Proposed Rule changes

[Steiger]

The AFL has asked its readers for their opinion on the proposed rule changes for 2007.

What are RWO reader opinions?

For those that weren't aware, the changes are:

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).


I think awarding 3 points for a rushed behind and then calling play on for kicking backwards in the defensive half tips the game in favour of the attacking team. How easy would it be for the Swans to slow play down on their half forward line from an opposition kick out and then either get the rushed behind or a goal? Too easy.

The limited interchange will be good if it's limited on a per quarter basis, not for the entire game otherwise the changes will all be in the last quarter and part of the 3rd.

Increasing the mark distance isn't necessary, the umpires need to enfore the rule more.

The high contact rule helps ensure the safety of players. Good.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Steiger
1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).
1. Difficult one to police. I can see benefits of it, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. Still undecided.

2. Good, but the umpires need to become far more consistent in determining distances.

3. Good.

4. No.

5. Very good.

[giant]

I think before you could answer these questions you would need to know what it is that the AFL thinks they will achieve. Eg, they introduced a number of changes with the express intent of "speeding the game up". With the exception of the immediate kick-in, I never got the feeling that they actually achieved this - and nor did I feel that it was an end that was necessarily worth achieving. Hence, unless I understood why they wanted these changes I'd be giving a blanket "no" to all of them.

Even the play-on for kicking backwards rule - an aspect of the game that drives me spare - I couldn't support this without more info as to me it just ends up giving an advantage to the team with numbers in front of the ball.

The one rule change I'd probably support is the head-high contact - but even there, I'd hate to see the bump disappear altogether so they would need to be very specific I think.

[is2SWaNz]

AFL considers more rule changes
Michael Gleeson
October 10, 2006



MODERN football is much like screw-top caps on wine bottles: etc



I think the rushed behind rule it bull@@@@. You can't tell if its deliberate or not for most of the time anyway.


mod edit: please post link rather than reproducing whole article.

[j s]

Originally posted by is2SWaNz
possibly increasing to three (from one) the points conceded for a deliberately rushed behind.
What impact would this have had on the GF? I can recall only two blatantly deliberate behinds - one each way, Embley(?) and Kennelly - were there any more?

[Ryan Bomford]

A lot of the proposed changes appear to be associated with kicking in general play. These rule changes can be avoided and the game made a lot simpler by outlawing kicking altogether.

In which case, we wouldn't need goal posts at each end either. A net on top of a stick at each end would seem like a novel idea.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
In which case, we wouldn't need goal posts at each end either. A net on top of a stick at each end would seem like a novel idea.

Give each player a net on a stick and you're talking.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by j s
What impact would this have had on the GF? I can recall only two blatantly deliberate behinds - one each way, Embley(?) and Kennelly - were there any more?

Malceski right on halftime.

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by Steiger

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).

My $0.02...

1 - to what effect? It's up to each coach to use his bench effectively and if he can't do that then what's he doing in the box? All limiting the bench will do is increase player fatigue and increase the chance of injury.

2 - When the umpires learn what 15m is, then we can see how effective the 15m rule is!

3. I can see some merit in this one but one of the unique aspects of our game imo is the no "offside" rule - this has the potential to create one of sorts, or at least make it so that defensive play is carried out differently. Also, how will the umpires guarantee they're in the right place to determine a switch across the backline pretty much parallel to the goals goes forward rather than backwards? Do they instead play on for only blatantly obvious backward kicks?

4. I like the concept but they'd have to change the scoring methods. And how do you determine "blatantly" obvious? It's like the DOOB - is a juggle and stumble enough to avoid the "blatant" ruling?

5. This one seems to be a kneejerk reaction of sorts to the Caracella incident - the thought of another spinal injury has them worried. The problem is that it's a contact sport and as long as it's played so that the ball goes to ground, a player's head will invariably end up over the ball and another player will invariably come in to contest and probably cop the other player high. It's a part of our game, and unless they change the way the ball is handled when it goes to ground (i.e. immediate ball up or something silly like that) they're not really going to be able to rub it out. And besides, if there is deliberate contact, it will most likely incur a free kick by the current rules anyway!

