Advantage rule shambles

[Webber 10,030]

The Stefan Martin mark in the last quarter, and subsequent 'advantage' call when he snapped for goal, when he had no idea whether the mark had been awarded, is a very worrying part of current umpiring. I was frankly embarrassed for our game that the umpires seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how to implement this new interpretation. Imagine us 3 points down in the last 10 seconds of the grand final, and that occur!!!! Thoughts?

[Bingo 235]

I agree...the ball should have been brought back, there was no advantage in what occured.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

I didn't hear the whistle either and I pretty close to the action there as well. Neither did my wife

Typical of the umpiring at that end of the ground though

[TT's Demons 1]

I didn't hear the whistle either and I pretty close to the action there as well. Neither did my wife

Typical of the umpiring at that end of the ground though

Unfortunately common sense seems to be frowned upon with the umpiring fraternity! I would have thought that it would be common sense that a player can't take advantage until they are actually aware they have been awarded a mark or free kick.

[45HG 1,539]

The umpire put the whistle in his mouth when Martin decided to kick the ball. It was Martin's fault, as he may have thought the ball was touched, to play on and it shouldn't have been brought back (even though it cost me $180).

The poor call, IMO, was Dunn's on the broadcast wing. He won a free, the ball rolled on, he kept running and took it and wanted to run off. The umpire called him back saying you have to come back over the mark. Isn't that exactly not what the advantage rule stands for?

[Guest fitness]

This rule change is actually worse than the sub rule or anything else they've introduced recently. Farcical in fact.

Clearly, as the Dunn incident showed, the umpire will occasionally make their own decision as to whether an advantage is allowed or not. And there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. The rule as it operated previously was not perfect, but it's much better to let the umpire decide - and then bring the ball back if an advantage actually doesn't result - than what we are seeing now.

Just another example of a rule change made in haste, with little trial period to determine whether it was actually going to benefit the game or not.

[Webber 10,030]

The umpire pit the whistle in his mouth when Martin decided to kick the ball. It was Martin's fault, as he may have thought the ball was touched, to play on and it shouldn't have been brought back (even though it cost me $180).

The poor call, IMO, was Dunn's on the broadcast wing. He won a free, the ball rolled on,

he kept running and took it and wanted to run off. The umpire called him back saying you have to come back over the mark. Isn't that exactly not what the advantage rule stands for?

The Dunn decision was in fact equally ridiculous, but from the other end of the interpretation spectrum. You are however, completely misguided on the Martin decision : the ball was in dispute at the marking contest. Martin had two choices....wait and hope for the ump to award the mark, during which time he would be caught holding the ball if in fact it wasn't awarded, or continue the play as if there is no mark, whereby he snapped for goal. It is RIDICULOUS that the umpire saw his playing on as a reaction to being awarded the mark, it was a reaction to NOT being awarded the mark, or at least covering that possiblity. I'd hate to have to explain the woeful umpiring of this to a newby to the game.

[Roost It 1,434]

The Stefan Martin mark in the last quarter, and subsequent 'advantage' call when he snapped for goal, when he had no idea whether the mark had been awarded, is a very worrying part of current umpiring. I was frankly embarrassed for our game that the umpires seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how to implement this new interpretation. Imagine us 3 points down in the last 10 seconds of the grand final, and that occur!!!! Thoughts?

HTF is it an advantage if he misses from 15metres out? Needs to be looked at and soon. Embarrassing indeed

[45HG 1,539]

But it wasn't an "advantage," it was a "play on."

[Rogue 585]

This rule change is actually worse than the sub rule or anything else they've introduced recently. Farcical in fact.

Agreed.

The only problem with the previous rule/interpretation was that if a player had advantage and then went on to stuff up the umpire would - wrongly, IMO - call play back.

Here's an example:

Dunn's on the ground 40 metres out and gets pushed in the back while he handballs off to Jurrah. A free kick is awarded but advantage is paid because Jurrah is waltzing into goal. Jurrah runs in a further 12 metres and then fluffs* the kick. The umpire would often say 'oh, no advantage' simply because the player ended up fluffing the kick.

In my hypothetical, I think the umpire makes an error in calling the play back because there was in fact an advantage - the player with the footy was in a better position abd thus it was right to call advantage. The outcome - the fluffed kick - is irrelevant and the ball shouldn't be called back. Often it was called back, though, and that's the only real problem I had with the rule/interpretation (outside of the odd error, but they happen with every rule).

*Yeah, you can see this is just hypothetical

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,396]

This thread has got a bit confused. 45HG16 has made the point, correctly, that the Martin play was not "advantage" - it was play on. "Advantage" can only be paid if a free kick has been awarded, not a mark. So, in this instance, Martin played on presumably because he was not sure if the umpire was going to award him the mark. On balance, he probably did the right thing as to not have done so should the mark not have been awarded may have resulted in him being tackled and holding the ball awarded against him. The culprit (and I'm using the term very loosely) is the umpire for not blowing the whistle quickly enough. But given the fumbling nature of what was in the end a mark, the umpire could not blow the whistle until he was certain.

And for those arguing that the umpire should decide whether to determine "advantage", I can't see how the umpire could be in better position than a player to make that decision. Sure, players will sometimes get it wrong, but surely less often than an umpire.

