The 50 metre penalty has to be eliminated

[D-N-R]

You'll end up with "professional 50s" when you introduce 15 and 25 m penalties. The time it takes for the umpire to move the player 15 or 25 down the ground gives the team more time to flood back with only 15 m lost. Just leave it and perhaps the players should just be more disciplined?

This is why it went from 15m to 50m. Players would scrag the bloke on the mark, get the 15 and then scrag him again to waste time without giving away too much territory.

As far as players saying "What!" or the like - players need to just keep it zipped. Since they brought in the practice of giving away 50s for 'demonstrative behaviour' there has been much less of it. (The Fletcher one isn't a good example because we didn't see what he did - however, you can clearly see that if a player talks reasonably with an umpire he is allowed to do so.) And there shouldn't be a difference between swearing at the ump or otherwise. If you draw that distinction, the players will just have a crack at the ump without swearing, which shouldn't be the case, even if the ump gets it wrong.

Players diving is a different issue and the finger of blame should be pointed at them, not the umps. Perhaps simulation should be 'discouraged' through suspension, frees against or players taking it upon themselves to not do it - another topic.

Two of the examples you used of players not giving the ball back - in both of them the player was having a discussion with the umpire without even attempting to give the ball back. In the second one the swans player wanted to jog back to the mark before giving it back - you don't get that option. Oh, and they seemed to be in the same match - you think the players would have learned by then.

Handing the ball back to the right player. This has to be paid a 50 each time, regardless of whether there is another opposition player saying it is his. Why? Because the players will try and milk it for all it's worth if they are given just a little leeway. "Oh sorry ump, I thought it was his free."

Agreed, the 50m penalty does need to be used as a last resort, but players need to ensure that they understand the rules themselves.

 

[Dez!]

Darling dived? Interesting, what I saw was a completely moronic Marcus Davies throw him to the ground, he deserved to have a goal kicked on him for that sheer act of stupidity.

In no way, shape or form should the 50m penalty be abolished.

Half of the time it's the players just being idiots, I don't understand why players constantly argue with the umpires after free kicks. The umpire isn't going to change his mind whether it was the right or wrong decision, why even waste your breath?

 

[Jisha]

Yeah no, Players and clubs simply need to learn the rules and abide by them. No matter how stupid they are, the rules are there.

Interchange infringement? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Runner infringement? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Late Tackle? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Mouthing off? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Player gets too close to the mark? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Unsportsmanlike behavior? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT

Get it? There are rules, and as much as I disagree with umpires a lot, 95% 50 meter penalties are called correctly according to the rules.

 

[harmesy 37]

This is why it went from 15m to 50m. Players would scrag the bloke on the mark, get the 15 and then scrag him again to waste time without giving away too much territory.

As far as players saying "What!" or the like - players need to just keep it zipped. Since they brought in the practice of giving away 50s for 'demonstrative behaviour' there has been much less of it. (The Fletcher one isn't a good example because we didn't see what he did - however, you can clearly see that if a player talks reasonably with an umpire he is allowed to do so.) And there shouldn't be a difference between swearing at the ump or otherwise. If you draw that distinction, the players will just have a crack at the ump without swearing, which shouldn't be the case, even if the ump gets it wrong.

Players diving is a different issue and the finger of blame should be pointed at them, not the umps. Perhaps simulation should be 'discouraged' through suspension, frees against or players taking it upon themselves to not do it - another topic.

Two of the examples you used of players not giving the ball back - in both of them the player was having a discussion with the umpire without even attempting to give the ball back. In the second one the swans player wanted to jog back to the mark before giving it back - you don't get that option. Oh, and they seemed to be in the same match - you think the players would have learned by then.

Handing the ball back to the right player. This has to be paid a 50 each time, regardless of whether there is another opposition player saying it is his. Why? Because the players will try and milk it for all it's worth if they are given just a little leeway. "Oh sorry ump, I thought it was his free."

Agreed, the 50m penalty does need to be used as a last resort, but players need to ensure that they understand the rules themselves.

How much scragging can you do though? Seriously I think people have the perception that in those dark, damp "olden days" back in the 1990s it took 15 minutes for a player to have his kick as the "scragging" held him up for 15 minutes. Watch the 1992 g/f and you can see that ball players such as Matera had no trouble using their speed.


