One area the umpires might make focus of the week, or better, the season is players marking it close to goal on an angle. Just saw a Port player mark near the point post and immediately start coming around forcing his opponent to go over the mark sideways to stop him suddenly playing on and scoring an easy goal. The umps then just blew time on and forced him back on his line. If it happened anywhere else on the field it would have been play on. Seems to me it should either be 50m penalty (which would be very unfair) or better, play on as soon as he deliberately moved sideways. Trouble by the time the ump reacted and called play on the defender would have had no hope of doing anything. Alternatively, if the ump blew time-off as soon as anyone marked it near goal on an angle it would be unfair to deny the player with the ball the chance to play on.

Which lets me mount my usual hobby-horse. The umps are frequently very late calling play-on to the disadvantage of the player on the mark I think players should make the decision as to whether the player with the ball has played on or not and react as they think is within the rules. If the player with the ball is infringed and in the umpire's judgement hasn't moved off his line, then it's a 50m penalty. If it is clear the player with the ball moved off his line first, then play on.

Am I missing something? What could be wrong with that approach?

This would also solve the problem of players having to hear the play-on call when there is a large noisy crowd, eg a grand final.

15 m kicks would have been a handy focus tonight. Surely Minson got a 10m kick. Marked and goaled.

One area the umpires might make focus of the week, or better, the season is players marking it close to goal on an angle. Just saw a Port player mark near the point post and immediately start coming around forcing his opponent to go over the mark sideways to stop him suddenly playing on and scoring an easy goal. The umps then just blew time on and forced him back on his line. If it happened anywhere else on the field it would have been play on. Seems to me it should either be 50m penalty (which would be very unfair) or better, play on as soon as he deliberately moved sideways. Trouble by the time the ump reacted and called play on the defender would have had no hope of doing anything. Alternatively, if the ump blew time-off as soon as anyone marked it near goal on an angle it would be unfair to deny the player with the ball the chance to play on.

Which lets me mount my usual hobby-horse. The umps are frequently very late calling play-on to the disadvantage of the player on the mark I think players should make the decision as to whether the player with the ball has played on or not and react as they think is within the rules. If the player with the ball is infringed and in the umpire's judgement hasn't moved off his line, then it's a 50m penalty. If it is clear the player with the ball moved off his line first, then play on.

Am I missing something? What could be wrong with that approach?

This would also solve the problem of players having to hear the play-on call when there is a large noisy crowd, eg a grand final.

they need to make use of the boundary umpire not in play. Get him to line up behind the goal kicker, but directly in line from the mark to the goals, then it's plain and simple for the field umpire to know when the goalkicker is off their line. They player knows it too because they can see the mark and the goals and they should be in line....

One area the umpires might make focus of the week, or better, the season is players marking it close to goal on an angle. Just saw a Port player mark near the point post and immediately start coming around forcing his opponent to go over the mark sideways to stop him suddenly playing on and scoring an easy goal. The umps then just blew time on and forced him back on his line. If it happened anywhere else on the field it would have been play on. Seems to me it should either be 50m penalty (which would be very unfair) or better, play on as soon as he deliberately moved sideways. Trouble by the time the ump reacted and called play on the defender would have had no hope of doing anything. Alternatively, if the ump blew time-off as soon as anyone marked it near goal on an angle it would be unfair to deny the player with the ball the chance to play on.

Which lets me mount my usual hobby-horse. The umps are frequently very late calling play-on to the disadvantage of the player on the mark I think players should make the decision as to whether the player with the ball has played on or not and react as they think is within the rules. If the player with the ball is infringed and in the umpire's judgement hasn't moved off his line, then it's a 50m penalty. If it is clear the player with the ball moved off his line first, then play on.

Am I missing something? What could be wrong with that approach?

This would also solve the problem of players having to hear the play-on call when there is a large noisy crowd, eg a grand final.

I agree 100%. I've wanted this rule in place for years.

Their focus was to be pathetic, inconsistent maggots. Mission accomplished.

Whilst we had a lot more free kicks, theirs were softer and led to so many shots on goal. Theirs were far more influential in the game.

Having said that, we didn't lose because of the umpiring, we lost because of ourselves.

One rule I haven't seen enforced in ages is kicking in danger. Does it still exist?

One rule I haven't seen enforced in ages is kicking in danger. Does it still exist?

There was one last night where a Bulldog just thrust his foot almost into one of our players' face.

That rule almost never gets paid anymore.

There were a couple of instances last night that got me thnking of the game in which Jeff White had his jaw broken by a dangerous kick.

Not paying ridiculous holding the ball free kicks was the focus for this round.

One rule I haven't seen enforced in ages is kicking in danger. Does it still exist?

Good point. There is no upside to kicking off the ground in our game. Doesn't show courage or skill in any way. If a player is within the area it should be an absolute no-brainer to pay a free. What about the old hockey rule. Kick off ground but you cant end up with the foot near your face ala Darren Bennett.

They still have a way to go on the sliding in rule - Cross got pinged for sliding in when the opponent came running in from the side at the last minute. Again there has to be some common sense - when a player chooses to slide into the contest, sees the legs and takes them out then that is what the rule is intended to stamp out. With Cross, the player came from side unsighted.

It got worse that there was a similar incident 5 minutes later down in our forward line that did not get awarded.

(I dont think either of them should have been awarded)

The competition has a huge problem with the 'advantage' rule. It's almost impossible to make it fair for both sides. The side that gives away the free kick has to stop. They can't tackle anyone for fear of giving away a 50 metre penalty; yet the team with the free paid to them is free to run away with the ball. Conversely, without the benefit of the advantage rule, teams could give away 'professional' free kicks to slow the attacking team and allow them (the offending team) to get numbers back.

