The Advantage Rule

[bulldogtragic]

Isn't there a technical thing now if the non-officiating umpire pays the free kick, then the officiating umpire can't call play on? I thought something like this hurt us a few years back. If there was no technical out yesterday, then we were literally robbed a goal, and Macrae too.

[Twodogs]

Isn't there a technical thing now if the non-officiating umpire pays the free kick, then the officiating umpire can't call play on? I thought something like this hurt us a few years back. If there was no technical out yesterday, then we were literally robbed a goal, and Macrae too.

We were robbed severel times. So many times that it's difficult to remember which was when and by which umpire.

[soupman]

Isn't there a technical thing now if the non-officiating umpire pays the free kick, then the officiating umpire can't call play on? I thought something like this hurt us a few years back. If there was no technical out yesterday, then we were literally robbed a goal, and Macrae too.

Yeah I member that instance against Essendon.

I watched the replay of yesterdays free with that in mind, the controlling umpire mad the call and refused to allow advantage. God knows why.

[bulldogtragic]

Yeah I member that instance against Essendon.

I watched the replay of yesterdays free with that in mind, the controlling umpire mad the call and refused to allow advantage. God knows why.

Gold star for watching the replay.

[westdog54]

Yeah I member that instance against Essendon.

I watched the replay of yesterdays free with that in mind, the controlling umpire mad the call and refused to allow advantage. God knows why.

That's the one. Snuffed out our comeback and 5 minutes later Clay Smith did his knee in a contest with Dyson Heppell.

[chef]

I never liked the advantage rule since it was introduced, I think in the 80s. The reason, too many times it is interpreted incorrectly.

When players hear a whistle blow, they are programmed to stop, which often means the smart player plays on and gets many metres ahead of flat footed opposition. It becomes a double advantage.

It should be like soccer where the ref will play the advantage without the whistle and if it doesnt turn out to be advantage he'll blow and bring it back.

[bornadog]

It should be like soccer where the ref will play the advantage without the whistle and if it doesnt turn out to be advantage he'll blow and bring it back.

I could live with that.

[soupman]

Gold star for watching the replay.

I did it to see if we really were screwed by the umpires. They made some bad calls (mainly the ridiculous non htb's as well as this advantage call) but the rest I didn't feel were that far off.

It should be like soccer where the ref will play the advantage without the whistle and if it doesnt turn out to be advantage he'll blow and bring it back.

I would be in favour of this, the main downside is that considering there are many in the crowd who are yet to cotton on to the idea of the switch, or not kicking the ball immediately, can you imagine the whining when the umpire pays advantage and the crowd thinks they didn't get the free?

Another downside would be that determining if something is advantage or not would fall into the umpires hands again, as players can't be responsible for making a call they don't know they are making.

[bulldogtragic]

We could just demand higher standards? Mistakes by umpires will happen most games, but this shouldn't have been one of them. We tell the AFEL to stop changing rules, to stop making the game harder to umpire. Paying advantage isn't a complicated aspect for an umpire, no need to change the rule. Change, yes. Change the umpire down a level, use it as an example to the senior panel to everyone to review not making bad stuff ups on an easy decision/non decision.

If the player takes it, and has a split second before a tackle etc, then 'play on'. If the player stuffs it, bad luck.

[Twodogs]

How is it that an umpire further away from the play is the controlling umpire rather than an umpire right next to the play? Like with Higgins last week.

[westdog54]

I did it to see if we really were screwed by the umpires. They made some bad calls (mainly the ridiculous non htb's as well as this advantage call) but the rest I didn't feel were that far off.



I would be in favour of this, the main downside is that considering there are many in the crowd who are yet to cotton on to the idea of the switch, or not kicking the ball immediately, can you imagine the whining when the umpire pays advantage and the crowd thinks they didn't get the free?

Another downside would be that determining if something is advantage or not would fall into the umpires hands again, as players can't be responsible for making a call they don't know they are making.

In both rugby and soccer, a clear signal is made by the referee when signalling advantage. In AFL I would simply envisage it being the umpire extending his arm as though paying a free kick, and then the 'waving' motion when the advantage has been taken. i.e:

1) Infringement spotted. Umpire extends arm and calls "advantage high tackle/holding/throw/holding the ball etc". Then one of two things happen.
2a) The team being awarded a free kick gains an advantage. The umpire uses the current 'waving' signal used to indicate advantage and calls 'advantage over'
2b) No advantage is gained. The umpire blows the whistle and awards the free kick.

Surely that's not so confusing that it can't be enforced correctly?

In terms of the players 'making a call they don't know they are making, my advice would simply be "play to the whistle".

[chef]

In both rugby and soccer, a clear signal is made by the referee when signalling advantage. In AFL I would simply envisage it being the umpire extending his arm as though paying a free kick, and then the 'waving' motion when the advantage has been taken. i.e:

1) Infringement spotted. Umpire extends arm and calls "advantage high tackle/holding/throw/holding the ball etc". Then one of two things happen.
2a) The team being awarded a free kick gains an advantage. The umpire uses the current 'waving' signal used to indicate advantage and calls 'advantage over'
2b) No advantage is gained. The umpire blows the whistle and awards the free kick.

Surely that's not so confusing that it can't be enforced correctly?

In terms of the players 'making a call they don't know they are making, my advice would simply be "play to the whistle".

If it works for the biggest game on the planet i dont see why it wouldnt work for our game. Seems like common sense.

[always right]

I did it to see if we really were screwed by the umpires. They made some bad calls (mainly the ridiculous non htb's as well as this advantage call) but the rest I didn't feel were that far off.


I would be in favour of this, the main downside is that considering there are many in the crowd who are yet to cotton on to the idea of the switch, or not kicking the ball immediately, can you imagine the whining when the umpire pays advantage and the crowd thinks they didn't get the free?

Another downside would be that determining if something is advantage or not would fall into the umpires hands again, as players can't be responsible for making a call they don't know they are making.

.
How did the free kick against Bont in the last look (supposed sling tackle)?

In regard to delaying the call until they can assess advantage, I think umpires might struggle not blowing the whistle immediately. In regard to the no-advantage call on Saturday, I don't know why one of the other umpires couldn't have over ruled. They do it all the time and that was an obvious one. I knew as soon as it was recalled Dahl would miss.

[soupman]

.
How did the free kick against Bont in the last look (supposed sling tackle)?

Didn't get that far. Can you blame me?

.
In regard to delaying the call until they can assess advantage, I think umpires might struggle not blowing the whistle immediately. In regard to the no-advantage call on Saturday, I don't know why one of the other umpires couldn't have over ruled. They do it all the time and that was an obvious one. I knew as soon as it was recalled Dahl would miss.

It's not really an issue tbf usually. The delaying the whistle in reality is more so that all the players don't stop playing as opposed to fixing one of two instances in the last 5 years I can remember an umpire stuffing it up. Really the current system is fine, and the idiotic decision to call it back is something that is clearly the umpires fault.

[SonofScray]

Can anyone explain why it wasn't advantage? Just doesn't make sense,it had to be an error.