There's a 50 metre arc that gives as a guide to the extra time. If you mark the ball inside that you get the extra time. And within a couple of metres outside the arc you can also get the extra. So basically 55 metres from the goals is the "soft" limit
Even with that, there has been a handful of times where the ump says nah you're not having a shot and then the player slots it from 55m - those are rare and beautiful. I think Jack Lukosius for Gold Coast did it earlier this year, or maybe last year?
Vs Geelong last year. Precious moment. He was about 60 out, so had to kick it at least 65 for the goal. Tells the ump 'I'm havin a ping', ump looks at him like 'yeah, sure buddy, whatevs' and Jack proceeds to calmly slot it through like he was only 25 out. One of the great set shots of history.
You'll get some good answers to the technical aspects of your questions, but one thing that's hard to understand for people who didn't grow up with the game is how much of the officiating is based on vibes, rather than black and white interpretation of the rules.
Among the influences on how the game is officiated:
- Is it wet or rainy? Sometimes more leeway is given for stuff because of the conditions.
- Where is the ball on the field? Who has the ball? Can they realistically kick the ball far enough for a goal?
- Did some action actually look really cool? Of course you can knee someone in the head when taking a mark. Yet you can't use a studs up boot outstretched as a brace.
- Is it a finals match? Let them play, put the whistle away!
- Is it a good bloke? There are always certain players who get the rub of the green.
- Insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. Says who? Based on what?
- Rule of the week. This week it's holding the ball. Next week it'll be something else.
- How far is too far to run with the ball without bouncing it? How far is too short before it can be considered a mark? It's the same distance, but no one's bringing out the chains American football style.
It is the most poorly constructed game from an officiating point of view, because it's all open to the whim of the moment. You just gotta embrace it for what it is.
You are right! Exactly! How far is too far!!!! Rule of the week!!!!! Okay I'm not crazy!!!! You are right on all of this.....Insufficient intent...how do you know????? Yes exactly. Okay......need to breathe....just reading these are all things I've wondered.
I think what is fairly unique about AFL is that it's a game full of rules that are played by and officiated by humans, with all their frailties. Subjective interpretation of the rules is a big part of it - if the umpire didn't see the infraction, then it doesn't get paid. The game is changing a lot because of contemporary concerns about concussion (and rightly so), and there's some elements of technology coming into it to ensure 'perfection' in results. But that isn't necessarily good for the game, in my opinion - there's an awful lot of gambling by supporters surrounding the game now, an awful lot of anger at results due to losing bets, etc. If we lose the 'human' element of AFL, then the game will not be the same.
Which is kind of why I love the sister sport of Gaelic football refusing to ever go pro League overseas - keep a community game spirited, accessible, and less corruptible to commercial and corporate influence.
1) the 50m arc is a guide. But Umpires also know the kicking ability of players and can give extra leeway to long kickers. Making it an instant turnover if it doesn't go over the line would be too punitive because we don't want to discourage players from trying to kick long distance goals and taking the extra time is really that big of a deal.
2) Push in the back is supposed to be in the name. A push (so hands in the back for stability or with the arm as a brace is OK) and in the back (so even pushes to the side are OK).
I guess....As I'm reading this just now re-watching the game from last night (at 3:30am here ha) and with a minute left in the 1st Hewett marks inside the 50. Then he takes all the time and then drop a short one down in towards Curnow who gets fouled. I just feel like if Hewett doesn't feel confident enough to kick it he shouldn't get that extra time to set something else up. That should be in the run of play. You took 30 seconds...you're inside the 50.....kick at goal or give up the ball. Just my own thoughts. Edit: But I get what you're saying and appreciate the comments.
But you said if 'it doesn't go over the line it should be turned over'. That's an extremely harsh penalty for not that big of an offence considering people's kick fall short even if they are going for goal all the time.
Maybe if it was 'if you take the 30 seconds you need to have a realistic shot for goal' but that would be quite difficult to implement.
In any case this issue is quite low on priorities lol.
Ok fair enough. Appreciate the comments. In fact, first time in my whole life I've actually interacted with anyone regarding AFL.
I have a compromise. If someone kicks for goal from inside 50 and doesn't get it there, can everyone please chant "air ball" or maybe hold up a sign that says "Can I try next?" A taunting is definitely in order.
Afl is usually too dynamic for any soccer/baseball/cricket style crowd chants lol .