[Ed_Gein]

There is nothing wrong with the game at the moment.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

I suppose this will please all the anti-flooding and keepings-off crowd.

We've already seen a high number of injuries this year because the game is speeding up, what good is it going to be if they introduce some of those new rules to speed up the game any faster?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
1 - to what effect? It's up to each coach to use his bench effectively and if he can't do that then what's he doing in the box? All limiting the bench will do is increase player fatigue and increase the chance of injury.The argument is that too much use of the bench is increasing the speed of the game and thus increasing injuries.


3. I can see some merit in this one but one of the unique aspects of our game imo is the no "offside" rule - this has the potential to create one of sorts, or at least make it so that defensive play is carried out differently. Also, how will the umpires guarantee they're in the right place to determine a switch across the backline pretty much parallel to the goals goes forward rather than backwards? Do they instead play on for only blatantly obvious backward kicks?This rule worked really well in the pre-season comp.


5. This one seems to be a kneejerk reaction of sorts to the Caracella incident - the thought of another spinal injury has them worried. The problem is that it's a contact sport and as long as it's played so that the ball goes to ground, a player's head will invariably end up over the ball and another player will invariably come in to contest and probably cop the other player high. It's a part of our game, and unless they change the way the ball is handled when it goes to ground (i.e. immediate ball up or something silly like that) they're not really going to be able to rub it out. And besides, if there is deliberate contact, it will most likely incur a free kick by the current rules anyway! It's a reaction against lots of bumps to the head (eg: Didak against Scotland). If using the shoulder they aren't always paid a free kick despite being dangerous. It's definitely something they need to cut out.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ed_Gein
There is nothing wrong with the game at the moment.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?
I hate this argument. How would you like to go back to 19 men, no interchange, no centre square, no advantage rule, free kick for all out of bounds, etc...

[dimelb]

Originally posted by Steiger

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).
1. Forget it. We don't speed the game up except when we want to.
2. And what difference would that make? Most of the time the umps don't know ten metres from twenty.
3. Forget it. Makes no real difference and is often the springboard for going forward. Exception: Richmond's win against Adelaide this season - which was Adelaide's fault for not picking up on it sooner.
4. Perhaps. Encourages attack.
5. The one standout. A no-brainer, pun intended and hope it never happens.

[swansrock4eva]

[i]Originally posted by NMWBloods
The argument is that too much use of the bench is increasing the speed of the game and thus increasing injuries.
But in a physical game such as ours, fatigue can lead to more serious contact-related injuries in particular - sloppy, tired, poorly-timed bumps etc. In the end it'll change the types of injury not the occurrence itself. The occurrence of injuries has become essentially a by-product of the style of game so unless they totally revamp the whole game, the injuries will still occur one way or another.


This rule worked really well in the pre-season comp.

So did the "super goal."


It's a reaction against lots of bumps to the head (eg: Didak against Scotland). If using the shoulder they aren't always paid a free kick despite being dangerous. It's definitely something they need to cut out.

But they could cut it out NOW with the rules as they stand. There just needs to be consistency on how it's applied. Adding a new rule isn't going to change consistency among the umpires. It's a knee-jerk reaction trying to bring in a new rule to make them look pro-active about trying to prevent certain types of contact-related injuries.

[Ed_Gein]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I hate this argument. How would you like to go back to 19 men, no interchange, no centre square, no advantage rule, free kick for all out of bounds, etc...

What do you mean? The game has gotten better from that point in time, and currently i see nothing wrong with how the rules are at the moment.

Increasing the minimum distance for a mark from 15m is just going to further put a grey area in the game as umpires will probably get a lot more decisions wrong than if it were just the 15m

The kicking backwards one can be easily worked around tactically, going man on man.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ed_Gein
What do you mean? The game has gotten better from that point in time, and currently i see nothing wrong with how the rules are at the moment.People probably thought the same thing then too. New rules could make it better.


