it's a joke, time for a mid season rule change.

 

[BarcaRulz]

What amazes me was that the umpire called the advantage AFTER Cross had stopped. Yes, he did take two steps, and if the ump had called play on straight away I would have understood (still would have been the wrong call). However, to see Cross stop after two mini steps and decide there was no advantage to him, and then to call play on was just ridiculous.

 

[potatomasher]

Its been just as bad on us, you know.

Agreed. For someone who used to be known for getting favoured, Riewoldt gets absolutely nothing from the umpires these days.

 

[sydney_hawka]

yep, absolute travesty.

the umpiring has been trash tonight. terrible all around.

The Umps have been shit, as has the Skills of both sides (attrocious).

 

[rhaz]

Horrible, horrible rule. Umpire just called back a Hawks player after he chose to play on and fluffed up the pass. Under the new rule that its just "too bad, you chose to play on and ****ed up, live with the consequences"... but instead the umpire let the Hawks have another go, which is the OLD rule.

 

[Scham]

Horrible, horrible rule. Umpire just called back a Hawks player after he chose to play on and fluffed up the pass. Under the new rule that its just "too bad, you chose to play on and ****ed up, live with the consequences"... but instead the umpire let the Hawks have another go, which is the OLD rule.

It was McBurney though - he umpires to his own rules!

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Frigging horrible rule, well the rule is okay its the bloody umps who keep stuffing it up.

They kept telling players in the north vs suns game tonight whether they can or cant take advantage.

3 or 4 times a player went to pick up the ball to pass it back to the infringed player and the umps just screamed "PLAY ON PLAY ON ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE", the player hadnt run at the ball or moved it forward, theyd simply picked up the ball ready to pass it back.

 

[alfy!]

A mess of a rule, players and umpires have absolutely no idea. A blight on the game.

 

[Skoob]

Frigging horrible rule, well the rule is okay its the bloody umps who keep stuffing it up.

They kept telling players in the north vs suns game tonight whether they can or cant take advantage.

3 or 4 times a player went to pick up the ball to pass it back to the infringed player and the umps just screamed "PLAY ON PLAY ON ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE", the player hadnt run at the ball or moved it forward, theyd simply picked up the ball ready to pass it back.

That's not quite how it happened. On each occasion the player was clearly picking the ball up on the run with the intent to play on. Don't be fooled by Dwayne Russell's call. The ump can still call it back, but at least with an early call the players all know that play on is called, reducing the number of players stopping for the free.

 

[True Blue Cat]

Geelong v Hawks game it was pretty bad. 3 times it happened i believe however on 1 occasion it is possibly fair that they brought it back.

The first instance a player takes the ball after a free kick was paid, the umpire calls play on the player handballs the ball like 15-20m misses the target so the umpire brings it back. So essentially a free kick is paid they take the advantage the umpire calls play on but brings it back because they turn it over. Doesn't seem right to me.


They had the right intention bringing the rule in to give the players the decision of when they want to or don't want to take the advantage but lets face it the decision is with the umpire just as much now as it was in the past.

 

[Gods_Son23]

arads watch the video again. The whistle went well before Cross started running. He takes a couple of steps, begins to sprint, line up to kick for goal, has a second thought about it, then stops - http://www.afl.com.au/video/tabid/76/default.aspx - At 2:17

I think with more time for the players to adjust and the umpires to not be so pedantic with this it could work. Let's not have short memories and pretend the previous advantage rule was perfect. Players often got two attempts at goal, and often umpires brought it back when there was an advantage or vise versa. Looks like it'll be changed for next season though based on what journos are saying.

 

[Oxirane]

Should just be called the 'play on' rule. It doesn't matter if there is an advantage or not.

The way I understand the rule:
-We should see situations where the team awarded the free can stuff it up.
-You shouldn't see umpires bringing the ball back if the team decides to play on

There just needs to be a better understanding about what constitutes deciding to play on, as well as the timing with regards to when the whistle blows (e.g. players can snap at goal whilst the whistle blows).

 

[DarkPhoenix]

That's not quite how it happened. On each occasion the player was clearly picking the ball up on the run with the intent to play on. Don't be fooled by Dwayne Russell's call. The ump can still call it back, but at least with an early call the players all know that play on is called, reducing the number of players stopping for the free.

Why would I listen to D. Russell anyway? Hes a north hating muppet.

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

Players often got two attempts at goal, and often umpires brought it back when there was an advantage or vise versa. Looks like it'll be changed for next season though based on what journos are saying.

The way I understand the rule:
-We should see situations where the team awarded the free can stuff it up.
-You shouldn't see umpires bringing the ball back if the team decides to play on

Unfortunately the way you understand the rule does not take into account the fact that it is called the 'Advantage rule', and that the whole point of it is to attempt allow players to continue playing after free kicks are paid if it is advantageous.

It is not called the 'Gamble Rule' or 'Double Jeopardy Rule' or the 'Do players have foresight rule'.