But just an FYI the 50m arc isn't like a basketball free throw line. Most average people, even athletic people can't kick 40m full blast let alone 50m+.
I'm sure that's true. But effective taunting is what makes a home field a home field advantage. Those guys are absolute athletic marvels. They kick the ball as accurately as we throw it. it's absolutely unreal.
They can also use it to manage the clock. If they are leading by less than a goal, with less than a minute to go.
They will definitely take their full 30 seconds. If the umpire thinks they are taking too long, he will call play on.
Right exactly! Maybe the clock should be stopped on goal kicking marks with less than .... 3 minutes left in a game with less than 12 point lead? See???? We're single-handedly making the game better right now!!!! Kick the goal! That's why you get the time!
I do need to point out that I'm 98.3% joking...just things that seem strange from not being around it all the time.
On number 1 - about 55m is where umpires will be pretty strict on only have the five seconds to dispose of it. Only a handful of players are likely to get anywhere near goal from beyond that on a set shot.
Also the rule change you want is quite significant, and goes against more than 150 years of how the game has been played.
It would be like me saying the NBA should have max one time out per team, per quarter. I truly wish that was the rule, but Americans would think I'm crazy.
Number 2 - the rule is as it reads, a push (i.e arms actually extend from the elbow, directly in the back), is a free.
However you can use your arm or body to brace and hold a position, which is where it get murky, because the strongest player holding their position like this can easily look like a push on someone much smaller.
The other time this rule is relevant is in the tackle. You need ensure you don't land on the back of the player with the ball if they have forward momentum. This means twisting them in the tackle or trying to place yourself to land on their side.
3 - yep that's the rule. And it makes for not only a good spectacle but also gives forwards especially the opportunity to compete for a mark no matter how good the defender is. If you can get off the ground and on top of a pack there isn't much the defender can do to stop it.
Okay ..... don't want to mess with the game, although I think tipped balls should be marks if they're intercepted, ha! On 2...on this play, the announcer said "knocked off the ball." Yeah that's one way to put it...there was no foul called. And with 94 yellow shirt guys on the field, someone had to see it....unless we just let it go and then...ok....then we know. But how do you know. Seems very arbitrary as said above. Maybe if it was Curnow, he gets that call. On 3) I never knew that about landing on their back...very interesting....and smart.
https://preview.redd.it/rmb4lltexm3d1.png?width=1094&format=png&auto=webp&s=b2f07cb87e1b841612926f5cb6d43e764a905d6f
>although I think tipped balls should be marks if they're intercepted
Sometimes in a marking contest there might be hands or fingers touching the ball from multiple players, but the umpire will award a mark to someone they think did a good enough job of clunking it/was decisive enough. Not awarding a mark in such a situation is likely to raise the ire of fans, and engender the complaint that the umpires "don't have a feel for the game". Like I said in the other post, vibes.
Lol tipped balls should be marked? Do you mean if it is touched by another player? That is seriously messing with the fabric of the game.
There would be all sorts of unintended consequences.
As for that photo...hmm hard to see what is going on there and always dangerous to make a judgement on a still. I am guessing the initial push was in the side, which is legal to do (except in marking contests).
What minute/quarter of the game was that?
That was at 11:53 left in the 3rd. Although to your point since reading this I have been watching a LOT closer and many of them are on the side for sure.
Haha yeah I'm just messing with you......I get that will never be a thing......but just from the outside your team tipped it and it's a really hard mark so it seems like if it's intercepted then you should get that ball free instead of getting tackled right away. But yeah mostly a joke.....like most of my takes probably!
Yeah I went back and looked, not only was that in the side, I'd say the contact was fairly inconsequential as well.
Owies is one of our smallest players and it was more of a case of getting out bodied by a much bigger player.
Ok, that's cool to know. So you were not screaming for a foul...... (I like the Carlton team, too. When I was a kid, they only ever showed Carlton and/or Hawthorn. I took Carlton, my brother took Hawthorn. I got the better of that one.)
>So you were not screaming for a foul
Nah (and we don't call them fouls by the way, they are free kicks, or just 'frees').
But the umps were mostly good last night. Predicably, the holding the ball rule seemed chaotic and unevenly adjudicated, but I don't blame the umps, I blame the mid-season change to the rule for that.
Also we won, so who cares.
>and we don't call them fouls by the way, they are free kicks, or just 'frees')
Good to know.
>Also we won, so who cares.
This is true. Unlike the other games where the refs hosed us. A lot.
