Advantage Rule

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:23 pm

Just another example of how the AFL use the advantage rule poorly.

The opening minutes of the Sydney v Collingwood tonight sees Rocca get a free for a push in the back, Thomas crumbs the ball off the contest and kicks the goal. The umpire decided before seeing what happened with Thomas' kick that there was "no advantage" and so Rocca has to take the free from 50 out and misses the set shot. Isn't that a disadvantage to the team who got the free?

In other sports they'd see what the outcome was and if it Thomas didn't kick the goal they would have brought the ball back to Rocca to have a shot.

dingus · Post by **dingus** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:27 pm

The rugby version of advantage is fantastic. THere is no confusion and no controversy. The AFL one is stupid.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:40 pm

100% agree Dingus it has to be changed.... Dont blow the whistle after an infringment it is as easy as that.

Wait to see what happens cos this way no play stops they keep going and we see a true reflection of how much advantage the team gets. If there is no advantage then blow the whistle and bring it back...

Gatsid · Post by **Gatsid** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:54 pm

bomberdonnie wrote:100% agree Dingus it has to be changed.... Dont blow the whistle after an infringment it is as easy as that.

Wait to see what happens cos this way no play stops they keep going and we see a true reflection of how much advantage the team gets. If there is no advantage then blow the whistle and bring it back...

I see where you are comming from, but with free kicks that are 50-50 if they arnt called and explained straight away then it will look really poor when a decision is called back and explained when it was tiggy touchwood to begin with. It will make it seem like the umpire wasn't sure on the decision (not suprising) and therefore makes them look even worse than they do already.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:29 pm

Gatsid wrote:
bomberdonnie wrote:100% agree Dingus it has to be changed.... Dont blow the whistle after an infringment it is as easy as that.

Wait to see what happens cos this way no play stops they keep going and we see a true reflection of how much advantage the team gets. If there is no advantage then blow the whistle and bring it back...
I see where you are comming from, but with free kicks that are 50-50 if they arnt called and explained straight away then it will look really poor when a decision is called back and explained when it was tiggy touchwood to begin with. It will make it seem like the umpire wasn't sure on the decision (not suprising) and therefore makes them look even worse than they do already.

Sorry Gatsid I dont see the relevance of this... It is irrelevant of whether the umpire 'looks' like they are sure of the decision. It looks far worse in cases like tonight where the umpire says that 'IF' Thomas had have missed the goal then there would not have been advantage, This is ridiculous because he DID kick it. It could easily be fixed by the umpire holding off on the whistle then making the decison once he confirms whether or not the goal was kicked.

Gatsid · Post by **Gatsid** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:04 pm

I wasn't disagreeing with you mate, I agree with everything you have to say. I'm more pointing out that it would make things look bad, then the media would have a field day everyweek, every single decision would become "the reason so and so lost" and it wouldn't last because Vlad and co. bow down to the media.

canberrabomber · Post by **canberrabomber** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:35 pm

The purpose of the advantage rule is to allow the team in receipt of a "free" to continue play, rather then stop and take the free disposal. It was meant to promote continuous play and provide an option to a team where advantageous to continue play rather than stopping.

While I would agree that there is no confusion with the rugby "advantage rule", it is not an advantage rule as I have defined it above. The rule as often applied in rugby, allows the team to continue play (not forever, I know) until they make a "mistake", often a strategic error, then return to the original penalty. It is not unusual for this advantage to continue for a couple of minutes. This is not an advantage rule. It is a rule that allows a team to make a free mistake significantly after the original infringement.

Another point I would make about Rugby is that although the referee does not blow the whistle, he signals a penalty and often calls an advantage so the players are aware that there is advantage being played. I am not sure how well the no whistle practice would work in Australian Rules, where more than one umpire can award free kicks. It would need rigorous investigation before implementing it.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:38 pm

bomberdonnie wrote:
Gatsid wrote:
bomberdonnie wrote:100% agree Dingus it has to be changed.... Dont blow the whistle after an infringment it is as easy as that.

Wait to see what happens cos this way no play stops they keep going and we see a true reflection of how much advantage the team gets. If there is no advantage then blow the whistle and bring it back...
I see where you are comming from, but with free kicks that are 50-50 if they arnt called and explained straight away then it will look really poor when a decision is called back and explained when it was tiggy touchwood to begin with. It will make it seem like the umpire wasn't sure on the decision (not suprising) and therefore makes them look even worse than they do already.
Sorry Gatsid I dont see the relevance of this... It is irrelevant of whether the umpire 'looks' like they are sure of the decision. It looks far worse in cases like tonight where the umpire says that 'IF' Thomas had have missed the goal then there would not have been advantage, This is ridiculous because he DID kick it. It could easily be fixed by the umpire holding off on the whistle then making the decison once he confirms whether or not the goal was kicked.

