standing the mark

[mr six o'clock]

In the third quarter we gave up a goal due to Sinclair moving on the mark .
Watching the incident again , His feet never left the ground , his lower body didn't move . He turned his hips slighty and waved his arms around a bit . I have seen many players doing this , moving the upper body but not the lower .
Were we dudded ?
Does anybody know how the umpires interpret the rule ?
The rule says players must stand and it doesn't allow any lateral movement
Is turning your hips a lateral movement ?

[The_Dud]

In the third quarter we gave up a goal due to Sinclair moving on the mark .
Watching the incident again , His feet never left the ground , his lower body didn't move . He turned his hips slighty and waved his arms around a bit . I have seen many players doing this , moving the upper body but not the lower .
Were we dudded ?
Does anybody know how the umpires interpret the rule ?
The rule says players must stand and it doesn't allow any lateral movement
Is turning your hips a lateral movement ?

Are you meaning the 50m penalty when Jones encroached on the protected area?

[mr six o'clock]

In the third quarter we gave up a goal due to Sinclair moving on the mark .
Watching the incident again , His feet never left the ground , his lower body didn't move . He turned his hips slighty and waved his arms around a bit . I have seen many players doing this , moving the upper body but not the lower .
Were we dudded ?
Does anybody know how the umpires interpret the rule ?
The rule says players must stand and it doesn't allow any lateral movement
Is turning your hips a lateral movement ?

Are you meaning the 50m penalty when Jones encroached on the protected area?

Yep
Watched the replay
Saw that i went early

[maverick]

I reckon it was the player running on the other side too close
Worst part of the rule, was not impacting play at all

[perfectionist]

It was Zak Jones who ran within the 15 metre protected area - he was about 10 metres away. The same thing happened in the last quarter with a GC player with no penalty. The new standing on the mark rule seems like a solution searching for an issue. That said, smart players have worked out how they can use it to gain a 5 metre advantage in their kick. Theoretically, if a player runs straight at the player on the mark, who can't move, and then deviates one metre to the left or right, they should be able to run straight past the player on the mark - I can't think of any player with arms one metre in length. The problem is, some umpires call play on regardless of whether a player deviates. It's a bit like some umpires call play on after a few seconds after a mark, others wait about ten - especially for certain top sides. This is the most inconsistent aspect of umpiring at the moment, made more difficult by the silly rule change.

[asiu]

there was a moment (in the second ?)

Ro was having a shot from 55
n the ump called play on ... wtf was that about ?

[CQ SAINT]

there was a moment (in the second ?)

Ro was having a shot from 55
n the ump called play on ... wtf was that about ?

I believe they didn't run the clock. He was 51 out but clearly having a shot.

[CarlD]

Even if you are having a shot for goal the umpires will call play on if you run off a straight line on your approach. Don't like that interpretation.

[terry smith rules]

there was a moment (in the second ?)

Ro was having a shot from 55
n the ump called play on ... wtf was that about ?

Bad luck for Ro but great umpiring

Over players saying they are having a shot from some ridiculous distance, then they run the clock and then chip the ball to the top of the square

Umpires should call it more often

[asiu]

what !

he was seriously gunna dob that

[CQ SAINT]

I thought it was a pinnacle moment, before the play on call. He is more than capable of that kick and we needed it.

[asiu]

agreed !!!

i was already up celebrating

[perfectionist]

It should not be umpires. or whoever runs the clock, guessing whether a player is capable of kicking 50+ metres or not. This one is actually easy if the right rule is put in place, that is, on or inside the 50, the player is entitled to have the clock. Outside - no - so he needs to have a shot within 10 seconds or get on with it. There are a few that go through but they are outnumbered 10 to 1 with bluffs.

[SaintPav]

It was Zak Jones who ran within the 15 metre protected area - he was about 10 metres away. The same thing happened in the last quarter with a GC player with no penalty. The new standing on the mark rule seems like a solution searching for an issue. That said, smart players have worked out how they can use it to gain a 5 metre advantage in their kick. Theoretically, if a player runs straight at the player on the mark, who can't move, and then deviates one metre to the left or right, they should be able to run straight past the player on the mark - I can't think of any player with arms one metre in length. The problem is, some umpires call play on regardless of whether a player deviates. It's a bit like some umpires call play on after a few seconds after a mark, others wait about ten - especially for certain top sides. This is the most inconsistent aspect of umpiring at the moment, made more difficult by the silly rule change.

Umpires seemed to have put away the whistle for 50-metre penalties on late spoils, holding up the play etc. Maybe it's my imagination but they don't seem to be paying those as frequently, if at all.

[Devilhead]

It should not be umpires. or whoever runs the clock, guessing whether a player is capable of kicking 50+ metres or not. This one is actually easy if the right rule is put in place, that is, on or inside the 50, the player is entitled to have the clock. Outside - no - so he needs to have a shot within 10 seconds or get on with it. There are a few that go through but they are outnumbered 10 to 1 with bluffs.

Its not that hard is it and pretty basic to put in place