The kicking backwards one can be easily worked around tactically, going man on man. It's boring.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
But in a physical game such as ours, fatigue can lead to more serious contact-related injuries in particular - sloppy, tired, poorly-timed bumps etc. In the end it'll change the types of injury not the occurrence itself. The occurrence of injuries has become essentially a by-product of the style of game so unless they totally revamp the whole game, the injuries will still occur one way or another.I guess the argument is that there are more injuries now and it's always been a physical game. The fatigue factor is critical when not all players are fatigued, which is what happens when there is a 4-man bench.


So did the "super goal."Not really much of an analogy.


But they could cut it out NOW with the rules as they stand. There just needs to be consistency on how it's applied. Adding a new rule isn't going to change consistency among the umpires. It's a knee-jerk reaction trying to bring in a new rule to make them look pro-active about trying to prevent certain types of contact-related injuries. A shoulder to the head is not necessarily a free kick, so a rule change is needed.

[swansrule100]

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
dont like that, some guy stands there keeping count, then if injuries occur late do we play a man short? its something id leave along

2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
wont make much difference so many marks are taken uncontested anyway and no one is nearby, even whens its less than 15 and called play on half the time the guy can stand still and do what he wants. id leave it because it wont do much

3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
dont mind this one, it will encourage teams to man up to try and steal back for a goal (hopefully) but could again be like 2, the guy is called to play on but still has time.



4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds

i dont like the idea of changing any of the scoring methods in the afl to different amounts. Even just becuase its hard to compare scores to older games etc maybe not a great reason but who cares

5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries)

i am all for protecting the guys head so i support any rule in that area, but it doesnt stop it happening, someone can still smash into their head, the rule just punishes them afterwards.

Its also hard, what if a player bends when someone is comming at them?

i have no ideas on how to further protect the head, i think the games fine in that regard

I do wish they would stop buggering round though, the game is fine

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Steiger

For those that weren't aware, the changes are:

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).


1. Leave it unlimited. Allow the game to played at a faster pace....most previous rules changes revolve around the game being speeded up, not slowed down. Plus the point someone made about lazy bodies doing lazy, sloppy things).

2.Ridiculous...and make it what? 16m....The only change I'd be in favor of is if they changed this to 40+ metres....more contested marking, more pumping it long....may also stop the 'backwards kicking'

3. Have no problem with this. If a team doesn't want it to happen...'man up!'

4. Ridiculous....Keep it simple....next will be 4 points if you hit the post...0.5 points for behind post....

5. Obviously...the whole area around the ruck needs to be cleaned up. Should install the rugby rule of no playing the ball while on the ground for starters.

Also while we're here.

6. Intentional out of bounds - A rule that asks the umpires to interpret a players state of mind...they have enough trouble interpreting the rules!!!

If the ball is kicked out (or goes out from a contested marking situation including hitouts)...throw in. If the ball is handballed out or comes off hands or is juggled across the line...free - simple.

There was another one that @@@@es me off too...I can't think of it.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell

There was another one that @@@@es me off too...I can't think of it.

I remember....respecting the umpires. Having played Rugby Union as a youth I can't believe the way umps are treated. (Yes, I know)

I'm for the Yellow card - warning and 50m penalty

Red card - player sent off. I don't mean play 18 against 17...I mean play 21 against 22, as if the player was injured.

When a player takes a crow bar onto the field and takes out a player - who is punished/ who benifits? The team that plays next week that's who.

If a player goes down because of an incident like above (not exactly, obviously) that team is reduced to 21...This change should have been made long ago.

[Steiger]

6. Intentional out of bounds - A rule that asks the umpires to interpret a players state of mind...they have enough trouble interpreting the rules!!!

If the ball is kicked out (or goes out from a contested marking situation including hitouts)...throw in. If the ball is handballed out or comes off hands or is juggled across the line...free - simple.

I like that idea, I'd like to see it taken one step further and anytime the ball went out, not just handballs or kicks, the opposition get a free kick. It would change the amount of stoppages in a game drastically and help speed up the play.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Steiger
I like that idea, I'd like to see it taken one step further and anytime the ball went out, not just handballs or kicks, the opposition get a free kick. It would change the amount of stoppages in a game drastically and help speed up the play. They trialled that in the pre-season one year but it didn't work.