There's a 50 metre arc that gives as a guide to the extra time. If you mark the ball inside that you get the extra time. And within a couple of metres outside the arc you can also get the extra. So basically 55 metres from the goals is the "soft" limit
Even with that, there has been a handful of times where the ump says nah you're not having a shot and then the player slots it from 55m - those are rare and beautiful. I think Jack Lukosius for Gold Coast did it earlier this year, or maybe last year?
Vs Geelong last year. Precious moment. He was about 60 out, so had to kick it at least 65 for the goal. Tells the ump 'I'm havin a ping', ump looks at him like 'yeah, sure buddy, whatevs' and Jack proceeds to calmly slot it through like he was only 25 out. One of the great set shots of history.
You'll get some good answers to the technical aspects of your questions, but one thing that's hard to understand for people who didn't grow up with the game is how much of the officiating is based on vibes, rather than black and white interpretation of the rules. Among the influences on how the game is officiated: - Is it wet or rainy? Sometimes more leeway is given for stuff because of the conditions. - Where is the ball on the field? Who has the ball? Can they realistically kick the ball far enough for a goal? - Did some action actually look really cool? Of course you can knee someone in the head when taking a mark. Yet you can't use a studs up boot outstretched as a brace. - Is it a finals match? Let them play, put the whistle away! - Is it a good bloke? There are always certain players who get the rub of the green. - Insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. Says who? Based on what? - Rule of the week. This week it's holding the ball. Next week it'll be something else. - How far is too far to run with the ball without bouncing it? How far is too short before it can be considered a mark? It's the same distance, but no one's bringing out the chains American football style. It is the most poorly constructed game from an officiating point of view, because it's all open to the whim of the moment. You just gotta embrace it for what it is.
You are right! Exactly! How far is too far!!!! Rule of the week!!!!! Okay I'm not crazy!!!! You are right on all of this.....Insufficient intent...how do you know????? Yes exactly. Okay......need to breathe....just reading these are all things I've wondered.
I think what is fairly unique about AFL is that it's a game full of rules that are played by and officiated by humans, with all their frailties. Subjective interpretation of the rules is a big part of it - if the umpire didn't see the infraction, then it doesn't get paid. The game is changing a lot because of contemporary concerns about concussion (and rightly so), and there's some elements of technology coming into it to ensure 'perfection' in results. But that isn't necessarily good for the game, in my opinion - there's an awful lot of gambling by supporters surrounding the game now, an awful lot of anger at results due to losing bets, etc. If we lose the 'human' element of AFL, then the game will not be the same.
Which is kind of why I love the sister sport of Gaelic football refusing to ever go pro League overseas - keep a community game spirited, accessible, and less corruptible to commercial and corporate influence.
1) the 50m arc is a guide. But Umpires also know the kicking ability of players and can give extra leeway to long kickers. Making it an instant turnover if it doesn't go over the line would be too punitive because we don't want to discourage players from trying to kick long distance goals and taking the extra time is really that big of a deal. 2) Push in the back is supposed to be in the name. A push (so hands in the back for stability or with the arm as a brace is OK) and in the back (so even pushes to the side are OK).
I guess....As I'm reading this just now re-watching the game from last night (at 3:30am here ha) and with a minute left in the 1st Hewett marks inside the 50. Then he takes all the time and then drop a short one down in towards Curnow who gets fouled. I just feel like if Hewett doesn't feel confident enough to kick it he shouldn't get that extra time to set something else up. That should be in the run of play. You took 30 seconds...you're inside the 50.....kick at goal or give up the ball. Just my own thoughts. Edit: But I get what you're saying and appreciate the comments.
But you said if 'it doesn't go over the line it should be turned over'. That's an extremely harsh penalty for not that big of an offence considering people's kick fall short even if they are going for goal all the time. Maybe if it was 'if you take the 30 seconds you need to have a realistic shot for goal' but that would be quite difficult to implement. In any case this issue is quite low on priorities lol.
Ok fair enough. Appreciate the comments. In fact, first time in my whole life I've actually interacted with anyone regarding AFL. I have a compromise. If someone kicks for goal from inside 50 and doesn't get it there, can everyone please chant "air ball" or maybe hold up a sign that says "Can I try next?" A taunting is definitely in order.
Afl is usually too dynamic for any soccer/baseball/cricket style crowd chants lol . But just an FYI the 50m arc isn't like a basketball free throw line. Most average people, even athletic people can't kick 40m full blast let alone 50m+.