The fact is that the 50 metre penalty brings the umpire into the game as a key player...not a arbitator but as valuable as a Judd or a Kerr for a certain team.



That 3 x 50 metre penalty against Barry Hall for instance- would Roughhead and Mitchell have come in and tried to bait him if they didn't think there was a reward for them?

You say- it is up to Barry not to rise to the baiting, but the fact is that Roughead dived- that drew the 2nd free kick...nothing that Barry did- Roughhead came charging into him with the exact aim of drawing 50 -which he did...already 100 metres just there and for what?

The 50 metre encourages poor behaviour - it doesn't discourage it.

 

[harmesy 37]

Yeah no, Players and clubs simply need to learn the rules and abide by them. No matter how stupid they are, the rules are there.

Interchange infringement? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Runner infringement? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Late Tackle? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Mouthing off? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Player gets too close to the mark? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT
Unsportsmanlike behavior? ITS THAT CLUBS FAULT

Get it? There are rules, and as much as I disagree with umpires a lot, 95% 50 meter penalties are called correctly according to the rules.

Yeah but 10-15 years ago THAT CLUB'S FAULT decisions resulted in 15 metres penalty. Not 50. Why is a 50 m more valid than the other- 15m? perception?
because it is what we are used to now?

Why not make it 100 metres then? It is just as silly as the 50 metre.
It has been trialled for more than 10 years and is a failure of a rule.

 

[D-N-R]

How much scragging can you do though?

Heaps, that's why it was changed. It was ugly, and players would give away 2 or 3 15m penalties without much of a disadvantage to their team.

 

[Jisha]

Times have changed mate. The game is more professional and a whole lot more tactical and strategical. As others have stated if they dropped the rule at this stage to a 15 meter penalty we will notice a massive amount of "professional" penalties.

Apart from a few errors by the umpires and a few cheap 50m penalties I feel the rule hasn't exactly failed, but that is really a matter a opinion.

Don't get me wrong, cheap 50 meter penalties are annoying, even went not watching Richmond games I shake my head at some of the decisions, but at the end of the day all players, coaches, teams know what these rules and have to abide by it.

While the AFL continues to bring in tougher penalties for every single thing they will not lower the 50 meter penalty.

 

[harmesy 37]

Heaps, that's why it was changed. It was ugly, and players would give away 2 or 3 15m penalties without much of a disadvantage to their team.

I suggest you re-watch a match like the 1992 g/final - watch Matera and tell me where and when he was impeded enough for it to "be ugly".

Speed wins out- and by the time the player gets to the 50 metre penalty mark a lot more time has been wasted than in "the olden days". I would prefer to watch the 1992 g/f and see Matera in action or the 1995 g/f see Koutoufides than watching umpires slow down play with drama packed 50 metres.

 

[harmesy 37]

Times have changed mate. The game is more professional and a whole lot more tactical and strategical. As others have stated if they dropped the rule at this stage to a 15 meter penalty we will notice a massive amount of "professional" penalties.

Apart from a few errors by the umpires and a few cheap 50m penalties I feel the rule hasn't exactly failed, but that is really a matter a opinion.

Don't get me wrong, cheap 50 meter penalties are annoying, even went not watching Richmond games I shake my head at some of the decisions, but at the end of the day all players, coaches, teams know what these rules and have to abide by it.

While the AFL continues to bring in tougher penalties for every single thing they will not lower the 50 meter penalty.

I read up to the bit where you said "the game is more professional" and laughed... seriously you can't suggest that whilst they have a rule such as the 50 metre penalty. It makes a mockery of the spirit of the game. It brings umpires into the play and makes it less professional.

That one centimetre of grass that someone steps over when someone is standing the mark is not worth the equivalent of 50 metres and never will be. Get back quicker, take your kick quicker- don't rely on umpire interference.

 

[D-N-R]

I suggest you re-watch a match like the 1992 g/final - watch Matera and tell me where and when he was impeded enough for it to "be ugly".

Speed wins out- and by the time the player gets to the 50 metre penalty mark a lot more time has been wasted than in "the olden days". I would prefer to watch the 1992 g/f and see Matera in action or the 1995 g/f see Koutoufides than watching umpires slow down play with drama packed 50 metres.

The 50m penalty was introduced in 1988, which is probably why there was less impeding of the play in the '92 granny, as it as doing it's job.