My preferred approach is to look at the way referees in soccer and hockey award penalties. If the equivalent of a 'free kick' is required, the arm is extended showing that the penalty has been identified, but the whistle isn't blown until after the referee has determined that not to award the free would penalise the team for which the free should be paid. In other words, the referee effectively allows the player to take advantage before the whistle is blown. If the referee then decides there is no advantage, the whistle is blown and the ball comes back to where the infringement occurred. I haven't thought through all issues, but it removes the other problem with the current advantage rule which is that the team against whom the free is awarded is stuck between a rock (letting the player take advantage) and a hard place (preventing the player from taking advantage and in so doing giving away a 50 metre penalty).

[Roost It 1,434]

But it wasn't an "advantage," it was a "play on."

I'm pretty sure he kicked before or as the whistle blew so it shouldn't be play on. Martin should have been given the opportunity to kick for goal

Edited April 19, 2011 by Roost It

[Rogue 585]

And for those arguing that the umpire should decide whether to determine "advantage", I can't see how the umpire could be in better position than a player to make that decision. Sure, players will sometimes get it wrong, but surely less often than an umpire.

How do you reconcile this statement with the following part of your post?

My preferred approach is to look at the way referees in soccer and hockey award penalties. If the equivalent of a 'free kick' is required, the arm is extended showing that the penalty has been identified, but the whistle isn't blown until after the referee has determined that not to award the free would penalise the team for which the free should be paid. In other words, the referee effectively allows the player to take advantage before the whistle is blown. If the referee then decides there is no advantage, the whistle is blown and the ball comes back to where the infringement occurred. I haven't thought through all issues, but it removes the other problem with the current advantage rule which is that the team against whom the free is awarded is stuck between a rock (letting the player take advantage) and a hard place (preventing the player from taking advantage and in so doing giving away a 50 metre penalty).

In your 'preferred approach' it seems that the umpire decides whether there is advantage.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,396]

How do you reconcile this statement with the following part of your post?

In your 'preferred approach' it seems that the umpire decides whether there is advantage.

Touche.

I should have been clearer. I didn't accurately differentiate what I meant to say. So, to clarify, if the choice is between how the rule operated last year (umpire decides) or this year (player decides), I think players are better placed. But if the rule could be changed altogether so that it operates a la hockey or soccer, the player effectively has the first call because play continues until the umpire believes the team has been disadvantaged or there is no advantage to take, at which time he then blows the whistle and play stops.

[Rogue 585]

Touche.

I should have been clearer. I didn't accurately differentiate what I meant to say. So, to clarify, if the choice is between how the rule operated last year (umpire decides) or this year (player decides), I think players are better placed. But if the rule could be changed altogether so that it operates a la hockey or soccer, the player effectively has the first call because play continues until the umpire believes the team has been disadvantaged or there is no advantage to take, at which time he then blows the whistle and play stops.

This sounds a little like the beef I had with the previous rule, which I outlined here:

Is the sort of stuff I've provided in my aforementioned example going to happen under your preferred ruling? (I'm not familiar enough with how the rule works in soccer/hockey to answer this).

[sue 8,424]

I agree that the current rule or interpretation is a mess. Of the many difficulties which others have pointed to, I'll add this:

I have seen several games where as a free is awarded a team-mate bends over to pick up the ball which has rolled a few metres from the player awarded the free. The umpire then shouts play on, but it looked more like the teammate was just fetching the ball for the guy awarded the free.

The solution which seems to minimise the things that can go wrong is not to blow the whistle for a few seconds. You often see the umpire blow the whistle and immediately say play-on since it is totally obvious that there is going to be an advantage. It almost feels like the umpires blow the whistle to show the umpire selectors that they didn't miss the free!

[biggestred 4,293]

it was fine last year except for the fact that they blew the whistle to award the free kick. just pay advantage without blowing the whistle. give it some seconds to see if there is actually an advantage, and if there isnt, bring it back. its not hard. the problem was they were blowing the whistle and everyone stopped - this new interpretation has made this worse.

put

the

whistle

away

[titan_uranus 22,325]

The rule, notwithstanding the Martin decision, is terrible. It is good-natured, but it doesn't work. It results in too many instances where a team loses its advantage because the player does not hear the whistle, or plays on before the whistle is blown, and the umpire calls advantage where there isn't one and under the old system there wouldn't have been one.

[45HG 1,539]

One of the biggest problem's I've seen with the rule is when a player gets the "advantage" after standing still after a free is called from a marking contest. The player has little way of knowing which way the free is going and usually go to a standstill because they are in fear of giving away a 50 metre penalty.

I don't think you can have the players deciding on the advantage in conjuction with such a harsh 50 metre rule.

The main reason I don't like it is that I really don't think players should be umpiring the game.

Not sure why the Martin "decision" is being pulled into this however. It was a mark, he played on. He was allowed to do so because he was behind his mark. The umpire didn't have time to signal the mark, let alone blow time off and therefore Martin is allowed to play on under the rules. Martin would've known if it was touched, and if that's why he decided to kick the ball he probably shouldn't have been awarded the mark anyway.

[Rogue 585]

just pay advantage without blowing the whistle. give it some seconds to see if there is actually an advantage, and if there isnt, bring it back. its not hard. the problem was they were blowing the whistle and everyone stopped

Yeah, I never understood this.

One of the biggest problem's I've seen with the rule is when a player gets the "advantage" after standing still after a free is called from a marking contest. The player has little way of knowing which way the free is going and usually go to a standstill because they are in fear of giving away a 50 metre penalty.

I don't think you can have the players deciding on the advantage in conjuction with such a harsh 50 metre rule.

I agree. If you decide to take the advantage and find the free kick went the other way you're screwed.