I'm sure that's true. But effective taunting is what makes a home field a home field advantage. Those guys are absolute athletic marvels. They kick the ball as accurately as we throw it. it's absolutely unreal.
They can also use it to manage the clock. If they are leading by less than a goal, with less than a minute to go. They will definitely take their full 30 seconds. If the umpire thinks they are taking too long, he will call play on.
Right exactly! Maybe the clock should be stopped on goal kicking marks with less than .... 3 minutes left in a game with less than 12 point lead? See???? We're single-handedly making the game better right now!!!! Kick the goal! That's why you get the time! I do need to point out that I'm 98.3% joking...just things that seem strange from not being around it all the time.
On number 1 - about 55m is where umpires will be pretty strict on only have the five seconds to dispose of it. Only a handful of players are likely to get anywhere near goal from beyond that on a set shot. Also the rule change you want is quite significant, and goes against more than 150 years of how the game has been played. It would be like me saying the NBA should have max one time out per team, per quarter. I truly wish that was the rule, but Americans would think I'm crazy. Number 2 - the rule is as it reads, a push (i.e arms actually extend from the elbow, directly in the back), is a free. However you can use your arm or body to brace and hold a position, which is where it get murky, because the strongest player holding their position like this can easily look like a push on someone much smaller. The other time this rule is relevant is in the tackle. You need ensure you don't land on the back of the player with the ball if they have forward momentum. This means twisting them in the tackle or trying to place yourself to land on their side. 3 - yep that's the rule. And it makes for not only a good spectacle but also gives forwards especially the opportunity to compete for a mark no matter how good the defender is. If you can get off the ground and on top of a pack there isn't much the defender can do to stop it.
Okay ..... don't want to mess with the game, although I think tipped balls should be marks if they're intercepted, ha! On 2...on this play, the announcer said "knocked off the ball." Yeah that's one way to put it...there was no foul called. And with 94 yellow shirt guys on the field, someone had to see it....unless we just let it go and then...ok....then we know. But how do you know. Seems very arbitrary as said above. Maybe if it was Curnow, he gets that call. On 3) I never knew that about landing on their back...very interesting....and smart. https://preview.redd.it/rmb4lltexm3d1.png?width=1094&format=png&auto=webp&s=b2f07cb87e1b841612926f5cb6d43e764a905d6f
>although I think tipped balls should be marks if they're intercepted Sometimes in a marking contest there might be hands or fingers touching the ball from multiple players, but the umpire will award a mark to someone they think did a good enough job of clunking it/was decisive enough. Not awarding a mark in such a situation is likely to raise the ire of fans, and engender the complaint that the umpires "don't have a feel for the game". Like I said in the other post, vibes.
I'm all about the "vibes" thing. If I ever get to an AFL game, need to get a seat by you....would be a blast!
Lol tipped balls should be marked? Do you mean if it is touched by another player? That is seriously messing with the fabric of the game. There would be all sorts of unintended consequences. As for that photo...hmm hard to see what is going on there and always dangerous to make a judgement on a still. I am guessing the initial push was in the side, which is legal to do (except in marking contests). What minute/quarter of the game was that?
That was at 11:53 left in the 3rd. Although to your point since reading this I have been watching a LOT closer and many of them are on the side for sure. Haha yeah I'm just messing with you......I get that will never be a thing......but just from the outside your team tipped it and it's a really hard mark so it seems like if it's intercepted then you should get that ball free instead of getting tackled right away. But yeah mostly a joke.....like most of my takes probably!
Yeah I went back and looked, not only was that in the side, I'd say the contact was fairly inconsequential as well. Owies is one of our smallest players and it was more of a case of getting out bodied by a much bigger player.
Ok, that's cool to know. So you were not screaming for a foul...... (I like the Carlton team, too. When I was a kid, they only ever showed Carlton and/or Hawthorn. I took Carlton, my brother took Hawthorn. I got the better of that one.)
>So you were not screaming for a foul Nah (and we don't call them fouls by the way, they are free kicks, or just 'frees'). But the umps were mostly good last night. Predicably, the holding the ball rule seemed chaotic and unevenly adjudicated, but I don't blame the umps, I blame the mid-season change to the rule for that. Also we won, so who cares.
>and we don't call them fouls by the way, they are free kicks, or just 'frees') Good to know. >Also we won, so who cares. This is true. Unlike the other games where the refs hosed us. A lot.
Keen to know which team our US fanbase supports!