AFL introduces new rule against ducking

[bornadog]

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html)

One rule changes and creates another problem, so the AFL has to compensate with another interpretation.

AFL will never learn to stop tampering.

[Bulldog Joe]

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-introduces-new-rule-against-ducking-20150601-gheh3g.html)

One rule changes and creates another problem, so the AFL has to compensate with another interpretation.

AFL will never learn to stop tampering.

If this change is interpretted correctly it will be a positive.

[boydogs]

Sounds clear as mud to me

[bornadog]

If this change is interpretted correctly it will be a positive.

I agree. What I am saying is the previous interpretation about protecting the head created the current situation where players play for a free. The more you tamper the more you have to tamper again.

[jeemak]

Why couldn't they just stop paying frees to players who duck and get hit in the head, and reward the tackle if the ball isn't disposed of correctly after prior opportunity has been exhausted?

It's easy enough to stop rewarding the behaviour you don't want to see. As soon as players realise they won't be rewarded for it and will need to be accountable for disposing of the football the behaviour will cease.

The fact the AFL added another layer to the rules is just reinforcement their backward hick mentality.

[Greystache]

Why couldn't they just stop paying frees to players who duck and get hit in the head, and reward the tackle if the ball isn't disposed of correctly after prior opportunity has been exhausted?

It's easy enough to stop rewarding the behaviour you don't want to see. As soon as players realise they won't be rewarded for it and will need to be accountable for disposing of the football the behaviour will cease.

The fact the AFL added another layer to the rules is just reinforcement their backward hick mentality.

That's what they've done. You don't get a free kick against for driving with your head, they just won't give you a free for too high, and they will consider the drive prior opportunity. If you dispose of the ball properly it's play on, if you don't it's holding the ball.

[jeemak]

That's what they've done. You don't get a free kick against for driving with your head, they just won't give you a free for too high, and they will consider the drive prior opportunity. If you dispose of the ball properly it's play on, if you don't it's holding the ball.

Having read the article in its entirety it seems I've gone off half-cocked!

I'm not taking back my rant about the AFL having a backward hick mentality, and my excuse for getting it wrong is that I stopped reading when Wayne Campbell's name appeared in the story.

:)

[Greystache]

Having read the article in its entirety it seems I've gone off half-cocked!

I'm not taking back my rant about the AFL having a backward hick mentality, and my excuse for getting it wrong is that I stopped reading when Wayne Campbell's name appeared in the story.

:)

And nor should you! :D

I bet there's going to be huge arguments over this rule. Gerard Whately on AFL360 had the interpretation wrong last night and had the players in furor about it, and he's no muppet. So I doubt you'll be the last to view the rule the way you did.

[Rocket Science]

The understandable charge of ceaseless rule fiddling aside, it seems - based on the examples shown by Whateley on AFL360 - to try to deincentivize players going head first the AFL will initially swing the pendulum back hard to effect that behavioural change as quickly as possible by overzealously pinging blokes for holding the ball who - in my view based on the same examples shown - ordinarily wouldn't be considered to have prior opportunity if head high contact didn't occur, potentially penalising the bloke going for the pill.

And in doing so, to compound matters, Campbell flatly confessed they've knowingly made the umpires' job harder.

Can see this going well.