Rule question - advantage rule

[sue 9,107]

I was just watching Q3 of the St Kilda match. When Hogan hit the post from a few metres out just after a free was awarded to us close to goal it was deemed he played on even though it was instantaneously after the whistle went. My question is, when is it 'advantage' and when is it not?

When a team kicks a ball forward just as the whistle goes, if it is marked by an opponent it is always deemed as no advantage to the team and is brought back. So why was Hogan's miss not brought back - same situation of an instant action which is not to the team's advantage.(*)

On the other hand, often when a team kicks a ball forward just as the whistle goes, it is brought back even if it gets marked by the same team up field. No one has had time to 'stop', so that seems unfair to the team.

Can anyone explain please?

(*unless scores were even with 1 second to go in which case it would be to our advantage, but that cant be judged by an umpire anyway.)

[RalphiusMaximus 6,076]

As I understand it it's all about whether the player has chosen to take the advantage or not. Hogan was deemed to have taken the advantage on offer, so it's play on. They are assuming that the call had come early enough for him to have registered it and halted his action but that he chose not to do so. I think this is actually fair enough given how he reacted after the miss. Had he kicked as the whistle went then a case could be made for bringing it back and letting them take the kick instead.

[Biffen 12,944]

There is no point trying to work this out.

They umpire to crowd reaction and bad acting.

Apart from that- I want no 28 hunted down and brought to me.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

The AFL has the most ludicrous advantage rule in professional sport.

In most sports, if there is a free, the ump will signify it with a raised arm and let play go, if there is an advantage (and they get a chance to assess it this way) play on. No advantage, blow the whistle and pay the free.

Implementing it in the AFL would lead to less confusion and a more free flowing game.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,076]

The AFL has the most ludicrous advantage rule in professional sport.

In most sports, if there is a free, the ump will signify it with a raised arm and let play go, if there is an advantage (and they get a chance to assess it this way) play on. No advantage, blow the whistle and pay the free.

Implementing it in the AFL would lead to less confusion and a more free flowing game.

If they were to adopt the NRL's high contact rule as well I think we'd all benefit.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

If they were to adopt the NRL's high contact rule as well I think we'd all benefit.

How does that operate?

Sorry, don't follow NRL nor live in Aust

[Redleg 40,969]

The simple answer is that our game and rules are open to interpretation by umpires and therefore not every decision will be the correct one.

[sue 9,107]

The simple answer is that our game and rules are open to interpretation by umpires and therefore not every decision will be the correct one.

True, but I expect you'd agree that the rules should be framed as far as possible to minimise this. When there is obvious advantage it is almost as if the umpires blow the whistle just to show their masters (and maybe the crowd) that they didn't miss the free kick. Rod Grinter's post makes a lot of sense.

[Webber 10,475]

The AFL has the most ludicrous advantage rule in professional sport.

In most sports, if there is a free, the ump will signify it with a raised arm and let play go, if there is an advantage (and they get a chance to assess it this way) play on. No advantage, blow the whistle and pay the free.

Implementing it in the AFL would lead to less confusion and a more free flowing game.

Perfect solution, and works in other sports.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

The simple answer is that our game and rules are open to interpretation by umpires and therefore not every decision will be the correct one.

I can't over the fact that every season we hear phrases such as "we're now interpreting this rule so that such and such" and "under the old interpretation of that rule" ...

How badly framed are these rules that they require so much "interpretation"?

Take tennis. "Under the new interpretation of the fault rule, a let service that would have been a clear winner will count as an ace unless the receiver had an opportunity to return that was denied by the early call of the word 'let' by the central umpire". Would be ludicrous but we get this all the time in the AFL.

I recognise that to say they "should be black and white" is unrealistic -- human nature after all -- but fer chrissake, why don't the rules committee, the umpires director, etc, work towards getting them as black and white as possible, and eliminating "interpretation".

Until they do, we will continue to see the weekly lottery of decision making.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

I was just watching Q3 of the St Kilda match. When Hogan hit the post from a few metres out just after a free was awarded to us close to goal it was deemed he played on even though it was instantaneously after the whistle went. My question is, when is it 'advantage' and when is it not?

When a team kicks a ball forward just as the whistle goes, if it is marked by an opponent it is always deemed as no advantage to the team and is brought back. So why was Hogan's miss not brought back - same situation of an instant action which is not to the team's advantage.(*)

On the other hand, often when a team kicks a ball forward just as the whistle goes, it is brought back even if it gets marked by the same team up field. No one has had time to 'stop', so that seems unfair to the team.

Can anyone explain please?

(*unless scores were even with 1 second to go in which case it would be to our advantage, but that cant be judged by an umpire anyway.)

Excellent question, Sue.

I reckon it was "umpire error". It was quickly overlooked, because StKilda were quick to take the kick-in.

Are you like me, watching replays of a game lost by less than a goal? I keep seeing minute facets of the game like a slight fumble, or a contrary bounce, and I think if hadn't happened, we'd have won! Futile, I know!

Edited June 28, 2015 by Jumping Jack Clennett

[deanox 9,940]

It should be simple. Whistle means stop. That's all that is needed. Any tackle or action by the infringing team after the whistle immediately incurs a 50 m penalty. And all players can continue to compete until they hear the whistle so we don't get the ridiculous situation where all players stop except one who runs off.

[sue 9,107]

It should be simple. Whistle means stop. That's all that is needed. Any tackle or action by the infringing team after the whistle immediately incurs a 50 m penalty. And all players can continue to compete until they hear the whistle so we don't get the ridiculous situation where all players stop except one who runs off.

The trouble with that is that it leads to 'professional' free kicks given away to stop the play when the other team has a possible advantage.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

The trouble with that is that it leads to 'professional' free kicks given away to stop the play when the other team has a possible advantage.

Not if the umps don't blow the whistle straight away as in my example