In other codes, such as field hockey, the referee indicates with an arm that a free will be paid should the team to whom the free would go lose the advantage of the current play. The whistle only gets blown and the free paid if the referee believes the team to whom it is being paid has lost the advantage. I don't know if it would be possible to do this in AFL (seems possible in theory, but perhaps it might be too hard in practice?) but I'd love to see it trialled.

They still have a way to go on the sliding in rule - Cross got pinged for sliding in when the opponent came running in from the side at the last minute. Again there has to be some common sense - when a player chooses to slide into the contest, sees the legs and takes them out then that is what the rule is intended to stamp out. With Cross, the player came from side unsighted.

It got worse that there was a similar incident 5 minutes later down in our forward line that did not get awarded.

(I dont think either of them should have been awarded)

Problem here is not that Cross got pinged. He had a choice to keep his feet, which is the bravest, most skilled, most aesthetic way to get a ground ball.

The problem was Byrnes didn't get the free when he was slid under.

Problem here is not that Cross got pinged. He had a choice to keep his feet, which is the bravest, most skilled, most aesthetic way to get a ground ball.

The problem was Byrnes didn't get the free when he was slid under.

Will come the time when we take on the rugby union rule - the ball can only be played when you are on your feet.

Cross was blindsided when he slid in - to me thats the difference ( and I also felt the Byrnes one was similar).

But you are right either pay neither - or as you have said - pay both.

What's wrong with applying ALL the rules ALL the time?

The decision this round not to pay holding the ball (except once against Jack Watts) is absurd.

Then there is the emphasis on 15 metre passes that was forgotten this week so Minson can be paid a mark.

Really laughable. It makes it incredibly tough on the players - our tackles were not rewarded.

The AFL umpiring department is a joke. Just apply th rules consistently.

And don't get me started on that free to Crameri against Dunn...although like others have said we only have ourselves to blame for losing.

They were clever around the packs up forward and we squandered our chances in the last.

Roos obviously sees what every man and his dog can. There is an umpiring focus, but amazingly, not communicated to clubs.

Good to see Roos hurt at a soft umpring decision as late as 3 days later. If a junior coach did this, or even a VAFA coach, there would be a lot of people suggesting that they "move on". I love it. He is passionate, and gives a stuff. Sets high standards for his players, and accordingly, expects those creatures to uphold minimum standards.

This week shows me that he (a) hates losing and/or (b) has that competitive us-against-them vibe back.

Roos obviously sees what every man and his dog can. There is an umpiring focus, but amazingly, not communicated to clubs.

Good to see Roos hurt at a soft umpring decision as late as 3 days later. If a junior coach did this, or even a VAFA coach, there would be a lot of people suggesting that they "move on". I love it. He is passionate, and gives a stuff. Sets high standards for his players, and accordingly, expects those creatures to uphold minimum standards.

This week shows me that he (a) hates losing and/or (b) has that competitive us-against-them vibe back.

Also, when was the last time we had a coach bold enough to criticise the umpiring? Can't recall, but then age tells.....

Tonight in Adelaide clearly there was no focus on incorrect disposal. I lost count of the number of times Magpie players threw it and even did a Cooney by placing it on the ground in a tackle.

And don't start me on the 8 metre pass for a mark. 2 Pie shots at goal, only one successful, from VicKick passes.

Also, when was the last time we had a coach bold enough to criticise the umpiring? Can't recall, but then age tells.....

Norm Smith did a few times as I recall.

Tonight in Adelaide clearly there was no focus on incorrect disposal. I lost count of the number of times Magpie players threw it and even did a Cooney by placing it on the ground in a tackle.

And don't start me on the 8 metre pass for a mark. 2 Pie shots at goal, only one successful, from VicKick passes.

Agree with all that, but I think the focus must be on hearing the siren.

The AFL don't have a clear policy on this after the Saints game in Tassie a while back. It used to be you play to the whistle and that's what McLaughlin said tonight in commentary but obviously that wasn't the case in Tassie and mustn't be the case now as the umpires went to goal review. Didn't think you could goal review a siren.

...and another thing. Thanks AFL for dropping out the umpires mic when they were discussing the issue in the centre. Yep, it's all about being open and honest now Gillon...integrity my a....

One rule I haven't seen enforced in ages is kicking in danger. Does it still exist?

Also spoils. I always believed that the spoiler could not meet his opponent face on but had to turn his back as he attempted to spoil. It used to be called a charge.

Also spoils. I always believed that the spoiler could not meet his opponent face on but had to turn his back as he attempted to spoil. It used to be called a charge.

spoiling face on is fine provided that the only contact is with the ball. Quite a fine art form. However any contact with the opponent is / should be a free

Also, when was the last time we had a coach bold enough to criticise the umpiring? Can't recall, but then age tells.....

I seem to recall the great John Kennedy after a game saying to the media something like, "As you know, I'm not allowed to discuss the performance of the umpires or I'll be fined. So, today, I'm REALLY not going to talk about the umpiring."

Don't known whether he was fined for that or not.

I was interested i saw a grab of Buckley and he said something along the lines of

yeah were getting the umpires down to just discuss a few things we do at training and clarify what we are required to do in match play

I have said that MFC needed to this this many times in the past. Not as a criticsism of their performance but rather a criticism of our tackling or placement efforts.

at the same time we could show them that above our collar line is where our head is and that the place we display our number is the back

and ask if we need to alter our jumper to help them recognise those features more easily.

Obviously slightly tongue in cheek

But in reality how can we help improve their job and help improve our performance through better understanding