Running too far - should it be extended to 20m?

[kickazz]

With the controversy at the end of the Collingwood Adelaide game a couple of weeks ago, I once again came to think how often this rule is technically not paid.

15 is not very far at all to run with the ball these days. Players go further than that all of the time.


For reference, check out the first highlight from the Geelong v GWS game below:



Bruhn gets possession just past the end of the 'BIG' centre circle, and kicks it from just past (about the same distance) the end of the centre square.

Centre square is 50m. Circle is 10m. So he ran (50/2 - 10/2) = 20 metres.

This is well more than the allowed 15 metres, but watching the game, it doesn't 'feel like' he ran too far. 15m has served us well for a long time, just as 10 yards did originally. But with the pace of the game now is 15 enough?

I'd rather extend this distance but enforce it strictly. Thoughts?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It already is 20 metres. Not in the book, but in practice. Umpires always give the player plenty of leeway. If you take it to 20 metres, then you'll have players running 25 metres instead of 20. Nope, the existing rule of 15 metres is plenty.

The thing that amuses me is players run 20 metres, that's fine, but they kick to a teammate 12 metres away and that's a mark

 

[Romeoh1]

20 and strictly enforced - running 20 metres is no distance in modern footy- happy for that to be adapted.

 

[VicBased]

15 metres otherwise the "Bounce" will become a thing of the past.

 

[HairyO]

If they made bouncing and minimum mark distance 20 metres and actually enforced both properly it would be a lot better for the game.

Its ridiculous when a player runs from a behind all the way to the 50m line having only bounced one time, while at the same time, an 8m pass to a leading forward gets called a Mark.

 

[hawkman]

Its ridiculous when a player runs from a behind all the way to the 50m line having only bounced one time, while at the same time, an 8m pass to a leading forward gets called a Mark.

From a kick in it seems like the unofficial rule is you can run 30 before bouncing

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think players breaking lines is one of the great spectacles of the modern game. Granted, that's not saying much seeing as the modern game is very bland.

But I think they should make it 25m at least.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Just leave it. Even if it's written as 15m it's not really adjudicated that way. It's always and forever been an eye test in terms of a player breaking away and then setting themselves for the kick, not an actual estimation of how far they've run (which is impossible to adjudicate especially when it isn't straight lines).

When the run too far rule is called it tends to be an intuitive thing where the player looks to have taken a few too many steps before setting themselves for their kick. It's sort of an unwritten rule we've all grown accustomed to and just know intuitively when to bounce it. That's why Lewis Jetta in the 2012 prelim was let go, looked fine in terms of strides but would've been pinged if metres were actually adjudicated. My preference is to just stick with what we've always known, and for the most part, it works.

We're our own worst enemy complaining about all these rules just leave it for God's sake before it becomes an over umpires cesspool. Can't believe how nit picky our society has become.

 

[banzai]

Just leave it. Even if it's written as 15m it's not really adjudicated that way.

But that's the problem, it means when a player gets done for running 17m the AFL can come out and say it's the correct call. The rules need to be written so they can be adjudicated to the rule.

 

[zyzzbruh]

But that's the problem, it means when a player gets done for running 17m the AFL can come out and say it's the correct call. The rules need to be written so they can be adjudicated to the rule.

Change it to steps then not metres. Everyone has got different stride length, so to start being critical of meters is going to make the game awkward AF to play. Plus steps are somewhat easier to adjudicate.

In saying that, it has never been an issue for 150 years until a single dodgy call in 2024. The problem in wanting to seek further clarification is its going to tighten adjudication and we'll end up with a ridiculously over umpired game. I rekn majority of running bounces taken over the history of the game would have surpassed 15m naturally. Way to ruin a spectacle.

And the bigger problem - people in today's society wanting accountability for absolutely anything and everything and complaining about it to the endth degree, hence why we can't have nice things and rules have to be tightened with the AFL having to come out and 'say'. Then ironically it's those same people who are the ones complaining about the state of the game and that rules are being constantly changed.

 

[Consolaçao]

Its a tough one.
The game today is so different to the one in which the bounce rule was devised for.
Even as recently as the 1990s, tackling was uncommon and players weren’t trained to do it like they are today. In that world, maybe it made more sense to handicap the player with the ball by making him bounce it at regular intervals.
Now, when you’re trying to negotiate your way through and around 18 trained tacklers with upper bodies that make 1960s footballers look like amateur league soccer players, it feels almost unfair to make the player have to bounce it as well.
Having said that, the running bounce is an iconic part of the game…
My sense is that the explosive, line-breaking play we saw from Rankine is something we want more of, so to penalise it feels wrong. Unsure what the answer is though.

 

[kickazz]

Just leave it. Even if it's written as 15m it's not really adjudicated that way. It's always and forever been an eye test in terms of a player breaking away and then setting themselves for the kick, not an actual estimation of how far they've run (which is impossible to adjudicate especially when it isn't straight lines).

When the run too far rule is called it tends to be an intuitive thing where the player looks to have taken a few too many steps before setting themselves for their kick. It's sort of an unwritten rule we've all grown accustomed to and just know intuitively when to bounce it. That's why Lewis Jetta in the 2012 prelim was let go, looked fine in terms of strides but would've been pinged if metres were actually adjudicated. My preference is to just stick with what we've always known, and for the most part, it works.

We're our own worst enemy complaining about all these rules just leave it for God's sake before it becomes an over umpires cesspool. Can't believe how nit picky our society has become.

