When a player is awarded 50 metres, the first thing he should do is RUN LIKE HELL straight towards the goals .Too often our players jog up to the new mark, allowing the opposition to organise their defence. Though it may only apply once or twice in a match, it may be worth a goal each time, due to the panic it can cause opposition defenders.

Another "one-percenter" is to ALWAYS try for the advantage when we have a free-kick. Inexperienced opponents sometimes momentarily hesitate when the whistle blows for a free, allowing the possibility of a breakaway. Here's a unique opportunity to try the ambitious handball over the top, to run and take a couple of bounces or attempt to baulk a couple of defenders. If it doesn't come off....no sweat, there was no "advantage" so the ump SHOULD call it back. If the ball somehow gets to a player out in the open, a dangerous attack should result.

Of course it's too dangerous to KICK the ball in these circumstances, in case the free is going the other way. So players should run on and bounce the ball a couple of times, or handball, but don't KICK the ball until the word "ADVANTAGE" is heard from the Umpire.

Another benefit is that in the case of the free going to the opposition, it takes a while to bring the ball back, allowing defensive zones to be set.(I notice Collingwood frequently do this)

Edited July 21, 201015 yr by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

Agree, agree, agree. I've always thought both of these things, and frankly I'm not sure why they're not always done.

When a player is awarded 50 metres, the first thing he should do is RUN LIKE HELL straight towards the goals .Too often our players jog up to the new mark, allowing the opposition to organise their defence. Though it may only apply once or twice in a match, it may be worth a goal each time, due to the panic it can cause opposition defenders.

Another "one-percenter" is to ALWAYS try for the advantage when we have a free-kick. Inexperienced opponents sometimes momentarily hesitate when the whistle blows for a free, allowing the possibility of a breakaway. Here's a unique opportunity to try the ambitious handball over the top, to run and take a couple of bounces or attempt to baulk a couple of defenders. If it doesn't come off....no sweat, there was no "advantage" so the ump SHOULD call it back. If the ball somehow gets to a player out in the open, a dangerous attack should result.

Of course it's too dangerous to KICK the ball in these circumstances, in case the free is going the other way. I notice Collingwood do this all the time. Another advantage is that in the case of the free going to the opposition, it takes a while to bring the ball back, allowing defensive zones to be set. (N.B. run and bounce or handball, but DON'T kick till "ADVANTAGE" is heard from the ump).

It's like having a tall defender on the goal line when a player is shooting fm 50m. Obvious but frustrating how many times it doesn't happen..............

Maybe some of these guys skipped Grade 6 where we all learned these things??!?!?!?

There is one slight downside to automatically trying for the advantage. If advantage is NOT paid,and it IS our free, the ball has to be brought back, and time is wasted allowing the defence to set up. However, on balance, I'm sure we should ALWAYS be on the look-out to take the advantage from frees outside the 50m. arc.

When the free is in easy kicking range, the "advantage taker" has to show good judgment whether or not he's a better chance on the run than the set shot.

The reason the players jog is that if the 50 metres takes them inside 50 then they should use the time to properly settle, line up and shoot for goal. If they are going to be outside 50 then they need to be careful that their little dash is not perceived as breaking the line and playing on. And dont you think that players jogging down the ground allow other players to make position up the ground. Its no good running like hell to find there are few options forward.

Your second one % is the ultimate gamble. Do I take advantage of the umps whistle or do I risk 50 metres for not getting the ball back to the free recipient? The upside is OK but the downside just kills you and the sides momentum. You need to be sure/certain that the free is yours.

And it does not matter if you kick it or not, the issue of a 50 metre penalty is if you delay getting the ball back to the recepient directly on the free being given. Its a fine line Collingwood could be playing. But in the wrong hands like Essendon, not being discipline around free kicks just punishes you.

Has anyone noted that the Pies are still seeking to take the man on the mark oout of the play by having a player a couple of metres goalside of the freekick point. So when Pies player A with the free breaks the line and plays on when the man on the mark crosses that line then Pies player B takes him out or provides a block. Harry O'Brien at it again!

I don't think you're correct worrying about the "little dash being perceived as breaking the line and playing on." The mark is 50 m. further on, straight toward the goals. As long as the recipient continues on that line, for less than 50 m., he's not off. Also, I'm dead sure it's more advantageous to the attacking side for the ball to arrive inside 50 m. unexpectedly quickly, than for the defenders.

Also, Rhino, with respect to trying to benefit from the advantage rule,I don't know the exact wording of the rules, but from my observation, the umps pay 50 when the players actually KICK the ball, not if they run, bounce and handball. (when they play on, incorrectly assuming that the free has been paid to their side).Collingwood do this all the time, and I've never seen them penalised.

ps I've never known you to agree with me about anything, but I agree with your comments on tattoos in the Dane Swan thread.

I don't think you're correct worrying about the "little dash being perceived as breaking the line and playing on." The mark is 50 m. further on, straight toward the goals. As long as the recipient continues on that line, for less than 50 m., he's not off. Also, I'm dead sure it's more advantageous to the attacking side for the ball to arrive inside 50 m. unexpectedly quickly, than for the defenders.

Also, Rhino, with respect to trying to benefit from the advantage rule,I don't know the exact wording of the rules, but from my observation, the umps pay 50 when the players actually KICK the ball, not if they run, bounce and handball. (when they play on, incorrectly assuming that the free has been paid to their side).Collingwood do this all the time, and I've never seen them penalised.

ps I've never known you to agree with me about anything, but I agree with your comments on tattoos in the Dane Swan thread.

1. Its no good if there are no forwards there either! And its no good if the 50 metre penalty brings you in scoring distance.

2. I would have thought that if the actions amount to unreasonable time delays (like caused by a kick) then its 50. I will keep an eye out for it.

Good work on the tattoos.