The Advantage Rule

[westdog54]

Bugger hands in the back. Bugger chopping the arms. Bugger the rushed behind rule. In fact, bugger any other rule in our wonderful game that seems to confuse the living daylights out of anyone who is stupid enough to try and make sense of it. The advantage rule is, has been, and continues to be by a fair margin, one of the rules of our game that frustrates the living hell out of me.

Before I go on, let me make one thing abundantly clear here. I am not objected to having an advantage rule. I'm a firm believer that the game should be allowed to flow as much as possible. The problem is, our game has it all wrong.

You look at any other game in the world that has a clear advantage rule, Soccer, Rugby, Netball, they do it properly. They see the infringement, they hold off on the whistle, call the infringement and allow the game to flow. It means that everyone plays to the whistle, and upon hearing the whistle the message is clear: Stop what you're doing, look at me and listen. The game is allowed to flow if there's an infringement but the non-offending team hangs onto the ball, players know to play to the whistle and not stop until they hear it, everyone is happy.

In our game, the whistle goes for a free kick, and one of two things happens:


Every player on the field stops and looks at the umpire, bar the player who happens to have the ball. Said player charges off, 20 metres in the clear whilst a dozen or so opponents try in vain to work up some pace to make some ground on him, or
Play carries on as normal, so the umpire blows his whistle again to stop the clock, only to see the ball sail through the goals, kicked by the team the umpire decided wasn't going to gain any advantage.


The rules committee has spent years inventing problems via the media and coming up with rules to fix them, yet we've had a problem staring at us in the face for years in theadvantage rule and its just been allowed to sit there.

[GVGjr]

Brilliantly put.

[bulldogtragic]

Firstly, you should be studying for your indictable prac.

Secondly, bullet-proof argument that has been forgotten about and should be addressed.

[ledge]

Commentators amaze me when the umpire calls a free back and they say you cant play on after a free kick?

[The Coon Dog]

Top call Nick.

It is a bit of a lottery. As a player you hear the whistle, but think, bugger it, I've got the ball & off you go with your 20 head start & you kick it 50 metres down field for a 70 metre gain, when oh oh, you hear the whistle again, very loudly this time. It wasn't a free to your team, so back the ball comes, all 120 metres as you have now given away a 50 metre penalty.

[westdog54]

Firstly, you should be studying for your indictable prac.

Secondly, bullet-proof argument that has been forgotten about and should be addressed.

Steady on, only did my summary prac on Monday and had level 4 on Friday. We only just started covering Indictables on Friday afternoon. That week was bad enough;)

[bulldogtragic]

Steady on, only did my summary prac on Monday and had level 4 on Friday. We only just started covering Indictables on Friday afternoon. That week was bad enough;)
Good news is the worst is behind you then. Unless like some former colleagues of mine, you turn up still pissed form the night before to your indictable prac. Then life can be difficult... But you are the run home with the worst behind you. The weeks will rapidly get better. Keep having fun with it.

[bulldogtragic]

One of the called back 'advantages' to Brisbane last night has me thinking i was watching union...

The umpire pays the free, a Brisbane player plays on, advantage is called, the umpire finishes the signal of advantage, nearly two seconds after the signal finishes (which is after the initial call) the dogs smother the ball, and it's called back.

Didn't impact the match too much, but it's another case of blatantly bad umpiring. I don't mind umpires making occasional mistakes, but i thought this was worthy of comment for this thread as it was blatantly the wrong call to make.

[westdog54]

One of the called back 'advantages' to Brisbane last night has me thinking i was watching union...

The umpire pays the free, a Brisbane player plays on, advantage is called, the umpire finishes the signal of advantage, nearly two seconds after the signal finishes (which is after the initial call) the dogs smother the ball, and it's called back.

Didn't impact the match too much, but it's another case of blatantly bad umpiring. I don't mind umpires making occasional mistakes, but i thought this was worthy of comment for this thread as it was blatantly the wrong call to make.

The thing about the advantage rule in union is that the way the game flows it can actually take a few phases of play to gain a clear advantage, whereas in our game it should, as you say, be over in the first couple of possessions.

If a player takes the ball and runs a good 20 metres or gets a clean disposal, that should be the advantage over.

