No more 50s

[older saint]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

[markp]

It needs replacing.

Can have too much impact, or inconsistent impact, depending on where on the ground it is awarded and at what stage of the game.

Worst of all is when it's given for something technical or soft, following a shady initial free, at a pivotal point in the game, and in the forward half.

Maybe make it 25m? Maybe make a transgressor 'stand' for 30-60 seconds excluded from play.... dunno, but 50 metres is too often too much.

[skeptic]

It needs replacing.

Can have too much impact, or inconsistent impact, depending on where on the ground it is awarded and at what stage of the game.

Worst of all is when it's given for something technical or soft, following a shady initial free, at a pivotal point in the game, and in the forward half.

Maybe make it 25m? Maybe make a transgressor 'stand' for 30-60 seconds excluded from play.... dunno, but 50 metres is too often too much.

Whilst I do like all of these suggestions, the issue for me is that AFL as a whole has moved away from what was the most basic of mantras of umpiring - only pay the obvious ones.

A lot of 50m penalties over the last year or two have been for things that the discerning fan at the game or watching at home simply doesn’t catch.
IMO, if it requires an explanation… you’re generally not on the right track

[D.B.Cooper]

I thought the Marshall one was clearly a 50, with a few other’s borderline.

I’d prefer the current interpretation on the rule as opposed to the ridiculous pay a 50 when the player did not impact the player with the ball.

[Yorkeys]

Our rules live on a sort of continuum that varies from game to game, umpire to umpire. Players early in a match test where the outer points are early and that sets the tone. Poor umpire coaching since forever and not dropping umpires who make it up as they go along means its a lottery. There will be tears when that approach really bites Collingwood, otherwise the AFL's approach is nothing to see here, its so hard to recruit umpires; and if you keep complaining we will make it 6 umpires a game, what do you think of that, if 4 is diabolical.

[Sanctorum]

Peter Daicos was quoted today claiming that the 4 umpires has been a bad move by the AFL, citing a recent case of an umpire 50m away from play running in and over-ruling a closer umpire to award a free kick, which is crazy.

It is certainly working for the gun full forwards as it seems the umps are now better positioned to detect infringements in the inisde 50 contests.

As a matter of interest, St Kilda in 2023 has had a dream run from the umpires, leading the comp with 402 for and 332 against!

[older saint]

Peter Daicos was quoted today claiming that the 4 umpires has been a bad move by the AFL, citing a recent case of an umpire 50m away from play running in and over-ruling a closer umpire to award a free kick, which is crazy.

It is certainly working for the gun full forwards as it seems the umps are now better positioned to detect infringements in the inisde 50 contests.

As a matter of interest, St Kilda in 2023 has had a dream run from the umpires, leading the comp with 402 for and 332 against!

Always going to happen as 9 umpires every week weren't considered good enough in previous seasons now due to the 4 umpires get a game. That also means that those who replace any that get dropped come from either further down the ranks.

[Life Long Saint]

The no 50 to Owens was the worst one on the day!

[markp]

It needs replacing.

Can have too much impact, or inconsistent impact, depending on where on the ground it is awarded and at what stage of the game.

Worst of all is when it's given for something technical or soft, following a shady initial free, at a pivotal point in the game, and in the forward half.

Maybe make it 25m? Maybe make a transgressor 'stand' for 30-60 seconds excluded from play.... dunno, but 50 metres is too often too much.

Whilst I do like all of these suggestions, the issue for me is that AFL as a whole has moved away from what was the most basic of mantras of umpiring - only pay the obvious ones.

A lot of 50m penalties over the last year or two have been for things that the discerning fan at the game or watching at home simply doesn’t catch.
IMO, if it requires an explanation… you’re generally not on the right track

Yep. Good point.

I maintain that it is one of the hardest games in the world to adjudicate... so much is grey and open to interpretation. Sometimes holding, high contact, pushing in the back etc is ok, sometimes it's not. AFL obviously concerned about duty of care and player welfare also... which is kinda new.

