Proposed Rule Changes......warranted or complete BS?

[Scottee]

Just start paying frees against players throwing and shovelling the ball. Frustrates the hell out of me watching the constant throwing in today's game, and don't get me started on the 2016 Bulldogs throwfest!

Agree entirely. Why not just wisely apply the existing rules. Like kicking in danger to Toby Woby!

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[mcs]

I am very fearful of the AFL bringing in these proposed changes because imo they are too drastic. It will change the aesthetics of the game on which it was built upon. I can think of many NEW problems these proposed changes will bring as a result.

What really gets me is the AFL approach to solving the congestion footy problem (which I think is real) is by making onfield changes instead of focusing on the most glaring off field one which has been the main catalyst :- Interchange. I was around when interchange was first introduced (1978), which its SOLE purpose was to allow injured players to recover & return to the ground, thus replacing the 19th & 20th man substitute system. There were no high rotations as players/coaches back then were not full time professionals as they are now in analysing the game to an microscopic inch & train players accordingly to implement new game strategies.

Since the inception of the interchange, the game has gone from being 18 v 18 to 22 v 22. Today's game tactics completely rely on high interchange rotations so players can run up & down the ground all day , thus causing congestion with everyone following the ball. It used to be a skill for a player to have stamina in outlasting his opponent.

IMO the congestion issue would be largely resolved & the game open right up, if the bench was reduced back to two players & the rotations capped to 8 (2 per qtr). It also wouldn't be an disadvantage to a team that loses a player early in the game due to injury, which occurs today with the high rotations.

Completely agree KSAS - the fitness of the modern day player is so much higher than the fitness of players in the era the VFL fan boys yearn for.

[Mel_C]

Just start paying frees against players throwing and shovelling the ball. Frustrates the hell out of me watching the constant throwing in today's game, and don't get me started on the 2016 Bulldogs throwfest!

Well apparently the AFL want a stricter interpretation of the rules, in particular incorrect disposal. A shame they didn't worry about this in 2016 when the bulldogs were throwing the ball for the entire season!

[barry]

Remove home town biased umpiring.
Have an independent review the video. If biased is found, suspend the ump.
Right now there is no disincentive for bias umpiring. In fact there is reward as the local fans don't criticism them.

[AnnieH]

They can create a new rule that will stop grubby green expose his studs.

[Nico]

Funny how I haven't heard anything about the rolling maul in the finals or the standard of footy in the finals. Our game was rubbish and the GWS v Pies was an average game at best. It clearly suits the agendas of the footy journos to keep the the kettle boiling during the season. This 18 metre goal rectangle looks quite ridiculous. So all the bulldust that went on, to the point where a committee was set up to look at basic changes to the game has come to what?

[neilfws]

The Age reckons the commission wants to abolish hands-in-the-back, penalising only for a push.

I always thought the point of the rule was that an umpire can't judge the force from a distance, so the simplest solution was to penalise any contact.

And that's the issue with these rule changes right there. The reasoning behind many of them seems to be poorly-communicated at best and non-existent at worst.

[mcs]

The Age reckons the commission wants to abolish hands-in-the-back, penalising only for a push.

I always thought the point of the rule was that an umpire can't judge the force from a distance, so the simplest solution was to penalise any contact.

And that's the issue with these rule changes right there. The reasoning behind many of them seems to be poorly-communicated at best and non-existent at worst.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...17-p504c1.html

Everything old is truly new again. I didn't mind the old rule, but yet again its a case of putting grey into an area that, in the broader scheme of things, is surely not what is needed.

[liz]

The hands in the back rule, which was originally brought in under the leadership of former AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick in 2006, has been a large area of frustration for footy fans and players, in particular forwards.

Has it? I reckon that it's a rule players adapted to quite quickly. I doubt there are more than a couple of HIB (non-pushing) frees paid each week. Maybe fewer. On the other hand, the competition does have a problem with players (from all clubs) accentuating contact and making no effort to stand their ground, in an attempt to get a free kick.

[Meg]

From that Age article:

“Incorrect disposal, deliberate out of bounds, the protected area 50m penalty, contact below the knees and contact in ruck contests are the other five areas that the committee want changed for 2019.”

[stevoswan]

From that Age article:

“Incorrect disposal, deliberate out of bounds, the protected area 50m penalty, contact below the knees and contact in ruck contests are the other five areas that the committee want changed for 2019.”

They are aspects of the game that definitely need looking at.....but can the league be trusted to actually improve outcomes in these areas. I won't be holding my breath......

[barry]

Contact below the knees is a contentious one, but absolutely required to prevent serious injury.

Also, the pay the "hands in the back " consistently, but most people think it's "push in the back", and say where was the push?. So it's a terminology problem.