More and more commentators are starting to take notice now. The rule is becoming a farce. Nathan Buckley declared it dead. I know he's not most people's favourite person on here but the sentiment rings true.

[westdog54]

I don't generally like to bump my own threads, but there was one last night that really gave me the shits.

We got a free late in the game, 20 out dead in front. Just before the umpire blows time on, Hudson grabs the ball and throws it on the boot. It dribbles through for a goal, but the umpire calls it back. When Huddo questions it, the call is 'Nah, no advantage.'

If he'd said 'Sorry Ben, I'd already blown the whistle.' I would have taken it, but to actually say 'no advantage' really annoyed me.

There was a moment in a Super 12 Rugby game featuring the NSW Waratahs a few years back, the team in possession conceded a penalty but the ref tried to play advantage. As they cleared the ruck he's put the whistle to the mouth, and just as he blows the penalty NSW centre Sam Harris intercepts the ball and is racing off toward the line.

Referee Steve Walsh, who has just blown the whistle, straight away calls 'Oh Sorry!!' Harris walks back to the spot of the penalty, laughing and shaking his head at the ref. Walsh smiles back and apologises again. It had been a stuff up, but the ref took the hit, called himself wrong, everone had a laugh and they got on with the game. I think AFL umpries could take quite a few lessons about how union refs go about it sometimes.

[boydogs]

I think AFL umpries could take quite a few lessons about how union refs go about it sometimes.

Absolutely. Nothing more frustrating than blind arrogance from any sports umpire. 'Sorry, didn't see it' always goes down better with me than 'nothing in it'.

[bornadog]

I have hated this rule ever since it was introduced, I think it was the late 70's?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Just had an absolute shocker for Collingwood tonight.

He paid the free, a Brisbane player was about to pick it up but didn't want to touch it so he left it alone. Swan (I think?) picked it up and ran off. Collingwood kicked a goal directly from it.

[LostDoggy]

Occasionally, the umps leet play go on a bit then, if it doesn't go right for the team offended against, blows the whistle. that's the way it should operate so the umps need to be trained to delay blowing the whistle. Once it's blown, though, that's the end of it, no advantage playing on, too unfair on those who stop.

[Topdog]

Just had an absolute shocker for Collingwood tonight.

He paid the free, a Brisbane player was about to pick it up but didn't want to touch it so he left it alone. Swan (I think?) picked it up and ran off. Collingwood kicked a goal directly from it.

Yeah saw that, it was a disgraceful call by the umpire. Even the commentators harped on about it.

[westdog54]

Yet again this weak excuse for a rule continues to frustrate me, bewilder commentators and leave the players thinking they're getting screwed around.

Irrespective of how many steps Cross may have taken, there was absolutely no advantage in that situation, and it was, quite simply put, a case of an umpire unwilling to correct an error. Worse still, it came at a crucial point in the game and the result was a 12 point turnaround.

For the sake of the game this rule has to be fixed. And I've outlined very clearly in my earlier posts how I believe it can, and should, be fixed.

[chef]

Yet again this weak excuse for a rule continues to frustrate me, bewilder commentators and leave the players thinking they're getting screwed around.

Irrespective of how many steps Cross may have taken, there was absolutely no advantage in that situation, and it was, quite simply put, a case of an umpire unwilling to correct an error. Worse still, it came at a crucial point in the game and the result was a 12 point turnaround.

For the sake of the game this rule has to be fixed. And I've outlined very clearly in my earlier posts how I believe it can, and should, be fixed.

According to Rocket and Chris Grant it was Cross's stuff up, not the umpires.

[Topdog]

Well then Rocket and Grant are wrong. The guy took 2 half hearted steps and stopped before the umpire called advantage.

[chef]

Well then Rocket and Grant are wrong. The guy took 2 half hearted steps and stopped before the umpire called advantage.

The umpire called play on then Cross stop.

[Topdog]

Disagree strongly. At worst it was at the same time.

[westdog54]

The umpire called play on then Cross stop.

Cross was stationary and flat footed when the call was made. He had already stopped when the advantage signal was given.

[MrMahatma]

Watching the Hawks v Cats game.