But the 50 is the only lever short of reporting that umpires are given for an indiscretion at a set kick... often a penalty is warranted, somewhere short of a gifted goal.

[King Max]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

[Jacks Back]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

That one is terrible.

[CURLY]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

No excuses the umpire saw it and CHOSE to ignore a clear breach of the rule. It's cheating and cost us a goal.

[The_Dud]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

No excuses the umpire saw it and CHOSE to ignore a clear breach of the rule. It's cheating and cost us a goal.

Bloody cheating umpires, only have us +70 for the year.

Glad when they spun the wheel before the Tigers game it came up "cheat for St Kilda", kept our season alive!

[SaintPav]

Law of parsimony. Just pay the clear ones that impact the play or impede the player.

How umpires miss the obvious ones is beyond me.

Fatigue? Lack of concentration? Poor eyesight?

It would be good to know the reasoning.

The AFL also appear to be adjusting the interpretation of the rules mid season without telling anyone.

They just do what they want. It’s pathetic.

[CURLY]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

No excuses the umpire saw it and CHOSE to ignore a clear breach of the rule. It's cheating and cost us a goal.

Bloody cheating umpires, only have us +70 for the year.

Glad when they spun the wheel before the Tigers game it came up "cheat for St Kilda", kept our season alive!

Yep but still chose to ignore this blatant breach of the rules.

[King Max]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

No excuses the umpire saw it and CHOSE to ignore a clear breach of the rule. It's cheating and cost us a goal.

I don't think it was cheating and it could have cost us a goal but it didn't (Max brought the ball to ground and handballed to Crouch for a goal). But it's hard to imagine a more obvious breach of the rules that wasn't seen by four umpires. I reckon the people selling donuts outside the ground would have seen that.

[The_Dud]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

No excuses the umpire saw it and CHOSE to ignore a clear breach of the rule. It's cheating and cost us a goal.

Bloody cheating umpires, only have us +70 for the year.

Glad when they spun the wheel before the Tigers game it came up "cheat for St Kilda", kept our season alive!

Yep but still chose to ignore this blatant breach of the rules.

Like they 'chose to ignore' the clear breach by about 3 St Kilda players running through the restricted zone when Richmond were on a fast break, costing them a goal.

Swings and roundabouts.

[magnifisaint]

It should be a 25m rule. 50 is ridiculous!

[CURLY]

Watching a lot of footy over the past month the Umpires clearly have been told to back off the 50 m penalties on Stand and touching the player after the mark.
Yesterday Marshall marked on the HBF and the richmond guys basically grabbed him no 50, Mutiple times guys moved on the mark losing balance trying to cheat the mark nothing, both sides did well slow to release the ball after bing pinged which was to be auto 50 if you delay the release of the ball .
Sicily v richmond took 2 steps the other week on the mark - nothing.

Rule of the week - this one has definitely dropped of the radar- perhaps it was out of bounds this week ,... clearly not.

I thought Marshall was trying to creep forward. No 50 for mine.

This one from last week on the other hand. WTF?

No excuses the umpire saw it and CHOSE to ignore a clear breach of the rule. It's cheating and cost us a goal.

Bloody cheating umpires, only have us +70 for the year.

Glad when they spun the wheel before the Tigers game it came up "cheat for St Kilda", kept our season alive!

Yep but still chose to ignore this blatant breach of the rules.

Like they 'chose to ignore' the clear breach by about 3 St Kilda players running through the restricted zone when Richmond were on a fast break, costing them a goal.

Swings and roundabouts.

Pay it had no bearing on the result.

Look at the Butler no free v Carlton costs a clear goal.

[King Max]

Like they 'chose to ignore' the clear breach by about 3 St Kilda players running through the restricted zone when Richmond were on a fast break, costing them a goal.

Swings and roundabouts.

Put the video up and we can all look at it.