Play on rule

[sue 9,195]

Since we may have a few days with more footy discussion and less wrist-slitting, I'd appreciate some comments from wiser heads on the play-on rule.

When Evans played-on today he rightly got a 50m penalty for being tackled before the umpire called play-on.

On the other hand he clearly did play on and it seems unfair to penalise the tackler. This happens fairly often, or players unfairly (in my view) take advantage of improving their position while their opponent doesn't dare move.

It seems to me the rule would make much more sense if it were applied by the umpire retrospectively - let the player decide if his opponent has played on and only pay a 50m if in the umpires opinion he hasn't played-on.

What are the arguments against doing it that way around? What would go wrong? Would that be worse than what happens now?

[Gorgoroth 13,184]

Te umpire by the letter is correct, once the umpire would ave used sense and let the play continue as he had clearly played on or called it back o the original spot of the mark.

[low flying Robbo 979]

Clearly played on in this instance.

[45HG 1,559]

Poor umpiring.

[monoccular 17,644]

Since we may have a few days with more footy discussion and less wrist-slitting, I'd appreciate some comments from wiser heads on the play-on rule.

When Evans played-on today he rightly got a 50m penalty for being tackled before the umpire called play-on.

On the other hand he clearly did play on and it seems unfair to penalise the tackler. This happens fairly often, or players unfairly (in my view) take advantage of improving their position while their opponent doesn't dare move.

It seems to me the rule would make much more sense if it were applied by the umpire retrospectively - let the player decide if his opponent has played on and only pay a 50m if in the umpires opinion he hasn't played-on.

What are the arguments against doing it that way around? What would go wrong? Would that be worse than what happens now?

I agree he did appear to play on...but he was tackled pretty crudely around the neck.

Common sense....umpires.....oxymoron

Edited April 21, 2013 by monoccular

[deeflog 679]

clearly played on, should have been umpired that way

[CHAMP 347]

Might conceivably have played on but was entitled to decelerate laterally as he did.

The correct call and well within the spirit of the game.

[DeeSpencer 26,301]

Shouldn't be much of an issue. But I agree this Evans one was wrong.

What should happen is if a player plays on the ump realizes quickly and calls play on.

What the man on the mark should do is move sideways with lateral movement to cover the play on option without breaching the mark.

Takes smart but not amazing umpiring and clever, alert but also controlled manning of the mark.

[ThreeOneSix 954]

Just another case where the umpire wanted to assert his importance in the game.

It was clearly play on and the GWS lad was stiff.

[sue 9,195]

But the interpretation that umpires seem to regularly make is that it isn't play-on, no matter how obvious, until the ump shouts play-on. Often happens as players go well off-line after a mark and the guy on the mark goes to attack him and is pinged 50m.

So I thought that was the actual rule. Are you guys saying that is not the case, there is some discretion without having called play-on?

(yes, I think he clearly played on and also clearly got grabbed around the neck as well. And broke free of that and was storming in.)

[Friday 71]

it's just what happens when 17th plays 18th..... you get the 25/26/27 ranked umpires...