2nd Qtr - the Hawks get a free, player handballs it on, ump calls "advantage" - ball misses target and goes straight to a Cat. Ump calls it back "no advantage".

The rule is a joke. Surely they'll change it back next year?!

[Ghost Dog]

Bugger hands in the back. Bugger chopping the arms. Bugger the rushed behind rule. In fact, bugger any other rule in our wonderful game that seems to confuse the living daylights out of anyone who is stupid enough to try and make sense of it. The advantage rule is, has been, and continues to be by a fair margin, one of the rules of our game that frustrates the living hell out of me.

Before I go on, let me make one thing abundantly clear here. I am not objected to having an advantage rule. I'm a firm believer that the game should be allowed to flow as much as possible. The problem is, our game has it all wrong.

You look at any other game in the world that has a clear advantage rule, Soccer, Rugby, Netball, they do it properly. They see the infringement, they hold off on the whistle, call the infringement and allow the game to flow. It means that everyone plays to the whistle, and upon hearing the whistle the message is clear: Stop what you're doing, look at me and listen. The game is allowed to flow if there's an infringement but the non-offending team hangs onto the ball, players know to play to the whistle and not stop until they hear it, everyone is happy.

In our game, the whistle goes for a free kick, and one of two things happens:


Every player on the field stops and looks at the umpire, bar the player who happens to have the ball. Said player charges off, 20 metres in the clear whilst a dozen or so opponents try in vain to work up some pace to make some ground on him, or
Play carries on as normal, so the umpire blows his whistle again to stop the clock, only to see the ball sail through the goals, kicked by the team the umpire decided wasn't going to gain any advantage.


The rules committee has spent years inventing problems via the media and coming up with rules to fix them, yet we've had a problem staring at us in the face for years in theadvantage rule and its just been allowed to sit there.

Yeah but how would you hear the ump above the crowd? Because it's advantage, no need to I guess right? game just flows on. Whistle = stop.
This is really starting to irritate me.
God I hate the confusion. Looks amateurish

[Topdog]

exactly GD. No whistle = keep playing.
Whistle = Stop/

[westdog54]

exactly GD. No whistle = keep playing.
Whistle = Stop/

A mate of mine tried to counter this with 'Yeah, but they'll always blow the whistle for a mark'. I simply replied 'So? If its a free kick and the players don't hear the call, blow the whistle again. Surely its gotta work better than what we've got now'.

[Bulldog Joe]

According to Rocket and Chris Grant it was Cross's stuff up, not the umpires.

Definitely an umpire's error.

Everyone that has EVER watched a game of footy knows that Daniel Cross having the ball inside 50 is no advantage to the Bulldogs.

Agree completely that the only solution is no whistle to allow advantage.
Whistle=Stop and must do EVERY time.

[westdog54]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!:mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:

[mjp]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!:mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:

The problem is that the umpire MUST blow the whistle...because if he doesn't, one of the other two MIGHT.

I agree advantage works better in Union when they don't whistle to protect the advantage - but they cant do that as whilst one umpire is in control (1 in each 50m arc, 1 in the midfield zone) all 3 have the ability to blow their whistle at any time.

Speaking of which, the whole 50m arc thing also seems to cause a lot of delay and confusion with the umpires at the moment - I have been wondering if they have been mixed up a bit (within their 3's) as the transitions from one umpire to the next don't seem to be happening very smoothly leading to delayed decisions - there was a horror in the Dockers/Weagles game yesterday.

[bornadog]

I know Aker39 has explained this in another thread, but gee when you watch this, its clearly made for the avantage rule.

4tLjHG28a-0&feature=share&list=UUCYdpsLzNPQpmOdZt_a7DNA

[westdog54]

Firstly, the notion of a 'controlling umpire' is ridiculous to begin with. All 3 umpires should be in a position to pay a free at anytime.

Secondly, putting that aside, the fact remains that a blatantly obvious free was missed by the central umpire and that a fantastic bit of play went unrewarded.

Thirdly, if the rule is so written then explain it to the players rather than just calling 'nah, no advantage'.

[LostDoggy]

Firstly, the notion of a 'controlling umpire' is ridiculous to begin with. All 3 umpires should be in a position to pay a free at anytime.

Secondly, putting that aside, the fact remains that a blatantly obvious free was missed by the central umpire and that a fantastic bit of play went unrewarded.

Thirdly, if the rule is so written then explain it to the players rather than just calling 'nah, no advantage'.

The umpire called “no advantage out of zone” but I doubt whether any of the players really understood it.

Stupid rule.

One thing that shits me — when the umpires DON'T get the rule right, they claim “interpretation” but when they stuff the call up, it's “oh sorry that's the rule to the letter of the law”.

Inconsistency is what irks me. I acknowledge they're human — but they need to be consistently so.

[westdog54]

The umpire called “no advantage out of zone” but I doubt whether any of the players really understood it.

Stupid rule.

One thing that shits me — when the umpires DON'T get the rule right, they claim “interpretation” but when they stuff the call up, it's “oh sorry that's the rule to the letter of the law”.

Inconsistency is what irks me. I acknowledge they're human — but they need to be consistently so.
I'm going to borrow from Rugby again here, there's a specific rule that allows the captain to politely approach the referee during a break in play and seek clarification on a decision.

The AFL doesn't even allow this at the end of a quarter.

The result is confusion and frustration for players and coaches.

[comrade]

I'm going to borrow from Rugby again here, there's a specific rule that allows the captain to politely approach the referee during a break in play and seek clarification on a decision.

The AFL doesn't even allow this at the end of a quarter.

The result is confusion and frustration for players and coaches.

Because in the AFL's opinion, no mistakes are made and the integrity of the game is upheld on every occasion. Why would a captain need to question anything?

[always right]

The rediculous thing about yesterday's stuff up was that the non-controlling umpire didn't even wait to see if umpire Findlay was going to call the free. As soon as Goddard was tackled and incorrectly released the ball, the umpire blew his whistle for the free and then starting signalling advantage. The controlling umpire played absolutely no part in the passage...until he decided it had to be recalled.

We are constantly told how the umpires are instructed to use common sense when interpreting the rules. What a cock up.

[LostDoggy]

I'm going to borrow from Rugby again here, there's a specific rule that allows the captain to politely approach the referee during a break in play and seek clarification on a decision.

The AFL doesn't even allow this at the end of a quarter.

The result is confusion and frustration for players and coaches.

They used to allow that for sure. It was changed a couple of decades ago I think.

[bornadog]

I know Aker39 has explained this in another thread, but gee when you watch this, its clearly made for the avantage rule.

4tLjHG28a-0&feature=share&list=UUCYdpsLzNPQpmOdZt_a7DNA

If you watch at the top of the screen as Hrovat is running towards the goals, there is an umpire signalling play on play on.

[always right]

Excellent piece by John Ralph.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-says-the-umpire-got-it-right-disallowing-a-western-bulldogs-goal/story-fni5fazt-1226679781795

[Greystache]

They used to allow that for sure. It was changed a couple of decades ago I think.

Dickheads like Sheedy would send a player at 3/4 time to the umpires every time they were losing just so he had a ready made story to divert attention away from his team's performance.

And the moronic Essendon supporters would eat it up. It's the reason they blame the umpires after every loss, they're still reading from the Sheedy playbook. TheAFL to put a stop to it.

[Bulldog Joe]

The umpire called “no advantage out of zone” but I doubt whether any of the players really understood it.

Stupid rule.
One thing that shits me — when the umpires DON'T get the rule right, they claim “interpretation” but when they stuff the call up, it's “oh sorry that's the rule to the letter of the law”.

Inconsistency is what irks me. I acknowledge they're human — but they need to be consistently so.

Well it isn't actually a rule. It is an instruction on how to apply the rule or in this case not permit the rule to be applied. Just lets the umpire in the "controlling zone" express his self importance.

The umpire Findlay having missed the free obviously needed to be seen.

Why should he interfere, when the umpire who paid the free had immediately called the advantage.

[bornadog]

Well it isn't actually a rule. It is an instruction on how to apply the rule or in this case not permit the rule to be applied. Just lets the umpire in the "controlling zone" express his self importance.

The umpire Findlay having missed the free obviously needed to be seen.

Why should he interfere, when the umpire who paid the free had immediately called the advantage.

