Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 72

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

  1. #37
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    355
    Extending the goal square to 18 m is silly - it achieves nothing.

    I like the idea of starting positions but it needs to be extended. Along the lines of ... each team must have at least 3 players in the defensive half of the ground at all times. Each team must have at least 3 players in the forward half of the ground at all times.
    When the Swans are in their forward 50 3 defenders and 3 opposition players must not be in the front half of the ground. Other codes have a half-way line marked across the field - why not AFL.
    Also, i'd like to see fewer rotations as this will help with the congestion. The other thing i'd like to see is more consistency in applying the rules. It's too easy for the umpires to shift the momentum the way the game is currently umpired.

  2. #38
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    Here's a new rule that might come in next season and it can't be soon enough......the 'Toby' rule.

    The Toby rule: AFL may outlaw use of studs - AFL.com.au

  3. #39
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Here's a new rule that might come in next season and it can't be soon enough......the 'Toby' rule.

    The Toby rule: AFL may outlaw use of studs - AFL.com.au
    The Toby rule? Is that where he's suspended every second game; just to save time?

  4. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    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.
    It's marking interference. It's preventing another player from attempting to mark (or spoil) the ball.
    give it to the game

  5. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnieH View Post
    They can create a new rule that will stop grubby green expose his studs.
    Dangerous play or it's marking interference. It's preventing another player from attempting to mark (or spoil) the ball.
    It'd be paid in any decent non AFL competition. Saw a penalty paid against Subiaco 50 years ago.
    give it to the game

  6. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Do you indeed think the game is in a bad state.....that it needs changing at all? If so, is the league going about it the right way?
    The problem as everybody recognizes is that defensive strategies are preventing attacking football to break out.
    The AFL seemingly is looking at a whole new raft of rules changes in attempt to this.
    My question to the AFL is why haven't they trialled more conventional and thus more palatable changes before changing the fabric of the game.
    I can list 5 changes that will be both simplify the laws, by reducing the number of laws and increase attacking football.
    In order of least importance.
    1. One only deliberate law with removal of reference to 'pressure'.
    2. A ball kicked out is penalized and kicked back in. This has been trialled and it does work.
    It will have the added bonus of removing the necessity for a 'deliberate' ajdudication.
    3. A 15m box, whereby the FF can stand on the 15m box line effectively in the same position as the FF now stands.
    This allows the FF to run to a marked position. It removes a lot of the kicking over the line issue.
    Now, if the AFL want to increase rebound pressure as they seem to be doing then simply award a mark 15m out from goal.
    4. Make a goal a ball going through the goal posts. Teams would be more inclined to have more defenders on the line.
    Also has the benefit of removing the need for score reviews.
    5. Starting positions like the center square only benefit at centre bouncedowns , not in general play.
    Thus all bouncedowns need to mimic a centere bouncedown by having a 10m exclusion circle around the umpire.
    No more nominating. Only two ruckmen contesting the bounce. The return of athletic ruckmen and the big hit-out.

    We need to look more closely at the existing game before change the direction of the game introducing MORE off-sides.
    We pride ourselves on having a game with no off-sides but we do have off-sides - just not in general play.
    Let's not go down that path if we can possibly avoid it.
    give it to the game

  7. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel_C View Post
    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!
    It would always frustrate me and the fans that we as umpires were instructed to call 'play on, ball came free in the tackle' as well as 'push in the back, carried forward in the tackle' Nowadays you can forcibly tackle a player in a controlled manner and if the the ball is knocked free then the player is also penalized. They only have to zoom in on the player that miss-kicks or miss-bounces a ball through pressure or accident.

    Whilst looking at hybrid games, I was comparing AFL to NRL and looking at the possibility of an overlap. One of the main differences is that Australian Football allows 'knock-ons' up untill the player takes possession of the ball, then the player must dispose of the ball legally. What if the emphasis was changed from the type of disposal to the result, that is, what if we allowed throwing and made it manditory for the ball to be caught (after travelling a minimum distance) No more worrying whether a ball was indeed punched but whether a ball was caught. A player is tackled and drops the ball would be penalized, not for dropping the ball but for an 'incomple pass'. It would certainly open up play.
    give it to the game

  8. #44
    Here they are:-

    http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-1...anges-for-2019

    I actually think they seem quite reasonable.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  9. #45
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by cos789 View Post

    Whilst looking at hybrid games, I was comparing AFL to NRL and looking at the possibility of an overlap. One of the main differences is that Australian Football allows 'knock-ons' up untill the player takes possession of the ball, then the player must dispose of the ball legally. What if the emphasis was changed from the type of disposal to the result, that is, what if we allowed throwing and made it manditory for the ball to be caught (after travelling a minimum distance) No more worrying whether a ball was indeed punched but whether a ball was caught. A player is tackled and drops the ball would be penalized, not for dropping the ball but for an 'incomple pass'. It would certainly open up play.
    Throwing? Without "changing the fabric of the game"?

  10. #46
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    "Around-the-body set shots after the siren will also be allowed"......stupid.

    "the hands-in-the-back interpretation at marking contests and prior opportunity interpretation at ruck contests will be relaxed."......how does this 'open up the play'?

    The rest of the changes......I'm still struggling to see how they will "open up the game".

    I think Hocking is an idiot.....and to think he actually played AFL footy.

  11. #47
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,394
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    "Around-the-body set shots after the siren will also be allowed"......stupid.

    "the hands-in-the-back interpretation at marking contests and prior opportunity interpretation at ruck contests will be relaxed."......how does this 'open up the play'?

    The rest of the changes......I'm still struggling to see how they will "open up the game".

    I think Hocking is an idiot.....and to think he actually played AFL footy.
    The around-the-body rule relaxation is because so many of today's players seem to have lost confidence in their ability to kick drop punts. How it is adjudicated will make all the difference. From very tight angles, close to goal, it will make it easier to convert a shot after the siren. From further out, players tend to run out a bit to get the angle right and enough distance on the kick. Will that be allowed (in practice).

    The changes to the ruck prior opportunity and hands-in-the back rule seem pointless to me. Neither seems to be a rule that needs fixing. Players have adjusted over the past decade to the hands-in-the-back rule and rarely infringe nowadays. Removing this restriction will just bring in a further difficulty for the umpires in adjudicating whether there was a push or whether the player in front was accentuating contact. The ruck prior opportunity rule was brought in to prevent ruckmen taking possession, instead trying to encourage them to hit the ball away from the ruck contest. How allowing them to take possession will open up the game I have no idea.

    The zone changes at centre bounces will really only prevent a team stacking its backline after a goal when they are trying to protect a slender lead late in a game. I guess it might marginally affect teams who like to always play a spare man in defence. It's just that players won't be able to start in that position at centre bounces.

    I don't mind the changes around kickouts and free kicks deep in defence. They will make it slightly easier for teams to rebound from defence but are less of a change than extending the goal square. I reckon they do need to apply the existing deliberate rushed behind rules more tightly if they are going to increase the value of a kick-out from a behind.

  12. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    "Around-the-body set shots after the siren will also be allowed"......stupid.
    I don't actually mind this one, considering they do say that you still have to kick it in line or behind the man on the mark. Cant run around to improve the angle, but you cant still get a nice curve from the initial marking point
    I See It But I Don't Believe It!!!!

Page 4 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