The suggestion of throw-in for kicking it, otherwise free kick, wouldn't work either as then you could quite easily just drop it on your boot quite deliberately and dribble it over the line.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's boring.

They should make Test Match cricket faster somehow too.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
They should make Test Match cricket faster somehow too. Missed the point...

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Missed the point...

Au contraire.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Au contraire. Oh lah de dah!

Football and cricket are not comparable in this respect.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh lah de dah!

Football and cricket are not comparable in this respect.

I guess. Cricket is meant to be boring.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I guess. Cricket is meant to be boring. Exactly. It's all part of the mystique!!

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
Should install the rugby rule of no playing the ball while on the ground for starters.

There was another one that @@@@es me off too...I can't think of it. You really do belong in Ireland, eh?

[Layby]

Originally posted by Steiger
The AFL has asked its readers for their opinion on the proposed rule changes for 2007.

5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).[/i]


This is when compensation/insurance takes over from common sense and the ability to play sport.

Nobody who actually plays AFL would want such a change included in the game (IMHO). It takes away the pillar of the big man vs small man, skill vs guts/aggression aspect of AFL. If you play a contact sport there is always a very very small chance you will recieve a freaky injury. Taking the physical aspect from the game is not the way to stop it.

Sure if you target the head your out (and for a long while) but that rule is alraedy in place. Take away the bump (and more importantly the shirt front) and you take away a major part of the contest and IMO the game.

IMO Guerra hit on Dal Santo was a classic example of this he did nothing wrong and was outed, Crazy !

Chicks hit on Mal was a classic, and nearly turned the game, that would be gone if this rule comes in by stealth.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
They trialled that in the pre-season one year but it didn't work.

The suggestion of throw-in for kicking it, otherwise free kick, wouldn't work either as then you could quite easily just drop it on your boot quite deliberately and dribble it over the line.

I didn't give a detailed account....but this allows players to put the ball out without having to test their acting skill. The reason I suggested it this way is that if someone was close to the line and under pressure they could easily kick it OOF resulting in a free kick.

[giant]

Originally posted by Layby
Chicks hit on Mal was a classic, and nearly turned the game, that would be gone if this rule comes in by stealth.

It was a late cheap shot on a bloke left exposed after kicking the ball - difficult to see what was "classic" about it other than "classic Chick thuggery".

That said, it was worth a FK and no more.

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by j s
What impact would this have had on the GF? I can recall only two blatantly deliberate behinds - one each way, Embley(?) and Kennelly - were there any more?

Wouldn't have made any difference.
There were four "rushed" behinds a piece.
One of each that could have been deemed "deliberate" and three that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by giant
It was a late cheap shot on a bloke left exposed after kicking the ball - difficult to see what was "classic" about it other than "classic Chick thuggery".

That said, it was worth a FK and no more. Absolutely. No class at all. Cheap Chick. Probably not worth suspension in hindsight - but I think those sort of hits at least need looking at.

[laughingnome]

Originally posted by Agent 86
I think those sort of hits at least need looking at.
I disagree. For memory we scored a goal from that clearance and thats a double blow for WCE and Chick. Had he played the ball he might have effected a turnover on the 50m line and possibly scored. No doubt he was trying to rough up the Swans but he did so at his peril. If the gamble had come off it would've been great, but it didn't so we just take it as a part of football.

It's sort of like the "flying the flag" thing. Umpires don't stop the game for a brawl anymore (maybe why Collingwood sucks now, oh yeah, cheap shot) and so players who want to take a swing end up costing their team goals. Leave it be. I think it was rough but fair. At the most the umpire would have given a downfield free but no more.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I didn't think the bump was unfair, but it was definitely a cheap shot. Chick isn't in the same class as Cousins or Kerr, probably not as good a kick as Malceski is now, so roughing people up is his way of showing Woosha he has some value in the side.

[giant]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
...roughing people up is his way of showing Woosha he has some value in the side.

That, and winning the premiership for them with 3 one-percenters in the same play.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
I didn't think the bump was unfair, but it was definitely a cheap shot.How can it be both fair & a cheap shot?

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Agent 86
How can it be both fair & a cheap shot?

I think he means legal but cheap...sounds like a girl I met the other night....