Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Whistle Blowers

  1. #1
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    133

    Whistle Blowers

    I'd never seen this segment on the AFL site before but I think it's pretty handy. I watched as many as I could find after this. Still learning!
    Finals week one umps revealed - AFL.com.au
    The last incident they discuss is Dean Towers' free kick+50 infringement. Interesting, but I still think the 50m advantage is a bit much. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by paper_rival View Post
    I'd never seen this segment on the AFL site before but I think it's pretty handy. I watched as many as I could find after this. Still learning!
    Finals week one umps revealed - AFL.com.au
    The last incident they discuss is Dean Towers' free kick+50 infringement. Interesting, but I still think the 50m advantage is a bit much. Thoughts?
    I too have learned a lot from watching those segments on the AFL site. And that includes the Towers' free plus 50 metre penalty as I had no idea what had occurred at the ground.

    I have since read that the rule was introduced specifically because of tactics used to restrain Gary Ablett who is the master of the one-two play. I can understand the logic but the 50 metre penalty is a huge punishment. In the Towers' incident it looked more as if he made a late tackle on the player with the ball rather than a deliberate hold to restrain him.

    But then I tend to feel that way about most 50 metre penalties, that is that they seem to be an overkill as a form of penalty. For example, the 50 metres for not returning the ball on the full, when it bounces just in front of the player to whom it is thrown. In nearly all cases they give a 'gimme' goal to the opposition.

    I feel a 25 metre penalty for most of the current 50 metre ones would be a fair compromise.

  3. #3
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I too have learned a lot from watching those segments on the AFL site. And that includes the Towers' free plus 50 metre penalty as I had no idea what had occurred at the ground.

    I have since read that the rule was introduced specifically because of tactics used to restrain Gary Ablett who is the master of the one-two play. I can understand the logic but the 50 metre penalty is a huge punishment. In the Towers' incident it looked more as if he made a late tackle on the player with the ball rather than a deliberate hold to restrain him.

    But then I tend to feel that way about most 50 metre penalties, that is that they seem to be an overkill as a form of penalty. For example, the 50 metres for not returning the ball on the full, when it bounces just in front of the player to whom it is thrown. In nearly all cases they give a 'gimme' goal to the opposition.

    I feel a 25 metre penalty for most of the current 50 metre ones would be a fair compromise.
    Pretty right for most. And no metres at all for interchange infringements e.g. big toe over the line-type-stuff. Second-most stupid law in the book, after an in-the-back ruling for a legitimate tackle from behind.
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

  4. #4
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I too have learned a lot from watching those segments on the AFL site. And that includes the Towers' free plus 50 metre penalty as I had no idea what had occurred at the ground.

    I have since read that the rule was introduced specifically because of tactics used to restrain Gary Ablett who is the master of the one-two play. I can understand the logic but the 50 metre penalty is a huge punishment. In the Towers' incident it looked more as if he made a late tackle on the player with the ball rather than a deliberate hold to restrain him.

    But then I tend to feel that way about most 50 metre penalties, that is that they seem to be an overkill as a form of penalty. For example, the 50 metres for not returning the ball on the full, when it bounces just in front of the player to whom it is thrown. In nearly all cases they give a 'gimme' goal to the opposition.

    I feel a 25 metre penalty for most of the current 50 metre ones would be a fair compromise.
    I do think a mere free kick for the kind of restraint Towers' was pinged for is not enough punishment, but 50 is definitely overkill in this case.

    I concur with 25 metre penalty idea, but some should definitely stay 50. Like tackling after a mark or disposal, or unnecessary violence. That business needs to be stamped out and a 'gimme' goal is certainly a big discouragement.

    Quote Originally Posted by dimelb View Post
    Pretty right for most. And no metres at all for interchange infringements e.g. big toe over the line-type-stuff. Second-most stupid law in the book, after an in-the-back ruling for a legitimate tackle from behind.
    I'm really waiting for this whistle blower feature to explain how umpires differentiate the two. Honestly watching from home most of the time it seems like a roll of the dice.

  5. #5
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    Wasnt the rule enforced if the player is impeded from getting to the next contest? The player he impeded still got the ball back...!

    The one I cant stand is when the player feels initial contact from behind, drops the ball, gets tackled and then gets a free for being held. Happens every time - just wrong wrong wrong.
    He ate more cheese, than time allowed

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Industrial Fan View Post
    Wasnt the rule enforced if the player is impeded from getting to the next contest? The player he impeded still got the ball back...!

    The one I cant stand is when the player feels initial contact from behind, drops the ball, gets tackled and then gets a free for being held. Happens every time - just wrong wrong wrong.
    Couldn't agree more. Bothersome when you're playing and bothersome when you're watching.

  7. #7
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    949
    I note that the SANFL uses 25 metre penalties rather than 50 metres. Is it supposed to approximate the distance of one kick?

  8. #8
    One Man Out ShockOfHair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Due north
    Posts
    3,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    But then I tend to feel that way about most 50 metre penalties, that is that they seem to be an overkill as a form of penalty. For example, the 50 metres for not returning the ball on the full, when it bounces just in front of the player to whom it is thrown. In nearly all cases they give a 'gimme' goal to the opposition.
    .
    Although I thought the rule just and appropriate when Mitchell failed to return the ball properly to McVeigh.

  9. #9
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by ShockOfHair View Post
    Although I thought the rule just and appropriate when Mitchell failed to return the ball properly to McVeigh.
    Oh yeah!!!

  10. #10
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by ShockOfHair View Post
    Although I thought the rule just and appropriate when Mitchell failed to return the ball properly to McVeigh.
    Me too hope its applied just the same if a similar incident were to occur in an important game (only if it benefits the boys in red and white however!)
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO