Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 61

Thread: New AFL Rules and Interpretations for 2016 Season

  1. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    No, it's a reason.
    The defense of what the AFL are doing would be that the changes that they make generally make the game better and more enjoyable to watch.
    This is what I believe anyway.
    Even if you do believe that, and I don't in all cases, it still doesn't follow that it has to be tweaked every freaking year.

  2. #26
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    4,608
    I'd rather it be tweaked every year than wholesale changes made every few years.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  3. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    I'd rather it be tweaked every year than wholesale changes made every few years.
    So tweaking every few years isn't an option?

  4. #28
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,937

    New AFL Rules and Interpretations for 2016 Season

    Can anyone who watched the first Swans NAB match (live or tv) tell me if there were any 50 metre penalties given for breach of the new 10-metre protection zone? I gather there were a couple (more?) free kicks for deliberate out-of-bounds. Was there any noticeable overall impact on the game that you think was attributable to these new rules? I appreciate it's a bit hard to judge based on one game but still ........

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    It's not 1920 any more. Professional game now.
    Also we live in a nanny state. The game needs to sit well with mums and the AFL lives by some perception that unless the games is seen as being 'soccer', they will lose players from the junior lever to, well... soccer.
    The only one of the rule changes that affects this perception of which you speak is the one about slam tackles, which is a welcome rule change. Any effective rule change that helps protect the head should be lauded. This is nothing to do with a "nanny state", an overused catch-all expression that says little and really grinds my gears, but rather an important and responsible rule change by the AFL to ensure risks of concussion are minimised where possible.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  6. #30
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    4,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor View Post
    The only one of the rule changes that affects this perception of which you speak is the one about slam tackles, which is a welcome rule change. Any effective rule change that helps protect the head should be lauded. This is nothing to do with a "nanny state", an overused catch-all expression that says little and really grinds my gears, but rather an important and responsible rule change by the AFL to ensure risks of concussion are minimised where possible.
    You know what?, I had a whole thing typed out, but close to the end I decided that this is a sex, religion, politics type thing, so there is no point in perpetuating the argument.
    You're 100% right.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloods05 View Post
    So tweaking every few years isn't an option?
    Nope.
    Things change too fast, and need to be reeled in.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    You know what?, I had a whole thing typed out, but close to the end I decided that this is a sex, religion, politics type thing, so there is no point in perpetuating the argument.
    You're 100% right.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Nope.
    Things change too fast, and need to be reeled in.
    Now I know why I disagree with you.

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor View Post
    The only one of the rule changes that affects this perception of which you speak is the one about slam tackles, which is a welcome rule change. Any effective rule change that helps protect the head should be lauded. This is nothing to do with a "nanny state", an overused catch-all expression that says little and really grinds my gears, but rather an important and responsible rule change by the AFL to ensure risks of concussion are minimised where possible.
    I also agree wholeheartedly with the rule changes that bear upon head-high contact, but there have been many others that are not so easily justified, and above all I object to the apparent compulsion on the part of the AFL to change something every year.

    How refreshing to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"! It's ironic how it's become a Right-wing catchphrase, given that it was coined by Noam Chomsky as a way of describing the cosy relationship between governments and large corporations.

  9. #33
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    4,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloods05 View Post
    I also agree wholeheartedly with the rule changes that bear upon head-high contact, but there have been many others that are not so easily justified, and above all I object to the apparent compulsion on the part of the AFL to change something every year.

    How refreshing to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"! It's ironic how it's become a Right-wing catchphrase, given that it was coined by Noam Chomsky as a way of describing the cosy relationship between governments and large corporations.
    You're right.
    Hold on... that term backs up what most here are accusing the AFL of.
    Over sanitising the game by way of interpreting what society deems as being appropriate.
    Rule tweaks etc

    I simply used the term as a reference to society as a whole, and a reason why the AFL make those changes.

    Happy for someone to come out and explain why the rule tweaks are supposedly bad.
    I accept the society we live in and acknowledge that the AFL is adhering to certain safety expectations.

    That covers some of the rule changes.
    The rest are to provide a more exciting game, and I am happy with that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloods05 View Post
    ... annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"!....
    You are implying that I run around shouting "nanny state" from the rooftops.
    Weird.
    It was used in a context...
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  10. #34
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Can anyone who watched the first Swans NAB match (live or tv) tell me if there were any 50 metre penalties given for breach of the new 10-metre protection zone? I gather there were a couple (more?) free kicks for deliberate out-of-bounds. Was there any noticeable overall impact on the game that you think was attributable to these new rules? I appreciate it's a bit hard to judge based on one game but still ........
    I recall only one 50 metre penalty for the protection zone breach but it looked like the Port player was within 5 metres which would have been the old rule.

    The deliberate out of bounds rule I found confusing...
    - Port was penalised when I thought it was the tackle that forced him to kick it in that direction.
    - a swans player punched the ball towards the boundary line through a group of players and was penalised.
    - Then the umpires became confused when a Port player was coming out of our forward line and he shanked the kick and it went straight over the boundary line. The umpire paid it deliberate but then the other umpire overruled and said it was a shank kick so it ended up being a throw in.

  11. #35
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    I recall only one 50 metre penalty for the protection zone breach but it looked like the Port player was within 5 metres which would have been the old rule.

    The deliberate out of bounds rule I found confusing...
    - Port was penalised when I thought it was the tackle that forced him to kick it in that direction.
    - a swans player punched the ball towards the boundary line through a group of players and was penalised.
    - Then the umpires became confused when a Port player was coming out of our forward line and he shanked the kick and it went straight over the boundary line. The umpire paid it deliberate but then the other umpire overruled and said it was a shank kick so it ended up being a throw in.
    Thanks Mel. Those out-of-bounds decisions that you describe are what make me nervous - they seem to me to be very subjective.

  12. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by graemed View Post
    With regard to Rule #4, I feel this may impact on Hawthorn more than most as they guard the corridor and use men behind the ball to create pressure by pushing the envelope. If the opposition have the room to hit targets either by playing on quickly or having more space when in possession, the Hawks will have to be more circumspect with their off the ball running especially with fewer rotations.
    I agree. In fact, Hawthorn players regularly infringe on the 5m and are never penalised for it. Hopefully by extending the area, opposition teams will at least get 5m to play on in.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO