2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

While players have 30 seconds, if umpires think they are running down the clock they can call play on.  It was pretty obvious what ANB and Lewis were doing but we got away with it. 

It would take a brave umpire to call play-on in such a tight game in the last minute but I think they will be be reminded of the rule at their weekly meetings. 

That aside it was a delight to hear the siren.  That is 3 recent games we have won from being aware and clever in the last minutes of play.

I don't believe that is true. Can you point to the rule that says that is the case?

 

1 hour ago, Bay Riffin said:

there was no gamble. it was safe as houses, unless an umpire wants to not follow the rules of the game.

 

An easy change to stop this would be to allow one shot on goal, and if passed to a marking player, they are deemed marks in general play and you get the standard 7 seconds, meaning you can compose yourself a little bit, but you have to move it on.

Is that actually a rule?

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't believe that is true. Can you point to the rule that says that is the case?

 

I'm with you on this, jnr.  If they're within kicking distance and they go back to take their kick then they get the full 30 seconds.  ANB made no indication that he was doing otherwise, so he got his full 30 seconds and he used it superbly.

I did especially enjoy the fact it was the enemy of the Carlton fans who kicked the goal at the end. Delicious.

4 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I didn't think it was obvious at all what they were doing.

ANB looked set to take the kick, so much so that nobody bothered manning up Lewis.

I didn't see it coming and neither did most people at the ground. For all the umps knew, Lewis was telling ANB to settle and take the kick. 

It's not until you see it close up on TV and you can see him peering around that you think he might pass it off. 

I couldn't get to the game so was one of those screaming at the tv!  The camera was focused on ANB and he was very fidgety and seemed to look at the clock every other second.  I held my breath hoping the umpire wouldn't call him on 'time wasting'.  Still 35 secs to play.  I wasn't so nervous with Lewis as when he it was obvious he was running down the clock there was about 15 sec to play.

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

I don't believe that is true. Can you point to the rule that says that is the case?

Two weeks ago, Higgins was told to play-on when the 30 seconds expired.  Problem was there was no shot clock for him to see.  The AFL policy at the time was no shot clock in the last 2 minutes of a quarter.  Thereafter the AFL revisited the shot clock and decided to keep it up for the whole game.

To answer your question:  They also reinforced the umpires right to call play on before the 30 secs expires: "AFL football operations manager Simon Lethlean confirmed umpires will have the power to call 'play on' if a player is clearly seeking to delay the resumption of play by running the clock down". http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/afl-backflip-on-the-shot-clock

On tv it seemed obvious what ANB was doing but the umpires let him have the full 30 sec.   It was the right thing to do given the delicate balance of the game.  Had the Carlton players been more alert and gestured to the umpire the ball may never have got to Lewis and they would have had about 35 seconds to score the goal and win by 4 points.

 

I got the impression that while everyone is aware of the 30 sec rule they are not as aware that the umpire can reduce it if player is deemed to be time wasting.  For mine that is dangerous because umpires make mistakes and I would hate to see a game decided by it.

Nonetheless, players need to be smarter:  put the ball down, do up their laces, pull up socks.  Going forward I think umpires will be more alert to ANB somewhat poorly disguised (but brilliantly effective) tactics. 

 

13 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I couldn't get to the game so was one of those screaming at the tv!  The camera was focused on ANB and he was very fidgety and seemed to look at the clock every other second.  I held my breath hoping the umpire wouldn't call him on 'time wasting'.  Still 35 secs to play.  I wasn't so nervous with Lewis as when he it was obvious he was running down the clock there was about 15 sec to play.

Two weeks ago, Higgins was told to play-on when the 30 seconds expired.  Problem was there was no shot clock for him to see.  The AFL policy at the time was no shot clock in the last 2 minutes of a quarter.  Thereafter the AFL revisited the shot clock and decided to keep it up for the whole game.

To answer your question:  They also reinforced the umpires right to call play on before the 30 secs expires: "AFL football operations manager Simon Lethlean confirmed umpires will have the power to call 'play on' if a player is clearly seeking to delay the resumption of play by running the clock down". http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/afl-backflip-on-the-shot-clock

On tv it seemed obvious what ANB was doing but the umpires let him have the full 30 sec.   It was the right thing to do given the delicate balance of the game.  Had the Carlton players been more alert and gestured to the umpire the ball may never have got to Lewis and they would have had about 35 seconds to score the goal and win by 4 points.

 

I got the impression that while everyone is aware of the 30 sec rule they are not as aware that the umpire can reduce it if player is deemed to be time wasting.  For mine that is dangerous because umpires make mistakes and I would hate to see a game decided by it.

