Back to the 9

[grimface_87]

The umpires seem to have reduced their leniency recently to players defending the mark inside the '9' metre goal square imaginary line where previously they gave them quite a bit of latitude to overrun the 9 when there was a mark within before they retreated. Is it time to adjust the field markings to add a line at the '9' across the whole ground and make this a 'no go zone' for the attacking team unless the ball is in play?

 

[Hoops]

Or we could just get rid of the rule. I dont get the point of it

 

[JyeDye]

Player should be more switch on. Not that complicated.

 

[Finn Jim]

I'd dash the line myself, but absolutely. Yes I'm a Collingwood supporter salty about the 50, but if the penalty is going to be that severe for violating an imaginary line, they should make it a real line.

Or ditch the rule, because there should be a disadvantage to kick-mark in your own goal square.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Feel everyone missed the point of what happened with Ginnivan, literally a second before that they called McCreery back to the 9 to retreat - the kick went across goal and then Ginnivan came charging in.

So the umpires did give leniency they just didn't give it both of them due close in both in proximity and time they were, Ginnivan knows the rule and charges in to eat up time keeping in mind his teammate was called back to the 9 a second earlier, so unless his eyes were painted on he knew what he was doing with the full expectation that the umpire would call him and he got rightfully pinned.

 

[Maze]

Feel everyone missed the point of what happened with Ginnivan, literally a second before that they called McCreery back to the 9 to retreat - the kick went across goal and then Ginnivan came charging in.

So the umpires did give leniency they just didn't give it both of them due close in both in proximity and time they were, Ginnivan knows the rule and charges in to eat up time keeping in mind his teammate was called back to the 9 a second earlier, so unless his eyes were painted on he knew what he was doing with the full expectation that the umpire would call him and he got rightfully pinned.

So with 6.35 to go in the final quarter, Buddy came from 10m to the mark. The umpire just said to him twice, come back to the 9m. He was not in the contest and an identical situation to Ginnivan. The Ginnivan decision whilst technical was correct, however the Franklin one which was incorrect should be the way the rule is administered. The Ginnivan call was over umpiring and the Franklin decision blended with the game. Again the AFL seem to fail in the adjudication of the game

 

[Maze]

Player should be more switch on. Not that complicated.

So should the umpire who missed the one with 6.35 to go in the last....

 

[aCunningPlan]

So should the umpire who missed the one with 6.35 to go in the last....

Yeah just looked at it, Buddy was in the vicinity of the marking contest, he was parallel with the mark not racing in from ten metres away. Good call by the umpire not to pay 50.

 

[aCunningPlan]

The umpires seem to have reduced their leniency recently to players defending the mark inside the '9' metre goal square imaginary line where previously they gave them quite a bit of latitude to overrun the 9 when there was a mark within before they retreated. Is it time to adjust the field markings to add a line at the '9' across the whole ground and make this a 'no go zone' for the attacking team unless the ball is in play?

View attachment 1510523

Don't mind this, maybe a blue line like the 15 metre dot from the goal square so you dont see it.

 

[Maze]

Yeah just looked at it, Buddy was in the vicinity of the marking contest, he was parallel with the mark not racing in from ten metres away. Good call by the umpire not to pay 50.

Hilarious...he was in the vicinity (10m away!)....but he wasn't in the contest....

 

[aCunningPlan]

Hilarious...he was in the vicinity (10m away!)....but he wasn't in the contest....

Look, I'm telling you right now, from the instructions I have been given all year I wouldn't pay that 50 against Buddy, he was around the contest. The Ginnivan one is a clear 50, he ran in over the mark. You can complain but it was a good call.

 

[Maze]

Look, I'm telling you right now, from the instructions I have been given all year I wouldn't pay that 50 against Buddy, he was around the contest. The Ginnivan one is a clear 50, he ran in over the mark. You can complain but it was a good call.

It was an uncontested mark and Buddy was 10m away. The rule is clear. The mark is on the 9m line and if ball is uncontested then 50m if you move forward of that....pretty simple for most....