What made it even more ridiculous was that Rocca then kicked a behind from the resultant free kick. A distinct disadvantage to Collingwood.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:40 pm

canberrabomber wrote:The purpose of the advantage rule is to allow the team in receipt of a "free" to continue play, rather then stop and take the free disposal. It was meant to promote continuous play and provide an option to a team where advantageous to continue play rather than stopping.

While I would agree that there is no confusion with the rugby "advantage rule", it is not an advantage rule as I have defined it above. The rule as often applied in rugby, allows the team to continue play (not forever, I know) until they make a "mistake", often a strategic error, then return to the original penalty. It is not unusual for this advantage to continue for a couple of minutes. This is not an advantage rule. It is a rule that allows a team to make a free mistake significantly after the original infringement.

Another point I would make about Rugby is that although the referee does not blow the whistle, he signals a penalty and often calls an advantage so the players are aware that there is advantage being played. I am not sure how well the no whistle practice would work in Australian Rules, where more than one umpire can award free kicks. It would need rigorous investigation before implementing it.

They only have to let play continue for a matter of seconds, if that, to see whether a single kick (such as that taken by Thomas tonight) is of advantage or not. If it went through for a behind then give Rocca the free. If it goes through for a goal, pay it. It's not rocket science, although those at AFL Headquarters would have you believe that it is much, much more complex.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:50 pm

Boyler_Room wrote:
canberrabomber wrote:The purpose of the advantage rule is to allow the team in receipt of a "free" to continue play, rather then stop and take the free disposal. It was meant to promote continuous play and provide an option to a team where advantageous to continue play rather than stopping.

While I would agree that there is no confusion with the rugby "advantage rule", it is not an advantage rule as I have defined it above. The rule as often applied in rugby, allows the team to continue play (not forever, I know) until they make a "mistake", often a strategic error, then return to the original penalty. It is not unusual for this advantage to continue for a couple of minutes. This is not an advantage rule. It is a rule that allows a team to make a free mistake significantly after the original infringement.

Another point I would make about Rugby is that although the referee does not blow the whistle, he signals a penalty and often calls an advantage so the players are aware that there is advantage being played. I am not sure how well the no whistle practice would work in Australian Rules, where more than one umpire can award free kicks. It would need rigorous investigation before implementing it.
They only have to let play continue for a matter of seconds, if that, to see whether a single kick (such as that taken by Thomas tonight) is of advantage or not. If it went through for a behind then give Rocca the free. If it goes through for a goal, pay it. It's not rocket science, although those at AFL Headquarters would have you believe that it is much, much more complex.

Indeed...

The comparison to Rugby is not to let one team play until they make a free mistake it is about the whistle being blown or not. The umpires can still call or signal free kick but just keep their whistles quiet for a change and let the game flow (There is a novel idea for Vlad and co!!).

canberrabomber · Post by **canberrabomber** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:09 pm

Boyler_Room wrote: They only have to let play continue for a matter of seconds, if that, to see whether a single kick (such as that taken by Thomas tonight) is of advantage or not. If it went through for a behind then give Rocca the free. If it goes through for a goal, pay it. It's not rocket science, although those at AFL Headquarters would have you believe that it is much, much more complex.

I disagree that this constitutes an appropriate use of the "advantage" rule, but assuming for arguements sake that it is, I would agree that is an obvious example where it could be easily applied.

I was more referring to the not uncommon situation where the umpire of the play sees an infringement at the contest which the closer umpire does not see. The umpire does not blow his whistle plays advantage. Then there is an incident such as the player playing on gets caught- the umpire at the contest plays holding the ball but the other umpire decides that the player caught didn't have advantage. This sort of situation will cause just as much confusion as currently and would not necessarily make the "advantage" rule clear cut as it is in rugby.

I am not saying that a system cannot be worked out to deal with these issues. It is just not as easy as directing umpires not to blow their whistle unless a player does not have "advantage".

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:29 pm

The problem is inconsistency.

Sometimes a team will get advantage when there is nothing forward for them, so they buggerise around with it. Other times they don't get advantage when there is one guy free in the forward 50!

I'd like to see the "advantage" rule scrapped. It should be replaced with automatic play-on. A team/player can chose to play on and if he does the umpire waves play on. If They f*** it up immediately, too bad, that's the risk you run.

gringo · Post by **gringo** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:57 pm

j-mac wrote:The problem is inconsistency.

