30 Second Rule

[mocaholic]

I thought the 30sec rule was when you duff one off the tee, you've got 30 seconds to retrieve your ball, replace it and take your next swing without being penalised.

The way I play golf, anyway. (Plus, there's generally a 10 sec bit of 'fat' there too.)

Seriously though, has ANY player this year been penalised over this rule? To me it has been no impact whatsoever. The ump takes a guess and says 'twenty seconds' and that's about it.

[Danzar]

Originally posted by mocaholic
I thought the 30sec rule was when you duff one off the tee, you've got 30 seconds to retrieve your ball, replace it and take your next swing without being penalised.

The way I play golf, anyway. (Plus, there's generally a 10 sec bit of 'fat' there too.)

Seriously though, has ANY player this year been penalised over this rule? To me it has been no impact whatsoever. The ump takes a guess and says 'twenty seconds' and that's about it.

The rule's a load of crap.

1. No one follows it to the letter.
2. God knows when the 30 seconds actually starts.
3. If it actually did speed up the game, you're looking at 15 seconds max (but more often 5 seconds) per set shot, which is effectively eliminated when players move back for the centre bounce.
4. It's a crap rule.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Danzar
The rule's a load of crap.

1. No one follows it to the letter.
2. God knows when the 30 seconds actually starts.
3. If it actually did speed up the game, you're looking at 15 seconds max (but more often 5 seconds) per set shot, which is effectively eliminated when players move back for the centre bounce.
4. It's a crap rule.

The umps count it as accurately as they can. Same as the running too far.

But once they run out of fingers, it is all guess work.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by Danzar
The rule's a load of crap.

1. No one follows it to the letter.
2. God knows when the 30 seconds actually starts.
3. If it actually did speed up the game, you're looking at 15 seconds max (but more often 5 seconds) per set shot, which is effectively eliminated when players move back for the centre bounce.
4. It's a crap rule.

I'd say:
1. No one follows it at all, apart from an occasional '20 seconds' warning.
2. Supposed to be from when ump blows time back on (ie, after lining up the mark).
3. I'd agree but I don't really understand your point.
4. Agree.

[snajik]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
With Matthew Lloyd injured for the season, the rule is not having much impact at all.

With Matthew Lloyd out for the season, is the rule needed any more?

Further, umpires don't even police it. You often hear them say stuff like, "You've got 20 seconds Cornelius". So Cornelius takes his usual additional 30 seconds while the umpire just stands there watching. Has an umpire actually taken the ball off of a forward who didn't kick it within the allotted 30 seconds? I've never seen it happen. It's a farce, it's unnecessary, and it leads to less conversion.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Sanecow
When Baz throws the ball down, it's not play on, it's incorrect disposal and the opposition should get a free kick.

But it could be seen as bouncing the ball, it simply doesn't bounce back.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by snajik
With Matthew Lloyd out for the season, is the rule needed any more?

Further, umpires don't even police it. You often hear them say stuff like, "You've got 20 seconds Cornelius". So Cornelius takes his usual additional 30 seconds while the umpire just stands there watching. Has an umpire actually taken the ball off of a forward who didn't kick it within the allotted 30 seconds? I've never seen it happen. It's a farce, it's unnecessary, and it leads to less conversion.

The ball doesn't get taken off them, it is simply play on, so if an opponent is standing nearby he can then tackle them.

[Danzar]

Originally posted by mocaholic
I'd say:
3. I'd agree but I don't really understand your point.

Simply that for the time saved, it's not worth the rule. When you want to speed up the game, you do it at a point in the game where it actually has an effect. If a player goals, the time saved because the of 30 sec rule is pointless, as you then have an automatic stoppage anyway for the bounce.

[snajik]

Originally posted by goswannie14
The ball doesn't get taken off them, it is simply play on, so if an opponent is standing nearby he can then tackle them.

That's all well and good, but it's also irrelevant because it never happens.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by snajik
Has an umpire actually taken the ball off of a forward who didn't kick it within the allotted 30 seconds? I've never seen it happen.

They call play on. It's happened once that I can recall - J Brown, I think against Collingwood.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
They call play on. It's happened once that I can recall - J Brown, I think against Collingwood.

And he still kicked the goal....albeit from a snap due to the play-on call and approaching Pie.

[snajik]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
They call play on. It's happened once that I can recall - J Brown, I think against Collingwood.

As they seem to be getting enormous use from this rule, it's obviously a rule well worth keeping.

[deadan]

Originally posted by Danzar
If a player goals, the time saved because the of 30 sec rule is pointless, as you then have an automatic stoppage anyway for the bounce.

Time on is added after the Goal Umpire signals a goal until the ball is bounced in the centre, no time is lost. Hence quarters where there are lots of goals scored are longer... I thought everyone knew this ??

[The Big Cat]

There's a 10 second rule for cooks at Macca's. If the food hits the floor it's OK if you pick it up before 10 expires.