Too many umpires for too many rules

[always right]

Why does there need to be a controlling umpire when all umpires can pay a free kick no matter where they might be positioned?

[Ghost Dog]

Why does there need to be a controlling umpire when all umpires can pay a free kick no matter where they might be positioned?

Their argument is, because it's so hard to hear the whistle, and one umpire may have already called advantage in another part of the ground. If he's missed the act, and the second umpire didn't make a call, then no decision was made. to be fair ( in their mind ), no advantage must be given.

In my view, vike most things in Australia, over-governed and under-lead. If it's so bloody obvious then get your f%#@# heads together and agree it was blatant advantage / allow the goal.

Can anyone here from an umpiring background please comment?

[westdog54]

Aaaaand its back.

My favourite bugbear in the rules rears its ugly head. And screws us over yet again.

Allow me to present a direct lift from the laws of the game:


17.3 The Advantage Rule

Where the umpire intends or has signalled that they intend to award a Free Kick to a Player, the field umpire may, instead of awarding the Free Kick, allow play to continue if a player of the team who receives the Free Kick has taken the advantage

We don't need to change the rule at all. Its written right there that the umpire had the option to let the game flow. Its just interpreted differently.

If it was enforced as it was written the game would flow better.

[bornadog]

I never liked the advantage rule since it was introduced, I think in the 80s. The reason, too many times it is interpreted incorrectly.

When players hear a whistle blow, they are programmed to stop, which often means the smart player plays on and gets many metres ahead of flat footed opposition. It becomes a double advantage.

[Twodogs]

17.3 The Advantage Rule

Where the umpire intends or has signalled that they intend to award a Free Kick to a Player, the field umpire may, instead of awarding the Free Kick, allow play to continue if a player of the team who receives the Free Kick has taken the advantage

There you go. I always thought the rule said that the player taking advantage had to be behind the mark of where the infringement was. That if the ball had spilled forward of where the free kick was paid then a player couldn't pick it up and play on. I thought the ball had to be behind that spot. I'm sure I've seen umpires call the player back because he picked the ball up forward of the mark.

It can be a pretty big advantage but so can a quick handball over the stop from a player who has a free. As long as it is uniformly applied I don't have a big problem. In fact I'd like to see any player on a team take a kick like in soccer. Rather than umpires and players standing around arguing and sorting out who should take a kick the umpire says which team has been infringed against and anyone on that team takes the kick.

[bulldogtragic]

Isn't there a technical thing now if the non-officiating umpire pays the free kick, then the officiating umpire can't call play on? I thought something like this hurt us a few years back. If there was no technical out yesterday, then we were literally robbed a goal, and Macrae too.

[Twodogs]

Isn't there a technical thing now if the non-officiating umpire pays the free kick, then the officiating umpire can't call play on? I thought something like this hurt us a few years back. If there was no technical out yesterday, then we were literally robbed a goal, and Macrae too.

We were robbed severel times. So many times that it's difficult to remember which was when and by which umpire.

[soupman]

Isn't there a technical thing now if the non-officiating umpire pays the free kick, then the officiating umpire can't call play on? I thought something like this hurt us a few years back. If there was no technical out yesterday, then we were literally robbed a goal, and Macrae too.

Yeah I member that instance against Essendon.

I watched the replay of yesterdays free with that in mind, the controlling umpire mad the call and refused to allow advantage. God knows why.

[bulldogtragic]

Yeah I member that instance against Essendon.

I watched the replay of yesterdays free with that in mind, the controlling umpire mad the call and refused to allow advantage. God knows why.

Gold star for watching the replay.

[westdog54]

Yeah I member that instance against Essendon.

I watched the replay of yesterdays free with that in mind, the controlling umpire mad the call and refused to allow advantage. God knows why.

That's the one. Snuffed out our comeback and 5 minutes later Clay Smith did his knee in a contest with Dyson Heppell.

[chef]

I never liked the advantage rule since it was introduced, I think in the 80s. The reason, too many times it is interpreted incorrectly.

When players hear a whistle blow, they are programmed to stop, which often means the smart player plays on and gets many metres ahead of flat footed opposition. It becomes a double advantage.