 

[aCunningPlan]

It was an uncontested mark and Buddy was 10m away. The rule is clear. The mark is on the 9m line and if ball is uncontested then 50m if you move forward of that....pretty simple for most....

Wrong description of the event, wrong conclusion to make.

 

[Maze]

Wrong description of the event, wrong conclusion to make.

Are you suggesting Buddy contested the mark.....Footage looked pretty clear to me. Buddy encroachment of the mark is no different to Ginnivan despite one running and one jogging...neither were in the contest.. looks like you've lost this one convincingly....

 

[AstonSouffle]

So with 6.35 to go in the final quarter, Buddy came from 10m to the mark. The umpire just said to him twice, come back to the 9m. He was not in the contest and an identical situation to Ginnivan. The Ginnivan decision whilst technical was correct, however the Franklin one which was incorrect should be the way the rule is administered. The Ginnivan call was over umpiring and the Franklin decision blended with the game. Again the AFL seem to fail in the adjudication of the game

MATE - this has everything to do with McCreery getting called back a second earlier in a previous back to the 9. Did Buddy have this? No! So he gets the same leniency all back to 9's get.

 

[Maze]

MATE - this has everything to do with McCreery getting called back a second earlier in a previous back to the 9. Did Buddy have this? No! So he gets the same leniency all back to 9's get.

Absolute rubbish....zero in rules or spirit of game about treating a warning to one as a warning to all. What a crock....

 

[Maze]

Absolute rubbish....zero in rules or spirit of game about treating a warning to one as a warning to all. What a crock....

As an add on, how does the umpire know Ginnivan has heard the McCreery instructions.....sometimes I shake my head T the dumb rubbish people throw up

 

[AstonSouffle]

As an add on, how does the umpire know Ginnivan has heard the McCreery instructions.....sometimes I shake my head T the dumb rubbish people throw up

Firstly the warning isn't in the rules, it's a soft warning to smash a 50 in if the marking contest occured, or an intercept, or a free kick etc to give the player the opportunity to get back to the 9. Which from there the imaginary line is set. Do they call 50's if the backline doesn't get out of the protected area as soon as a forward marks it? But do they if they've teammates do so, and then one comes sprinting in?

Regarding Ginnivan - because the player is meant to be paying attention to the game, he came flying in right over the top of the mark. So either he knew the rules and expected to be called back to waste time (so stuff 'spirit of the rules' because that's easily a 50 if umpire is well within their rights to see that as delibrately holding up play). - OR - he doesn't know the rules, and didn't know McCreery was called back - if he doesn't know the rules then he needs to learn them and so do the commentators.

Guess players should just run through set kick protected areas hey? I mean using your logic if the umpire doesn't tell them to not do it then it's fair game?

Also, it was Matt Stevic 450 game umpire, 10 AFL Grand Final Umpire a.k.a. an absolute powerhouse of any umpire. You'd back him over well... everyone lol

 

[Maze]

Firstly the warning isn't in the rules, it's a soft warning to smash a 50 in if the marking contest occured, or an intercept, or a free kick etc to give the player the opportunity to get back to the 9. Which from there the imaginary line is set. Do they call 50's if the backline doesn't get out of the protected area as soon as a forward marks it? But do they if they've teammates do so, and then one comes sprinting in?

Regarding Ginnivan - because the player is meant to be paying attention to the game, he came flying in right over the top of the mark. So either he knew the rules and expected to be called back to waste time (so stuff 'spirit of the rules' because that's easily a 50 if umpire is well within their rights to see that as delibrately holding up play). - OR - he doesn't know the rules, and didn't know McCreery was called back - if he doesn't know the rules then he needs to learn them and so do the commentators.

Guess players should just run through set kick protected areas hey? I mean using your logic if the umpire doesn't tell them to not do it then it's fair game?

Also, it was Matt Stevic 450 game umpire, 10 AFL Grand Final Umpire a.k.a. an absolute powerhouse of any umpire. You'd back him over well... everyone lol

The Ginnivan free kick was correct. If you know the rules then a player outside the contest cannot breach the 9m or immediate 50m is given without warning. Franklin breaches the 9m and was not in the contest.. 50m with no warning must apply....hopefully this is clear enough for you