I like this approach to the rule - applying a bit of 'vibe' to it rather than strictly metres. I just recon 15 metres as our guideline is outdated.

I do remember as a kid getting a VFL pamphlet or something at school - it went through basics of the game including rules. Can't remember the exact words, but in talking about running bounces, it did mention something along the lines of 'players getting more leeway if they have to change direction, avoid players' or something like that.

Applying some intuition - has the player had time to escape traffic, get balanced, and an opportunity to do something - I kind of like that.

 

[kickazz]

Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

has come out and suggested getting rid of the bounce altogether.

It's worth thought, but I don't think we should go that far. It would change the game more than people think, I can imagine players tucking the ball under the arm and really going for it.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I like this approach to the rule - applying a bit of 'vibe' to it rather than strictly metres. I just recon 15 metres as our guideline is outdated.

I do remember as a kid getting a VFL pamphlet or something at school - it went through basics of the game including rules. Can't remember the exact words, but in talking about running bounces, it did mention something along the lines of 'players getting more leeway if they have to change direction, avoid players' or something like that.

Applying some intuition - has the player had time to escape traffic, get balanced, and an opportunity to do something - I kind of like that.

Absolutely.

The only problem is everyone wants everything to be black and white and to find accountability in absolutely everything. Completely ignoring the fact that it's actually in the nature of our game for it to be umpired intuitively. Going against that would give us an unrecognisable end product, which is sad because the way society is going 'complain culture' is just going to get worse and we will end up with an Americanised stop start set play style game.

 

[JackFlash]

I've long since believed that kicks for a mark should be 20 metres and you should be allowed to run 20 metres, but that's it. They have enough trouble working out what's a 50 metre penalty let alone anything else!

 

[HairyO]

Mason Cox has come out and suggested getting rid of the bounce altogether.

It's worth thought, but I don't think we should go that far. It would change the game more than people think, I can imagine players tucking the ball under the arm and really going for it.

Terrible idea as coaches give up even more on skills and focus more on athletes.

Its amazing how many bad ideas get thrown around rather than simply ensuring the umpires do their job.

 

[maskmcgee]

Change it to how it's actually adjudicated, 15 steps. Watching this game for years, you get a feel of what is and isn't running too far. Rankine was right on the line. I think pretty much everyone just counts steps.

 

[HairyO]

Change it to how it's actually adjudicated, 15 steps. Watching this game for years, you get a feel of what is and isn't running too far. Rankine was right on the line. I think pretty much everyone just counts steps.

A 170cm player with stubby legs at full stride thats probably 20m, a 195cm former steeple-chaser at full stride thats easily 30m.

This would be a clear case of heightism !!

 

[flyinghi64]

I would go far as to suggest both this and the kicks should be 25m.
Much of the ground is marked in 50m zones so would be a little easier to judge, you would think.
If there is a margin of error of a few meters it wouldn't be as noticeable.
Nothing worse than a chip kick that goes 10-12m is paid a mark as marking player is under pressure then 5 minutes later a kick that goes 18-20m is play on as the marking player is in the open.
Then you have players running past halfway to the 50 on kick outs with no probs but try run past a couple of players on the wing while barely covering 15m and you will be pinged.

Yes, the inconsistency with this one annoys me a little.

 

[Spearman]

Mason Cox has come out and suggested getting rid of the bounce altogether.

It's worth thought, but I don't think we should go that far. It would change the game more than people think, I can imagine players tucking the ball under the arm and really going for it.

and with the tackling issues, I can see US running backs or the Lomu type ruggers being recruited.

 

[The Hobo]

Maybe it's time to standardise the "stripes" in the grass. 10m blocks.

Would assist umpires with kicking distance and running distance. There's still a margin of error, but it would reduce it to current.

 

[Cyclonus]

Maybe it's time to standardise the "stripes" in the grass. 10m blocks.

Would assist umpires with kicking distance and running distance. There's still a margin of error, but it would reduce it to current.

Can the stripes be seen when you're on the ground? That might sound like a silly question but I'd imagine the height at which we view the game makes it much easier to see them.

 

[Fadge]

Its a tough one.
The game today is so different to the one in which the bounce rule was devised for.
Even as recently as the 1990s, tackling was uncommon and players weren’t trained to do it like they are today. In that world, maybe it made more sense to handicap the player with the ball by making him bounce it at regular intervals.
Now, when you’re trying to negotiate your way through and around 18 trained tacklers with upper bodies that make 1960s footballers look like amateur league soccer players, it feels almost unfair to make the player have to bounce it as well.
Having said that, the running bounce is an iconic part of the game…
My sense is that the explosive, line-breaking play we saw from Rankine is something we want more of, so to penalise it feels wrong. Unsure what the answer is though.

This, and particularly the point about 'it feels almost unfair to make the player have to bounce the ball'.

I vote to remove it, and in doing so remove another grey area in the rules of the game...

 

[Rabish Binney]

‘Well done umpires, that’s a world first!’ AFL great exposes 33-metre Patrick Cripps mistake

‘Well done umpires, that’s a world first!’ AFL great exposes 33-metre Cripps mistake

www.foxsports.com.au

Make it 20 metres, then Patrick Cripps

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

29

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

(along with all the other star players who get more leeway than anybody else) can run 45 metres without a bounce.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Can the stripes be seen when you're on the ground? That might sound like a silly question but I'd imagine the height at which we view the game makes it much easier to see them.

Razor Ray on SEN yesterday said you cant see the stripes at ground level.