It should be like soccer where the ref will play the advantage without the whistle and if it doesnt turn out to be advantage he'll blow and bring it back.

[bornadog]

It should be like soccer where the ref will play the advantage without the whistle and if it doesnt turn out to be advantage he'll blow and bring it back.

I could live with that.

[soupman]

Gold star for watching the replay.
I did it to see if we really were screwed by the umpires. They made some bad calls (mainly the ridiculous non htb's as well as this advantage call) but the rest I didn't feel were that far off.


It should be like soccer where the ref will play the advantage without the whistle and if it doesnt turn out to be advantage he'll blow and bring it back.

I would be in favour of this, the main downside is that considering there are many in the crowd who are yet to cotton on to the idea of the switch, or not kicking the ball immediately, can you imagine the whining when the umpire pays advantage and the crowd thinks they didn't get the free?

Another downside would be that determining if something is advantage or not would fall into the umpires hands again, as players can't be responsible for making a call they don't know they are making.

[bulldogtragic]

We could just demand higher standards? Mistakes by umpires will happen most games, but this shouldn't have been one of them. We tell the AFEL to stop changing rules, to stop making the game harder to umpire. Paying advantage isn't a complicated aspect for an umpire, no need to change the rule. Change, yes. Change the umpire down a level, use it as an example to the senior panel to everyone to review not making bad stuff ups on an easy decision/non decision.

If the player takes it, and has a split second before a tackle etc, then 'play on'. If the player stuffs it, bad luck.

[Twodogs]

How is it that an umpire further away from the play is the controlling umpire rather than an umpire right next to the play? Like with Higgins last week.

[westdog54]

I did it to see if we really were screwed by the umpires. They made some bad calls (mainly the ridiculous non htb's as well as this advantage call) but the rest I didn't feel were that far off.



I would be in favour of this, the main downside is that considering there are many in the crowd who are yet to cotton on to the idea of the switch, or not kicking the ball immediately, can you imagine the whining when the umpire pays advantage and the crowd thinks they didn't get the free?

Another downside would be that determining if something is advantage or not would fall into the umpires hands again, as players can't be responsible for making a call they don't know they are making.

In both rugby and soccer, a clear signal is made by the referee when signalling advantage. In AFL I would simply envisage it being the umpire extending his arm as though paying a free kick, and then the 'waving' motion when the advantage has been taken. i.e:

1) Infringement spotted. Umpire extends arm and calls "advantage high tackle/holding/throw/holding the ball etc". Then one of two things happen.
2a) The team being awarded a free kick gains an advantage. The umpire uses the current 'waving' signal used to indicate advantage and calls 'advantage over'
2b) No advantage is gained. The umpire blows the whistle and awards the free kick.

Surely that's not so confusing that it can't be enforced correctly?

In terms of the players 'making a call they don't know they are making, my advice would simply be "play to the whistle".

[chef]

In both rugby and soccer, a clear signal is made by the referee when signalling advantage. In AFL I would simply envisage it being the umpire extending his arm as though paying a free kick, and then the 'waving' motion when the advantage has been taken. i.e:

1) Infringement spotted. Umpire extends arm and calls "advantage high tackle/holding/throw/holding the ball etc". Then one of two things happen.
2a) The team being awarded a free kick gains an advantage. The umpire uses the current 'waving' signal used to indicate advantage and calls 'advantage over'
2b) No advantage is gained. The umpire blows the whistle and awards the free kick.

Surely that's not so confusing that it can't be enforced correctly?

In terms of the players 'making a call they don't know they are making, my advice would simply be "play to the whistle".

If it works for the biggest game on the planet i dont see why it wouldnt work for our game. Seems like common sense.

[always right]

I did it to see if we really were screwed by the umpires. They made some bad calls (mainly the ridiculous non htb's as well as this advantage call) but the rest I didn't feel were that far off.


I would be in favour of this, the main downside is that considering there are many in the crowd who are yet to cotton on to the idea of the switch, or not kicking the ball immediately, can you imagine the whining when the umpire pays advantage and the crowd thinks they didn't get the free?

Another downside would be that determining if something is advantage or not would fall into the umpires hands again, as players can't be responsible for making a call they don't know they are making..
How did the free kick against Bont in the last look (supposed sling tackle)?

In regard to delaying the call until they can assess advantage, I think umpires might struggle not blowing the whistle immediately. In regard to the no-advantage call on Saturday, I don't know why one of the other umpires couldn't have over ruled. They do it all the time and that was an obvious one. I knew as soon as it was recalled Dahl would miss.

[soupman]

.
How did the free kick against Bont in the last look (supposed sling tackle)?


Didn't get that far. Can you blame me?


.
In regard to delaying the call until they can assess advantage, I think umpires might struggle not blowing the whistle immediately. In regard to the no-advantage call on Saturday, I don't know why one of the other umpires couldn't have over ruled. They do it all the time and that was an obvious one. I knew as soon as it was recalled Dahl would miss.

It's not really an issue tbf usually. The delaying the whistle in reality is more so that all the players don't stop playing as opposed to fixing one of two instances in the last 5 years I can remember an umpire stuffing it up. Really the current system is fine, and the idiotic decision to call it back is something that is clearly the umpires fault.

[SonofScray]

Can anyone explain why it wasn't advantage? Just doesn't make sense,it had to be an error.

[Bulldog Joe]

The game would flow much better if they simply allowed play to flow unless the team at fault gained the advantage.

Every time an infringed team is held up they are disadvantaged, hence professional frees to stop the flow.

Umpires should allow the play and still go back to the prior free if the infringing team manages to cause a stoppage within the next play.

Umpires should only be paying frees that are material to the play. Too many incidental frees are paid in every game and then they miss blatant ones.

It is frustrating even when you win the free.

[westdog54]

Didn't get that far. Can you blame me?



It's not really an issue tbf usually. The delaying the whistle in reality is more so that all the players don't stop playing as opposed to fixing one of two instances in the last 5 years I can remember an umpire stuffing it up. Really the current system is fine, and the idiotic decision to call it back is something that is clearly the umpires fault.

The current system is far removed from fine. It rewards players that don't play to the whistle and is not applied consistently.

To suggest there's only been one or two stuff ups in the last 5 years is a glib response.


Can anyone explain why it wasn't advantage? Just doesn't make sense,it had to be an error.

It was an error, without a shadow of a doubt.

[westdog54]

Yep, I'm bumping my own thread.

Unpopular opinion: 'That call', while wrong in the spirit of the game, could be argued as not necessarily an incorrect interpretation of the rule as it's written.

The rule as it's written is wrong and needs fixing, and I'll die on this hill.

[azabob]

Yep, I'm bumping my own thread.

Unpopular opinion: 'That call', while wrong in the spirit of the game, could be argued as not necessarily an incorrect interpretation of the rule as it's written.

The rule as it's written is wrong and needs fixing, and I'll die on this hill.

Not only bumping, but one that has been around for fourteen years and no activity for over six years!!

I know you don’t really care for this rule, but you are aiming for the eeeker thread hall of fame.

[azabob]

Yep, I'm bumping my own thread.

Unpopular opinion: 'That call', while wrong in the spirit of the game, could be argued as not necessarily an incorrect interpretation of the rule as it's written.

The rule as it's written is wrong and needs fixing, and I'll die on this hill.

Hang on, if it is an unpopular opinion it should be raised in the unpopular take thread which I may or may not have started?

[Grantysghost]

Nobody blames Bailey for taking the advantage. Odd. The rule is oddly worded.

[hujsh]

Hang on, if it is an unpopular opinion it should be raised in the unpopular take thread which I may or may not have started?

Nobody blames Bailey for taking the advantage. Odd. The rule is oddly worded.
Maybe it should be discussed in the context of whether Marcus Bontempelli would take the advantage and moved to the Marcus Bontempelli Appreciation thread?

[Grantysghost]

Maybe it should be discussed in the context of whether Marcus Bontempelli would take the advantage and moved to the Marcus Bontempelli Appreciation thread?
He would've, and kicked a point.

[bornadog]

I have hated this rule ever since it was introduced, I think it was the late 70's?

Quoting myself

Still hate this rule

[The Adelaide Connection]

I know that it is not the debate here, but Bailey should have got a free kick for the two arms over his shoulders anyway.

But yeah, advantage rule is a shit show.