Every other sport in the world with the advantage rule has situations where players get 'two attempts' at it. That is the nature of the rule. If the first attempt proves disadvantageous, then the play reverts to the free kick, as that is the more advantageous situation for the player receivingthe free. If he plays on and does somethign which is advantageous, then the free kick is not brought back.

It is a very simple rule, which ensures that whatever happens after the whistle is blown, the player receiving the free gets to do what is most advantageous. Thus it is called the 'Advantage Rule'. Clear?

 

[Oxirane]

Unfortunately the way you understand the rule does not take into account the fact that it is called the 'Advantage rule', and that the whole point of it is to attempt allow players to continue playing after free kicks are paid if it is advantageous.

It is not called the 'Gamble Rule' or 'Double Jeopardy Rule' or the 'Do players have foresight rule'.

Every other sport in the world with the advantage rule has situations where players get 'two attempts' at it. That is the nature of the rule. If the first attempt proves disadvantageous, then the play reverts to the free kick, as that is the more advantageous situation for the player receivingthe free. If he plays on and does somethign which is advantageous, then the free kick is not brought back.

It is a very simple rule, which ensures that whatever happens after the whistle is blown, the player receiving the free gets to do what is most advantageous. Thus it is called the 'Advantage Rule'. Clear?

I understand why advantage rules are put in place, but I think the AFL rule interpretation has changed from gaining a true advantage, to the 'advantage' of playing on in open play vs allowing the other team to structure up(flood back).

I only know a little bit about the rule in rugby, where advantage is played until significant field position is gained or change in possession. This is less contentions because advantage is called without a whistle, the outcome of bringing the ball back after a failed advantage doesn't lead to a disadvantage(kick for touch, scrum feed, kick for goal) and no advantage can be called after multiple phases.

The rugby rule is more about awarding an advantage of multiple chances, whereas the current interpretation of the AFL rule is more to do with playing on quickly to beat defensive structures.

Players complained about the old rule because umpires were sometimes calling back the ball when there was a clear advantage. They wanted to eliminate this by allowing the players to decide the advantage, but the umps are no longer calling it back if there is a disadvantage(I think they should and the rule will be better, but they are calling play on most of the time).

I'm sure the rule as it stands will change next year

 

[Gods_Son23]

Unfortunately the way you understand the rule does not take into account the fact that it is called the 'Advantage rule', and that the whole point of it is to attempt allow players to continue playing after free kicks are paid if it is advantageous.

It is not called the 'Gamble Rule' or 'Double Jeopardy Rule' or the 'Do players have foresight rule'.

Every other sport in the world with the advantage rule has situations where players get 'two attempts' at it. That is the nature of the rule. If the first attempt proves disadvantageous, then the play reverts to the free kick, as that is the more advantageous situation for the player receivingthe free. If he plays on and does somethign which is advantageous, then the free kick is not brought back.

It is a very simple rule, which ensures that whatever happens after the whistle is blown, the player receiving the free gets to do what is most advantageous. Thus it is called the 'Advantage Rule'. Clear?

I hear you about the two attempts thing. Happens in rugby where they can play for ages only to be brought back. But how often did a player score a goal only for it to be brought back under the old rule. Meaning it was disadvantageous if anything.

This rule isn't perfect but the old one was far from perfect as well, where far too often the 'advantage' could have been payed under the old rules by the umpire but wasn't. I remember having a convo at a game with someone about it years back. I don't think it's too much for a player to realise he shouldn't play on with the ball when his team wins a free kick inside 50 while being surrounded by opposition players like Cross was.

 

[RizzoTheRat]

lloydy_loinchop is right. It's the only way Advantage should work. It clearly doesn't work at the moment.

 

[yebiga]

In a recent TV interview, The Geisch was asked whether the umpires should consider not blowing the whistle but just raise their hand to indicate to the crowd they were calling advantage (a la soccer) and then if there is no advantage, blow the whistle and bring it back or if there is let play continue.

In response, The Geisch said they had trialed this in practise games but the players did not like it, not knowing they would have been given a free? You see! A player who thought they should have had a free would be disappointed not knowing there was a free but the advantage had been applied. The Geisch does not like players disappointed if they should have got a free and they din't know the umpire gave them a free.

The Geisch is very protective of players and umpires and that is why the Geisch is the longest tenured coach in the AFL, soon to rival the great Kevin Sheedy himself.

Currently, the whistle is blown and the player knows there was a free but the player in position to play advantage doesn't necessarily know whether the free is to his team or against his team and needs to decide whether the advantage he has is as good as the advantage his team mate would have if the ball went back to his team mate. The Geisch likes the challenge this presents as the players now know how the umpire feels having to make so many difficult split second decisions. But the key is that the offendee and the offender know there was a decision and why. This is what The Geisch calls decision reinforcement. The Geisch has pioneered decision reinforcement and it remains the secret to his longevity.

"in all walks of life harmonious relationships are sustained by instant reinforcement of the action or decision, whether training a dog, umpiring or coitus, it avoids unnecessary misunderstandings" said The Geisch in his book "Umpiring for life"

Yep, you gotta love The Giesch.

But being the deep thinker that he is, I wonder whether the Geisch is not protecting us all from far greater ramifications.