Sometimes a team will get advantage when there is nothing forward for them, so they buggerise around with it. Other times they don't get advantage when there is one guy free in the forward 50!

I'd like to see the "advantage" rule scrapped. It should be replaced with automatic play-on. A team/player can chose to play on and if he does the umpire waves play on. If They f*** it up immediately, too bad, that's the risk you run.

A very good post.

If the team who is awarded a free kick knows they are the recipients of the free kick, then it is up to them if they wish to play on. If they do elect to play on and then make a mistake, then that's their fault. The free kick is just that, a free kick. It is not immunity from making a mistake from playing on rather than taking the kick.

Accordingly, the current rule should be scrapped. If a team is aware that it has received a free kick, it has two options. It can 1) take the free kick, or 2) play on as if the free kick were not awarded.

Such a rule allows a team to be autonomous, take advantage of a free kick if it chooses, or play on if it will benefit the team more than going back and taking the free kick

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:34 pm

Yep great idea lets just make the rule even more open to interpretation and make it more confusing for the umpire players and viewers...

gringo · Post by **gringo** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm

bomberdonnie wrote:Yep great idea lets just make the rule even more open to interpretation and make it more confusing for the umpire players and viewers...

I thought the suggestions were clear – either take the free kick, or play on.

Where does your confusion lie?

How is that difficult to interpret?

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:54 pm

gringo wrote:
bomberdonnie wrote:Yep great idea lets just make the rule even more open to interpretation and make it more confusing for the umpire players and viewers...
I thought the suggestions were clear – either take the free kick, or play on.

Where does your confusion lie?

How is that difficult to interpret?

Not sure Gringo maybe as to what is deemed as 'deciding' to play on??

When does the umpire decide a team has wanted to play on? Do they ask them? do they wait until they have taken a kick or handballed it?

What about the fact that players generally dont know that a free kick is paid until they hear the whistle... What happens if they play on before they realised they had a free kick thus f****** it up when they would have preferred to come back and take the original free kick...

This is some of many confusing points that this idea would bring up.

Simple answer is to put the whistle away and decide whether the advantage was there os not. If not bring it back and let the team take their deserved free kick.

gringo · Post by **gringo** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:14 pm

bomberdonnie wrote:
gringo wrote:
bomberdonnie wrote:Yep great idea lets just make the rule even more open to interpretation and make it more confusing for the umpire players and viewers...
I thought the suggestions were clear – either take the free kick, or play on.

Where does your confusion lie?

How is that difficult to interpret?
Not sure Gringo maybe as to what is deemed as 'deciding' to play on??

When does the umpire decide a team has wanted to play on? Do they ask them? do they wait until they have taken a kick or handballed it?

What about the fact that players generally dont know that a free kick is paid until they hear the whistle... What happens if they play on before they realised they had a free kick thus f****** it up when they would have preferred to come back and take the original free kick...

This is some of many confusing points that this idea would bring up.

Simple answer is to put the whistle away and decide whether the advantage was there os not. If not bring it back and let the team take their deserved free kick.

1. "Play on" would be any situation where a team/player elects to play on rather than allow their team-mate who was awarded a free kick to take their kick.

2. Any play, be it by running off with the ball, kicking the ball, or handpassing the ball that occurs once the umpire has blown their whistle and awarded a free kick would be considered "play on".

3. In the event that the umpire believes that a player who has played on did not know a free kick was awarded (i.e. the free kick was awarded by an umpire down the field) then if the umpire deems an advantage was obtained by playing on, then allow the play to stand. If no advantage was obtained, then the player who was awarded a free kick may take the free kick. Umpires are already required to determine whether a player is aware that a free kick has been paid prior to awarding a 50 metre penalty, so we would not be breaking new ground by introducing such a rule. Generally, players are aware that a free kick has been paid so it would be rare that an umpire would need to make such a determination.

I'm not sure what's confusing about the above. The rule as it currently stands gives a team both a free kick and a free mistake. Free kicks were never intended to have this effect. It needs to be changed.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:53 pm

I would firstly like to congratulate you gringo for actually putting some thought into your points here unlike your usual tripe.

But I can't believe that you actually wrote that and can seriously question why I think it would be confusing. This would do nothing but open it up further to interpretation.

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:19 pm

Indeed Gringo I agree.

I have been think this for several years now.

It would be less confusing because if a player plays on, the umpire doesn't need to worry about whether there is advantage to the team. He just calls play on and that's what happens.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:58 pm

My problem wiht the advantage rule is this. If the umpire can change his decision if he incorrectly calls advantage why can he not change any other decision he thinks he got wrong?

If an umpire calls advantage when it is not there, bad luck. He got it wrong.