Whistle Blowers

[paper_rival]

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?

[Meg]

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.

[dimelb]

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.

[paper_rival]

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.

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.

[Industrial Fan]

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.

[DK_]

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.

[rb4x]

I note that the SANFL uses 25 metre penalties rather than 50 metres. Is it supposed to approximate the distance of one kick?

[ShockOfHair]

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.

[Meg]

Although I thought the rule just and appropriate when Mitchell failed to return the ball properly to McVeigh.

Oh yeah!!!

[mcs]

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!)