Boundary umps to award frees during NAB Cup

[Hotdog60]

THIS year's NAB Cup will feature four new trial rules, including the ability for boundary umpires to pay free kicks for holding at stoppages.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said at the NAB Cup launch on Monday that boundary umpires can be in a good position for viewing holding situations and the change would allow them to award free kicks when holding or high contact infringements are detected.

Boundary umpires will be trained up on this skill over the pre-season.

Other trial rules announced on Monday were the ability for players to decide whether advantage should be paid for free kicks, an extension of the 'no go zone' behind the umpire at bounce-downs and a holding the ball free kick to be paid against any player that drags the ball underneath his opponent.

Anderson said taking the awarding of advantage away from umpires should reduce complaints.

“The current advantage rule can often be confusing because it requires a subjective assessment by the umpire of whether a player has an advantage," Anderson said.

“Under the trial, if a player elects to take the advantage the play will be allowed to continue. This puts the onus on the coaches and players to decide whether or not they will take the advantage in any given situation.”

Anderson said that the new rule regarding holding the ball for dragging the ball underneath an opponent was something clubs had mentioned to the AFL.

More Here (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/89306/default.aspx)

[Hotdog60]

If they can get it right, I don't mind the one were players pushing the ball under the man going for the ball get penalized. Too many times you see this happen and the player making all the play gets sat on.

For years the AFL has worked at speeding up the game and to have less stoppages, if the boundary umpires start making calls on play would it not mean more stoppages.

[jazzadogs]

I don't really understand how the new advantage rule is going to be put into effect. Will it just be the non-infringing team who gets to decide? Because if so, there will be a lot of cases where the opposition all stop except for one player (cases in which the umpire would, hopefully, have brought it back). Having said that, they can't allow the infringing side any part in the decision, because they would always have it called back.

I like the dragging the ball in rule, but again it is going to be hard to police. Will it also include an player holding the ball to their opponents chest?

Boundary umpires awarding free kicks can only be a good thing, from what it says in the article they can only award the free kicks AT STOPPAGES, so therefore there shouldn't be any more stoppages than at the moment.

[LostDoggy]

Unbelievable!!

Let's get the Pie and Soft Drink sellers involved as well. They should be able to pick out a few frees.

Watch the boundary umpires fall over themselves to get their names in lights.

As if the game isn't over policed already??

[LostDoggy]

Unbelievable!!

Let's get the Pie and Soft Drink sellers involved as well. They should be able to pick out a few frees.

Watch the boundary umpires fall over themselves to get their names in lights.

As if the game isn't over policed already??

My thoughts precisely.

More one-off frees being picked out arbitrarily is exactly what the game needs.

[chef]

Unbelievable!!

Let's get the Pie and Soft Drink sellers involved as well. They should be able to pick out a few frees.

Watch the boundary umpires fall over themselves to get their names in lights.

As if the game isn't over policed already??

Something to look forward too:rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

I don't see anything wrong with it in theory, if they see something the central guy has missed then why not tell them.
They problem is game is already over officiated and this just adds to it.

Instead of making the game simplier, they keep including new rules and interpretations.

[mjp]

Exactly how many boundary umpires are there these days in any case? There were 3 during the season, 4 in the finals...and the number of them changes the game (or can) quite a bit at times already. This change will confuse me.

As for you ES - it is just another 3 (or is it 4) people to infuriate you at game time...this is not good for your peace of mind.

[Mofra]

This could start a trend - it starts at stoppages, the boundary umpires will be able to call "behind the play" incidents, which will become blurry in time.

The rule sound sreasonable in theory (especially when you consider that the boundary umpires see the play from the same angle as the crowd, so there will be less obvious holds not paid because of line of sight issues) however we will soon have a situation where 10-12 people are making decisions on the field, and a group of umpires is generally only as good as their weakest link.

[LostDoggy]

As for you ES - it is just another 3 (or is it 4) people to infuriate you at game time...this is not good for your peace of mind.

I'm not bad during the game Mick.
The powers of the AFL infuriate me more.

BTW What do you call Chicken wings these days? Chicken 'any generic outside midfielders'

[LostDoggy]

The game would probably better umpired with 1 central umpire making all decisions and a number of assistants advising him.

[Sockeye Salmon]

They did this in the Wizard Cup or whatever it was a few years back and they were all too petrified to blow their whistle.

[wimberga]

Get ready for a season's worth of even more rediculous ruck contest free's now paid by boundary umpires as well...

[Remi Moses]

Unbelievable!!

Let's get the Pie and Soft Drink sellers involved as well. They should be able to pick out a few frees.

Watch the boundary umpires fall over themselves to get their names in lights.

As if the game isn't over policed already??

Can we start giving Free kicks! I'm pretty sure Stkilda supporters were picking out the frees in that infamous Prelim. Final. heard Gieschen say that they'd used this system 8 times in Practice games and they'd plucked out 2 free kicks!!!:eek:

[LostDoggy]

They did this in the Wizard Cup or whatever it was a few years back and they were all too petrified to blow their whistle.

The whole idea of authority on the field in such a hectic game (with 360-degree danger, as mjp puts it) will only work in the context of an ongoing 'relationship' -- a player has to know who to listen to at any one time. When there are potentially up to 6 voices in his ear warning him about not pushing, or else, or this or that -- why, that's just a recipe for disaster.

The extra grumps don't have to blow their whistles ten times a game to create havoc. One arbitrary and badly timed whistle for an 'offence' that has otherwise gone unpunished the previous six thousand times it has occured in the course of the game (see Riewoldt, Nick: Poofy Dive, Preliminary Final 2009) could have just as decisive an impact on the momentum and final score of a game.

The fewer whistle blowers on the pitch (within logic), the better.