Nonetheless, players need to be smarter:  put the ball down, do up their laces, pull up socks.  Going forward I think umpires will be more alert to ANB somewhat poorly disguised (but brilliantly effective) tactics. 

 

Well that is the first I have seen of that. I have read the 2017 Rules of the Game and there is no mention of it.

I predict this will be a dog's breakfast. More subjectiveness about whether a player is running the clock down. I am surprised then that the blonde git (no 22) didn't call play on from 10m away.

With the 2nd bolded bit the umps always call time on if the player puts the ball on hte ground. In fact this is the smart thing to do if you are 8pts down with 40 secs on the clock and shooting for goal. Immediately put the ball on the ground. If the goal is scored the clock stops and you have a go at getting a centre clearance and another goal.

 

If the AFL change the rules then it will again be an example of knee jerk reactions to a one off incident.

As in any sport, if there is a small amount of time to go on the clock, one team will be trying to score and the other to wind down the clock. It is part of being a good side, being able to possess the ball to win a close game. Think of soccer when one team takes it forward and tries to hold the ball near the corner.

Just because this rule is exploited once, does not mean it should be changed. The 30 second clock is a great initiative as it gives a player a breather to try and compose himself.

I think this "time wasting" option that the umpires have is a complete farce.  If a player marks the ball within reasonable scoring range, he should ALWAYS be given the full 30 seconds to take his kick.  If it is ALWAYS the rule, with no exceptions, then there is no grey area in the rule.

Should players use the rule to their advantage, like ANB & Jordie did, then all well and good for being smart enough to use the rule to advantage.

Players have had 30 seconds to kick for goal for a long time now, it was actually brought in to reduce how long players like Matthew Lloyd took to kick for goal.

The difference now is there is a clock showing the 30 seconds where in the past players had to rely on the umpires telling them how long they had.

31 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

Two weeks ago, Higgins was told to play-on when the 30 seconds expired.  Problem was there was no shot clock for him to see.  The AFL policy at the time was no shot clock in the last 2 minutes of a quarter.  Thereafter the AFL revisited the shot clock and decided to keep it up for the whole game.

 

 

Wait wait wait.

I am very confused.

Didn't the AFL introduce the 2 minute NO SHOT CLOCK rule after Mason Wood milked it to win a game last year?

So the AFL introduce a rule with little forethought, knee-jerk a change to it, and then knee-jerk the EXACT REVERSE

Seriously this game is administered by monkeys.

5 minutes ago, Vagg said:

I think this "time wasting" option that the umpires have is a complete farce.  If a player marks the ball within reasonable scoring range, he should ALWAYS be given the full 30 seconds to take his kick.  If it is ALWAYS the rule, with no exceptions, then there is no grey area in the rule.

Should players use the rule to their advantage, like ANB & Jordie did, then all well and good for being smart enough to use the rule to advantage.

We all agree!  Problem it is that it is at the umpires discretion and the AFL are not going to change that. 

I fear what an 'unfriendly' umpire will do in circumstances like Sunday.  Just look at unfriendly umpiring in last year's GF.

As I said players need to get smarter at disguising it like they have with DOOB and deliberate rushed behinds.

1 hour ago, Dante said:

Then it becomes arbitrary, if a player miskicks the ball and a teammate marks it 20 metres out, does he get the 30 or 7 seconds. It could be a pack mark in the goal square or a mark in the opposite pocket of it's a kick across goal, who decides which it is and on what basis.  Imagine if a player in a grand final marks the miskick and is winded and the umpire deems it to be a 7 seconder and he has to play on without the time to steady.

 

Quite right.  And then what about just chipping it sideways in general play for a couple of minutes. How would they decide when that is time wasting compared with  trying to find a better option (distance, angle, find an opening to a lead, or player who is a better kick).  There is enough for umpires to second guess already without adding more.  How close to the siren does it have to be? Presumably you'd have to have someone telling the umpires.  You'd also have to apply such a whacky rule to every quarter regardless of the score.   Where would it end?

On 09/07/2017 at 6:12 PM, jako13 said:

releif

Watts and Tyson back next week and we get a little bit better. then Salem the next week and we get better then the captains and its all out assault leading in to finals

 

but apart from Kent who else do you drop.. surely not No 21  he is needed in the Team...

1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

If the AFL change the rules then it will again be an example of knee jerk reactions to a one off incident.

As in any sport, if there is a small amount of time to go on the clock, one team will be trying to score and the other to wind down the clock. It is part of being a good side, being able to possess the ball to win a close game. Think of soccer when one team takes it forward and tries to hold the ball near the corner.

Just because this rule is exploited once, does not mean it should be changed. The 30 second clock is a great initiative as it gives a player a breather to try and compose himself.

Meet Mr William Thomas Francis Knee Jerk  - the new AFL rules consultant .  

Take down the shot clock.....put it back again......not in last 2 minutes......back again.  Mandatory 30 seconds....umpires call.

2 hours ago, P-man said:

I did especially enjoy the fact it was the enemy of the Carlton fans who kicked the goal at the end. Delicious.

sweet indeed   loved it was Mr LEWIS

5 hours ago, sue said:

Good grief Dunstall - some of these commentators must be so short of things to say they just make fools of themselves.  

Variously attributed to Abe Lincoln or Mark Twain - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Certainly applies to Dunstall in this context, but to so many dunces in the footy media.

2 hours ago, Dante said:

Then it becomes arbitrary, if a player miskicks the ball and a teammate marks it 20 metres out, does he get the 30 or 7 seconds. It could be a pack mark in the goal square or a mark in the opposite pocket of it's a kick across goal, who decides which it is and on what basis.  Imagine if a player in a grand final marks the miskick and is winded and the umpire deems it to be a 7 seconder and he has to play on without the time to steady.

 

There is no rule that I have ever seen that says a player has 7 seconds to kick after a mark or free kick.

Is there any other game in the world where the rules are so unknown or where they get changed on a whim by the ruling body? And without telling anyone?

i can't see the problem

if a player within 50m of goal with a set shot can find another target also within the 50m arc when nearly all 36 players are crowding it, then wtf does that say about the other team?

answer: deserve to lose

simple really.......no rule/interpretation changes need

22 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Variously attributed to Abe Lincoln or Mark Twain - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Certainly applies to Dunstall in this context, but to so many dunces in the footy media.

Like lemmings to the slaughter........

6 hours ago, Vagg said:

Jason Dunstall had a little rant last night about this.  Reckoned that, as ANB had taken his 30 seconds before dishing off to Lewis, that Lewis should not have been allowed another 30 seconds.  Was moaning that it was blatant abuse of the rules to run down the clock, and that the Carlton supporters would not have liked it!!

Thankfully, Browny got stuck into him and told him he was being a complete Boof Head, and that what ANB & Lewis did was smart play, using the rules to their advantage.

I usually think Jason has some good things to say.  But that was just dumb!  Could have mistaken him for just another pathetic Blues supporter!

Dunstall hates Melbourne and always has, he's one of the few idiots in the media that still spouts the Melbourne/Snow line, perhaps, in light of the falling attendance of Hawks supporters, it may be their turn to hit the slopes. 

The guys a clown who just doesn't do his homework and has been out of the game too long to be relevant any longer. 

I can't believe all this shot clock talk. It's seriously just whinging for the sake of it. 

"Get rid of the shot clock" why? Players are taking a set length of time, often shorter than they would back in the day. CB mentioned Lloyd, he'd take 45 seconds. If there was no shot clock Ben Brown would take 60 seconds. The 30 seconds is nothing new apart from being a set timeline. Players been milking set shot time since fire was invented. 

And as others have mentioned, clock management is a part of almost every single major sport in the world. 

Simple question for the Carlton players, why weren't they manning up Lewis? If they man him up and ANB is forced to kick and he misses they get their chance. They didn't, so they don't get their chance. 

As for the 30sec rule, I agree with those who say "no grey area". If a player has 30sec he has 30sec, it's on the other team for allowing them the opportunity. Beyond the player just standing there laughing about it you can't say for sure he's not having a shot. 

As I say it's the responsibility of the team defending to make sure they can't run the clock down like that. 

4 hours ago, Nasher said:

Wonder what @A F thought of the game? Not like him not to get involved on the argy bargy. No activity since Saturday in fact.

That's one helluva honeymoon.

I'll step in as proxy: Tyson's disposal continues to improve - not a single clanger on the w/e. Watts still not going hard enough on occasion. Jake Melksham best-on with 6 tackles.

4 hours ago, P-man said:

I did especially enjoy the fact it was the enemy of the Carlton fans who kicked the goal at the end. Delicious.

That was not lost on me either P-man

If ANB had taken the full-allotment and turned around and kicked 15m laterally toward the boundary or slightly backwards to a player within say a fifty-sixty meter range (Tmac for example, who would be more of a bet from that position than ANB from 40m), there would be serious media/public fall-out this week and a working committee assembled to come up with some adjustment in the rules. It demonstrates there's an issue. And that the AFL doesn't generally conduct thought experiments when implementing new rules.