 

[Mancey]

I think they trialed a 50/25m penalty combo in the wafl back in the early 90's? The 25's were supposed to be for lesser infringements but the umps just basically called 25m all the time. Was very rare that they pulled the trigger on a 50, you basically had to commit a reportable offence.

Rule soon went the way of the dodo.

50m penalties are harsh, but they stopped 90% of the ugly stuff. I think the umps just need to use a bit more common sense in issuing them. Saying "what" shouldnt be a 50. Accidentally giving the ball to the wrong opposition player because they've called for it to try and milk a penalty shouldn't be 50

 

[sedders]

Didnt see the op complain about the 50 and certain goal gifted to carlton for a late tackle that had no real effect on the play

 

[midorigreenwood]

maybe they also need one of those line measuring things like in NFL so 50 metres is actually 50 metres

Spoiler

only joking

 

[Those]

50m penalties are harsh, but they stopped 90% of the ugly stuff. I think the umps just need to use a bit more common sense in issuing them. Saying "what" shouldnt be a 50. Accidentally giving the ball to the wrong opposition player because they've called for it to try and milk a penalty shouldn't be 50

Spot on. Having 15 and 25 metre penalties as well, will just make it easier for umpires to be pedantic or overly technical.

 

[harmesy 37]

The 50m penalty was introduced in 1988, which is probably why there was less impeding of the play in the '92 granny, as it as doing it's job.

Yes, but how many 50 metres were utilised in this period of the 1990s for

1) players stepping a grade of grass over an imaginery line

2) players falling to the ground dramatically to deliberately draw a 50 metre penalty




I think it allows theatrics to enter into the game whether from the umpire or from the players. Basically instead of the umpire being less conspicuous in a game now they are the key player deserving of star billing along with the likes of Ablett, Judd, Pendlebury and others.

 

[brett15]

I'd have it replaced with another system, 50 meters doesn't scale with different ground sizes. Maybe instead they could have penalty markers on the ground.

Agree with the OP tho, at the very least there needs to be a minor penalty like 25/30m

 

[cleomenes]

We need the 50. Players are too adept at obstructing play to have the umpire simply call the play back. We don't need it to be awarded for trivia. Refusal to come back on the mark - yes. Crossing the mark in follow through - no. Calling the umpire something obscene - yes. Disputing the quality of a decision - no.
I think Adam Goodes suffered one for looking at the umpire in a funny way. The post mark divers seem to be less successful these days, so perhaps the umpires have a handle on that one now.
We don't need a mixture. That would only lead to more angst among us. ("That wasn't worth 50 it was only worth 30") I can hear it now.
All we need is for umpires to understand that 50 is a large penalty and act accordingly. If the infraction had no bearing on the game (saying "What?") then it should attract no penalty. If it interfered with play (scragging the guy who marked) it should.
Umpires who make "smart" comments to players and then penalise those who respond for abuse should be removed from the panel.

 

[midorigreenwood]

been watching some games from earlier in the year

round 2 sydney v essendon

[YOUTUBE]hhev_NY4sw8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[harmesy 37]

been watching some games from earlier in the year

round 2 sydney v essendon

[YOUTUBE]hhev_NY4sw8[/YOUTUBE]

That footage shows how ridiculous the 50 is...what was he supposed to do?

He couldn't escape contacting the player, but his penalty for non-avoidable minimal contact is 50 metres. why?


5 minutes left in the 1st quarter of this year's g/f and Stokes gets too close to Ball, who has the free kick- result. Ball gets a 50 metre and free shot at goal.

Clearly the crime isn't worth that type of penalty. If it was 20-25 metres then Ball would have got about the maximum deserved reward for the penalty. 50 is at least double what a penalty like that is worth.

 

[brucetiki]

I think they trialed a 50/25m penalty combo in the wafl back in the early 90's? The 25's were supposed to be for lesser infringements but the umps just basically called 25m all the time. Was very rare that they pulled the trigger on a 50, you basically had to commit a reportable offence.

The SANFL has kept the 25/50m penalties, and it's well used. The 25's are there for the minor infringements like stepping over the line, abuse etc, while the 50's are for major infringements like very late hits etc.

What I like about 25's is that if a player keeps on infringing, the ump can easily call another 25 (making it 50), which brings disadvantage to the defending team without it looking as ridiculous/harsh as a double 50.

