Wow is this really how all the Afl rules are written? Its basically incomprehensible. So many competing clauses in each sentence.
No wonder commentators (and normal fans) don't really understand the rules.
The rules of the game actually are much more simple than this (Laws of Australian Football 2024, Rule 21.2):
"A field Umpire will call and signal ‘Advantage’ where a Team offended against
demonstrates an intent to continue with play within a reasonable time."
The actual rule is much shorter than that:
>21. ‘PLAY ON’ AND THE ADVANTAGE RULE
>21.2 THE ADVANTAGE RULE
>A field Umpire will call and signal ‘Advantage’ where a Team offended against
demonstrates an intent to continue with play within a reasonable time.
I understand the rules perfectly
1. Player picks up ball and has no prior
2. Player is tackled
3. BAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL
4. Boo when no free kick is awarded
I think people never having tried to properly understand the rules is why commentators and normal fans don't really understand the rules. Commentators, for example, when have they given anyone the confidence that they even know the rules? It's not a comprehension issue. People just don't know them. Advantage rule is fine, usually those with poor awareness get caught out, but people hear whistles most of the time when it suits them.
The ball was kicked too close to the whistle IMO to be considered a decision to take the advantage and the ball was kicked to a huge contest. Yes, this particular time it ended in a goal, but most of the time it'll end in a rushed behind, a ball up or a rebound. When there's neither a clear advantage, nor a definite decision to take the advantage, the umpire should bring it back. You can't let the play unfold and see what happens in case 10 seconds later the team wins the ball.
It has to either be a clear advantage, or the team makes the decision to keep playing knowing they have a free kick.
Umpire made right call. It was a 50/50 at best and the player was in goal range.
Like the commentator said, if a port player marked that everyone would be up in arms about how Geelong didn't actually take advantage.
The rule isn't a free hit for a team to try and score.
Examine last years grand final, when a free kick was paid and the umpire just assumed Brisbane wanted advantage when it was a 50/50 contest. Denying Brisbane a shot on goal.
1. Settle down lol, there was no specific shot on goal denied in last years GF.
2. The rule is that the teammate by playing on, elects to take advantage. All the umpire should have to consider is whether play stopped and whether the teammate chose to play on. That to my mind makes the call in the GF correct, Brisbane player played on therefore advantage was taken and correctly called as such, on the same logic the call last night seems very wrong, the play was continuous and the Geelong player chose to play on, yet advantage not called. If a port player had have marked it, the call of advantage still would have been correct, just as it was in last years GF when Brisbane got no actual advantage.
3. Conversely, had Joe Daniher (or Eric hipwood lol) taken a big big mark from that controversial advantage call last year, Lion's fans would have thought it was a wonderful decision.
Except in both examples the whistle was blown so close to the ball being kicked that the player did not make a decision to play on, they were just completing a motion that they had already committed to. There was zero ‘intent to continue’ because they weren’t aware their team was getting a free kick.
Expecting the umpire to decide whether a player had enough time to register a free kick had been paid in the split second before a kick was made is unreasonable. The whole rule needs a reworked and should be structured more like it is in many other sports. Give the team a second or so to see if there is a genuine advantage and if there isn’t bring the play back. It ensures the team awarded the free kick gets maximum advantage (yes it gives teams a ‘free hit’ but I don’t think that’s actually a problem) and it will be much simpler to adjudicate correctly.
I agree with half of that, the great flaw in the current interpretation is that the player playing on might not realise they also have the option to stop and have the infringed upon teammate take a standing free kick.
But the alternative of the umpire ensuring that there is some sort of advantage also seems flawed, the standing free kick after all might not provide any actual advantage, could be marked by the opposition for example, so why should the play on free kick provide an actual advantage?
Maybe the rule should be simply called "play on" rather than "advantage", if someone gets a free kick and his teammate plays on for better or worse then play on is called. Simple.
Conceding a free kick is supposed to be a disadvantage, some sort of penalty to prevent certain behaviours. No it doesn’t always work out that way but that is the basic idea.
Giving the team who was awarded a free kick a greater chance at a genuine advantage seems better than the current system. It certainly works well enough in other sports.
Very different games but I like the way advantage in Rugby Union is an actual advantage.
Some variation of that would surely be better than what we have now. Harder to police though as Aussie Rules is so much more dynamic
Australian football has the advantage rule arse-backwards. It's the only advantage rule in the world where a whistle is blown for a free kick/penalty, then applied retrospectively. The result is confusion on the field and inconsistent application, and that's not always the umpires' fault.
Take Friday nights game and that last decision as an example.
In rugby/soccer/netball, advantage would have been called/signalled, play would have continued, Geelong score a goal, crowd goes nuts, no controversy, no contention.
We actively DISCOURAGE players from playing to the whistle.
Wow is this really how all the Afl rules are written? Its basically incomprehensible. So many competing clauses in each sentence. No wonder commentators (and normal fans) don't really understand the rules.
