Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2024, Part I

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just on the advantage rule, it's written as a pretty black & white rule, and maybe instead it does require an element of tweaking and where it's adjudicated in more similar manner to that of soccer/football or rugby, where if there's no clear advantage it's called back

As the rule reads, unless the all players immediately stop then it should be called advantage each time - though sometimes we do see umpires call it back after a player has taken a few steps & stopped, other times if you even look like giving a handball it's play on

 

Log in to remove this ad.

Just on the advantage rule, it's written as a pretty black & white rule, and maybe instead it does require an element of tweaking and where it's adjudicated in more similar manner to that of soccer/football or rugby, where if there's no clear advantage it's called back

As the rule reads, unless the all players immediately stop then it should be called advantage each time - though sometimes we do see umpires call it back after a player has taken a few steps & stopped, other times if you even look like giving a handball it's play on



Although in this case it seemed a poor advantage call ... its the players who control that situation. ..and most instances... speed and flow of play is more importnat than a free kick...unless its within the 50 range. What I disike is the regularity of a free kick almost disadvanatgeing a side...due to the way a player is held up while the other side fills the area in front of him. Its annoying the way players get held down etc..and watching players run back past him but whats the solution. a basketball ..foul shot sort of deal?
 
Although in this case it seemed a poor advantage call ... its the players who control that situation. ..and most instances... speed and flow of play is more importnat than a free kick...unless its within the 50 range. What I disike is the regularity of a free kick almost disadvanatgeing a side...due to the way a player is held up while the other side fills the area in front of him. Its annoying the way players get held down etc..and watching players run back past him but whats the solution. a basketball ..foul shot sort of deal?

What would be interesting is if the umpires used that same "immediate" action when officiating calls against an opposition player kicking the ball away a free kick against their team - how often do we see the umpire call those situations back, even when it's clear a free kick has been paid and who it's been paid to, but they reason "he didn't hear or some other BS"

If it's deemed that the team who won/earned the free kick has chosen to take advantage with a hurried kick on the boot, start calling it a 50m penalty when the opposition kicks the ball away - why give the offending team an out but not the team who is meant to receive the free kick?
 
No extended morning show + extra NRL bullshit I believe is the reason

I like the nrl stuff..might see a real GF with a real class team tonight..much as it pains me to say it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sad indictment on AFL commentating if he's what we have to endure each year. Absolutely embarrassing.

They have Jason Bennett, Nigel Carmody, and to a lesser extent Alastair Nicholson in their commentary ranks who are all better commentators, yet somehow choose to have JB and BT commentate the biggest match of the year. Only way it could've been worse is if they managed to squeeze Luke Darcy in there as well.
 
Personally, I think the advantage rule could be pretty easily remedied, like it has been in many other sports. The umpire should be able to wait it out and decide whether or not the resulting play actually advantages the team that picked up the free.

Example, let's say a player gets spoiled in a marking contest and cops one high. Ball spills over the back and is picked up by one of his teammates, who takes it and runs it forward. Umpire would normally call advantage here. But let's say the player who took the ball shanks it whilst being tackled and kicks it out of bounds. I think the umpire should just be able to take the play back to the original player and say the advantage is cancelled because no advantage was actually given to the team who took it.

In other words, when a player takes the ball instead of passing it back to the player who earned the free, the umpire should have discretion on whether the resulting advantage actually helps the team with the advantage or not. It eliminates the rubbish instances when a player takes advantage (sometimes without even realising a free was called in the first place), is instantly tackled and the ball spills free again, negating the original free kick. It would also give the advantaged team a short time horizon within which the play could be given the chance of being detrimental without risking a turnover.

This happens in the NHL. They call it a delayed penalty. An infringement occurs which would normally result in a 5-on-4 powerplay, but the puck spills free to open ice, so the refs wait to see who touches it first. If the opposition end up with the puck, they just immediately call it back and instigate the penalty. If the team with the penalty touches it first, they get to play with impunity within a short time because there's an implied penalty resting behind the play. There are obvious differences between the two sports but you get the idea.

I think it would result in a better gameflow with more play-ons and more scoring chances. It would also protect the guy picking up the spilled ball and would guarantee that he wouldn't be able to lose the ball, at least until a successful disposal is made, or he takes enough time running with the ball that the advantage is valid.
Yeah, I agree.

In soccer a ref will indicate the free by holding an arm out but hold off on blowing the whistle until it's apparent that there is no advantage.

In footy it's like the ump has to make the call in a split second after they've already blown the whistle to work out whether it is or isn't an advantage. Sometimes it's a hard call to make. And you get scenarios where some players stop while others keep going.

If you let the play naturally continue then bring it back if there's no advantage, there's much less confusion.
 
They have Jason Bennett, Nigel Carmody, and to a lesser extent Alastair Nicholson in their commentary ranks who are all better commentators, yet somehow choose to have JB and BT commentate the biggest match of the year. Only way it could've been worse is if they managed to squeeze Luke Darcy in there as well.

Luke Darcy was the chair in the Brownlow.
Nudge Carmody not that good .

Why Abby the the boundary. rider at every game ..go away .

BT better on radio .

JB only ok with billy on the rush hour... 💩 other wise .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top