SA Footy

Anybody know if the AFL has looked into introducing a 15 metre rule? I'm not a huge fan of rule changes every year, but 50 metres is such a big penalty for tiny indiscretions. Especially seeing the Umpires hand them out like tissues at Sexpo.

There were somne bad ones on the weekend ... Jay Schultz yesterday was pretty stiff*

50 metre penalties resulting in easy shots at goal are simply too big a penalty for minor infractions. No problem with it if a player marks the ball and is dumped afterwards, but for just questioning an umpiring decision, it's too severe.

Unless you're Fev, then you deserve it...

They should do the same as the SANFL - ie, have the option of a 25m penalty

15m is too short and will create the same time-wasting tactics that lead to the 50m penalty in the first place IMO

I think 25 metre penalties in the AFL will do the same thing as the 15 metre rule did. Particularly in the backlines.

Wasn't the idea of the 50 to stop players from inhibiting others from playing on? If so, then the meaning of the 50 has been lost to the game in general.

Some of the 50's, such as Schulz's on the weekend and players who say "what was that for" are just overreactions by little dweebs with whistles.

Oh what a waste of national TV payments.

AFL has it right.

gadj1976 wrote:Wasn't the idea of the 50 to stop players from inhibiting others from playing on? If so, then the meaning of the 50 has been lost to the game in general.

Some of the 50's, such as Schulz's on the weekend and players who say "what was that for" are just overreactions by little dweebs with whistles.

Yes, the 50 metre penalty (or 15 metre penalty as it was then) was originally introduced for time wasting. They give them for anything these days. There was one given by an umpire a few weeks ago because ... "you pointed your finger at me". Unbelievable.

I'm not an umpire basher, but this is one area the umpires annoy me. Footy is an emotional game, and surely players are allowed the odd word of derision or frustration. Obviously if they keep it up, by all means penalise him.

If you can't ask an umpire what a free kick was for, then what is the game coming to?

gadj1976 wrote:Wasn't the idea of the 50 to stop players from inhibiting others from playing on? If so, then the meaning of the 50 has been lost to the game in general.

Some of the 50's, such as Schulz's on the weekend and players who say "what was that for" are just overreactions by little dweebs with whistles.

I thought it was introduced because Kevin Sheedy employed it as a time wasting tactic so players could man up. Now it would be used so players could flood back.

spell_check wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:Wasn't the idea of the 50 to stop players from inhibiting others from playing on? If so, then the meaning of the 50 has been lost to the game in general.

Some of the 50's, such as Schulz's on the weekend and players who say "what was that for" are just overreactions by little dweebs with whistles.

I thought it was introduced because Kevin Sheedy employed it as a time wasting tactic so players could man up. Now it would be used so players could flood back.

No, the penalty for time wasting has been in the books a lot further back than that. I recall in the 1960s, if a player had a shot for goal and an opponent went over the mark, he had the option of another kick if he missed. If the player went over the mark a second time, he would then be pulled back 15 yards.

I recall Brian Mulvihill having three shots in a row at Norwood Oval in 1967, and he missed all three!!!

Then players began encroaching over the mark knowing they wouldn't get pinged so they began cramping down on the 15 yard penalties. It was a bit like how Olympic sprinters are deliberately creating a false start in order to place pressure on their opponents.

It was lengthened to 50 metre penalties because, as you say, coaches like Sheedy deployed time wasting tactics, deliberately hanging onto players, etc.

One day we will find a coach who actually coaches within the rules rather than looking for loop holes to exploit.

gadj1976 wrote: Some of the 50's, such as Schulz's on the weekend and players who say "what was that for" are just overreactions by little dweebs with whistles.

Exactly. Half the time time players aren't reacted directly at the umpire, just the decision. It's hardly worth costing them a goal when they're in the centre square or across half back. Remember some of these players are playing for their careers.

I have no argument with the present set up except perhaps in the situation where there may have been genuine confusion about whose free it was and whether to play on to advantage. I don't know what the answer to that one is.

Psyber wrote:I have no argument with the present set up except perhaps in the situation where there may have been genuine confusion about whose free it was and whether to play on to advantage. I don't know what the answer to that one is.

There were a few like that on the weekend. You just have to try your luck whether it's your teams or not. If you get a goal out of it, that's the advantage for winning the free kick. I suppose players just have to keep playing the ball even if they hear a whistle......then they'll get pinged for a 50! What rules??

Perhaps we should scrap the "play on to advantage" idea, and everyone should stop when the whistle is blown and the free should be paid.
That would at least end the confusion. [So long as the umpires only blew trhe whistle for good reason.]

Psyber wrote:Perhaps we should scrap the "play on to advantage" idea, and everyone should stop when the whistle is blown and the free should be paid.
That would at least end the confusion. [So long as the umpires only blew trhe whistle for good reason.]

I think you are forgetting the reason that rule was brought in. Too many teams giving away deliberate free kicks to stop another team's run on. Once again, we had to introduce another rule because coaches were cheating.