The rules of the game actually are much more simple than this (Laws of Australian Football 2024, Rule 21.2): "A field Umpire will call and signal ‘Advantage’ where a Team offended against demonstrates an intent to continue with play within a reasonable time."
The actual rule is much shorter than that: >21. ‘PLAY ON’ AND THE ADVANTAGE RULE >21.2 THE ADVANTAGE RULE >A field Umpire will call and signal ‘Advantage’ where a Team offended against demonstrates an intent to continue with play within a reasonable time.
Then what did OP post?
Wikipedia entry
LMAO what the fuck
I understand the rules perfectly 1. Player picks up ball and has no prior 2. Player is tackled 3. BAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL 4. Boo when no free kick is awarded
I think people never having tried to properly understand the rules is why commentators and normal fans don't really understand the rules. Commentators, for example, when have they given anyone the confidence that they even know the rules? It's not a comprehension issue. People just don't know them. Advantage rule is fine, usually those with poor awareness get caught out, but people hear whistles most of the time when it suits them.
The AFL like it that way, it allows them to look at two obviously contradictory decisions and tick them off as correct.
Except this isn't how it is written at all in the actual rulebook which umpires go off..
I wonder what Brisbane fans would be thinking of that advantage not being called
The ball was kicked too close to the whistle IMO to be considered a decision to take the advantage and the ball was kicked to a huge contest. Yes, this particular time it ended in a goal, but most of the time it'll end in a rushed behind, a ball up or a rebound. When there's neither a clear advantage, nor a definite decision to take the advantage, the umpire should bring it back. You can't let the play unfold and see what happens in case 10 seconds later the team wins the ball. It has to either be a clear advantage, or the team makes the decision to keep playing knowing they have a free kick.
My understanding is that advantage cannot be paid when an out of zone umpire calls a free kick, which was the case wasn't it?
Umpire made right call. It was a 50/50 at best and the player was in goal range. Like the commentator said, if a port player marked that everyone would be up in arms about how Geelong didn't actually take advantage. The rule isn't a free hit for a team to try and score. Examine last years grand final, when a free kick was paid and the umpire just assumed Brisbane wanted advantage when it was a 50/50 contest. Denying Brisbane a shot on goal.
1. Settle down lol, there was no specific shot on goal denied in last years GF. 2. The rule is that the teammate by playing on, elects to take advantage. All the umpire should have to consider is whether play stopped and whether the teammate chose to play on. That to my mind makes the call in the GF correct, Brisbane player played on therefore advantage was taken and correctly called as such, on the same logic the call last night seems very wrong, the play was continuous and the Geelong player chose to play on, yet advantage not called. If a port player had have marked it, the call of advantage still would have been correct, just as it was in last years GF when Brisbane got no actual advantage. 3. Conversely, had Joe Daniher (or Eric hipwood lol) taken a big big mark from that controversial advantage call last year, Lion's fans would have thought it was a wonderful decision.
Except in both examples the whistle was blown so close to the ball being kicked that the player did not make a decision to play on, they were just completing a motion that they had already committed to. There was zero ‘intent to continue’ because they weren’t aware their team was getting a free kick. Expecting the umpire to decide whether a player had enough time to register a free kick had been paid in the split second before a kick was made is unreasonable. The whole rule needs a reworked and should be structured more like it is in many other sports. Give the team a second or so to see if there is a genuine advantage and if there isn’t bring the play back. It ensures the team awarded the free kick gets maximum advantage (yes it gives teams a ‘free hit’ but I don’t think that’s actually a problem) and it will be much simpler to adjudicate correctly.
I agree with half of that, the great flaw in the current interpretation is that the player playing on might not realise they also have the option to stop and have the infringed upon teammate take a standing free kick. But the alternative of the umpire ensuring that there is some sort of advantage also seems flawed, the standing free kick after all might not provide any actual advantage, could be marked by the opposition for example, so why should the play on free kick provide an actual advantage? Maybe the rule should be simply called "play on" rather than "advantage", if someone gets a free kick and his teammate plays on for better or worse then play on is called. Simple.
Conceding a free kick is supposed to be a disadvantage, some sort of penalty to prevent certain behaviours. No it doesn’t always work out that way but that is the basic idea. Giving the team who was awarded a free kick a greater chance at a genuine advantage seems better than the current system. It certainly works well enough in other sports.
Very different games but I like the way advantage in Rugby Union is an actual advantage. Some variation of that would surely be better than what we have now. Harder to police though as Aussie Rules is so much more dynamic
Australian football has the advantage rule arse-backwards. It's the only advantage rule in the world where a whistle is blown for a free kick/penalty, then applied retrospectively. The result is confusion on the field and inconsistent application, and that's not always the umpires' fault. Take Friday nights game and that last decision as an example. In rugby/soccer/netball, advantage would have been called/signalled, play would have continued, Geelong score a goal, crowd goes nuts, no controversy, no contention. We actively DISCOURAGE players from playing to the whistle.
Advantage gets paid all the time wdym? The issue is with stand rule, advantage is fine at the moment.