Would like to see it trialled in the NAB Cup. What have we got to lose?

 

[harmesy 37]

The SANFL has kept the 25/50m penalties, and it's well used. The 25's are there for the minor infringements like stepping over the line, abuse etc, while the 50's are for major infringements like very late hits etc.

What I like about 25's is that if a player keeps on infringing, the ump can easily call another 25 (making it 50), which brings disadvantage to the defending team without it looking as ridiculous/harsh as a double 50.

Would like to see it trialled in the NAB Cup. What have we got to lose?

Well the SANFL has clearly got the superior and preferential situation.

Common sense reigns in the SANFL.

The AFL could learn something from the superior SANFL rules.

For at least 50-60 years we only had the 15 metre penalty. The 50 metre penalty is over 3 times more severe and way over the top in my opinion for things such as stepping a centimetre over the line, getting within 10 metres of the kicker etc.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

You keep mentioning all these 50m penalties for people being "a centimetre" over the mark, but I don't think I've ever seen one. Do you have any specific examples you can share?

Every one I can remember seeing has been preceded by an umpire calling something like "Back 5! Back 5! Back5! Back! Back!"

And in fact plenty are never paid the 50 because by that time the player with the ball has already taken off and done something with it, so play goes on even though the man on the mark never actually got back behind the mark.

 

[harmesy 37]

You keep mentioning all these 50m penalties for people being "a centimetre" over the mark, but I don't think I've ever seen one. Do you have any specific examples you can share?

Every one I can remember seeing has been preceded by an umpire calling something like "Back 5! Back 5! Back5! Back! Back!"

And in fact plenty are never paid the 50 because by that time the player with the ball has already taken off and done something with it, so play goes on even though the man on the mark never actually got back behind the mark.

They happen almost every week.

eg Carlton vs West Coast final - Sentanta a centimetre over the umpire's desired line - free kick and that gave West Coast a free pass out of Carlton's forward press.

eg- Hawthorn vs Collingwood final - Guerra was over the imaginery line that the umpire wanted him on. The umpire called him back (whilst standing behind him...so he couldn't even see the umpire)...blew his whistle, 50 metres and a goal resulted.


eg grand final Geelong vs Collingwood - luke ball gets a goal 2 minutes left 1st quarter as Stokes runs within "the exclusion zone"...ie within 5 metres of the kicker. It would have had no effect on his kick, but it was enough to warrant 50 metres according to the present rules.


We just have to face the fact that the SANFL, the VAFA etc do it better than the AFL.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

They happen almost every week.

eg Carlton vs West Coast final - Sentanta a centimetre over the umpire's desired line - free kick and that gave West Coast a free pass out of Carlton's forward press.

So the umpire told him when he awarded the penalty, "You were a centimetre over the line"? Or was he just a centimetre over where YOU think he should have been?

eg- Hawthorn vs Collingwood final - Guerra was over the imaginery line that the umpire wanted him on. The umpire called him back (whilst standing behind him...so he couldn't even see the umpire)...blew his whistle, 50 metres and a goal resulted.

So the umpire called him back, he didn't move back, and he was penalised?

eg grand final Geelong vs Collingwood - luke ball gets a goal 2 minutes left 1st quarter as Stokes runs within "the exclusion zone"...ie within 5 metres of the kicker. It would have had no effect on his kick, but it was enough to warrant 50 metres according to the present rules.

So how close should a player be allowed to run before they get penalised, according to your version of the ideal rules? 4 metres?, 3 metres? 2 metres? 1 metre? 1 centimetre?

 

[harmesy 37]

So the umpire told him when he awarded the penalty, "You were a centimetre over the line"? Or was he just a centimetre over where YOU think he should have been?


So the umpire called him back, he didn't move back, and he was penalised?



So how close should a player be allowed to run before they get penalised, according to your version of the ideal rules? 4 metres?, 3 metres? 2 metres? 1 metre? 1 centimetre?

All I am saying is that being one centimetre or even 30 cms over where the umpire believed the mark is or even 1 metre is not enough justification to award a 50 metre penalty.

The SANFL and VAFA have it right - they hand out a 25 metre penalty for this stuff.

I bet you would have been annoyed if you lost the game on the weekend by 5 points and if it came down to Stokes getting within an "exclusion zone"...
that was the difference between winning and losing.