When I'm King...

[Sockeye Salmon]

In another thread I solved all the AFL's fixturing problems in about 5 minutes.

My next AFL ****-up that I have to fix is the rules committee.

Step 1 - Kill Kevin Bartlett and his mates (except Luke Darcy obviously).
Hopefully this will prevent volunteers if they ever try to bring it back at some stage in the future.

Step 2 - Abolish the stupid 'hands in the back' and 'chopping the arms' rules.
If they actually give backmen the chance to defend, coaches might not have to put 15 blokes in the D50 to try to stop a goal. Give blokes under 6' 5" the chance to be a backman if they're good enough.

Step 3 - Abolish the quick kick-in rule.
Encourages rushed behinds and rewards the bloke who couldn't be bothered chasing his opponent and is now standing on his own on the wing.

Step 4 - Don't pay a mark from a backwards kick in the defensive half of the ground.
Nothing more infuriating than watching sides waste everyones time. I can hear Mike's voice now 'they should pick them up, yada, yada'. Let them kick it to each other if no-one picks them up but let's introduce some element of risk by calling 'play on' when they do.

Step 5 - Don't ever bring in other stupid rules like supergoals, playing on off the goalpost or limiting the number of interchanges.
Every time they bring in a gimmick they chip away at the fabric of the game and cheapen it a bit.

[mjp]

Agree
Agree mostly - as long as the umpires actually pay in the back free kicks. Chopping the arms rule is a disgrace.
Disagree (A lot - waiting for some stager in a hat to wave a flag? What a joke.)
Agree. I will say that they should pick them up...but I also think backwards kicks starting outside the forward 50m area should be play on.
Agree. But you have compromised yourself by listing point '4' - or is the king not held up to the same standards as everyone else?

[katemeehan]

Step 6- Players like Fraser Gehrig should play with a paper bag over their heads

:)

[Mantis]

Step 6- Players like Fraser Gehrig should play with a paper bag over their heads

:)

The bloke as your avatar isn't exactly a good looking bloke.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Agree. But you have compromised yourself by listing point '4' - or is the king not held up to the same standards as everyone else?

Duh. Of course not.

[bornadog]

sorry, don't agree with step 4, pick up your man solves the problem. We did that to Adelaide at the MCG in 2006 and Adelaie lost.

[hujsh]

sorry, don't agree with step 4, pick up your man solves the problem. We did that to Adelaide at the MCG in 2006 and Adelaie lost.

I think if we want it gone then the VFL has shown us that step 4 will work. otherwise it will stay

[bornadog]

I think if we want it gone then the VFL has shown us that step 4 will work. otherwise it will stay

Everytime there is a rule change, the coaches find a way around it. Believe me , if step 4 above was introduced, there are a number of strategies the coaches will come up with and then the game will be changed again, for the worse as it will get uglier.

The game is in constant evolution as humans become bigger and faster. These old timers such as KB, Gerard Healy etc who keep calling for rule changes to take the game back to the 1980's style are dreaming. Leave the rules alone, let the game evolve as you can't stop it.

[LostDoggy]

Step 7 -- Introduce a 9 points supergoal for a place kick. This slows the game down, allows more ad breaks, which increases revenue and excitement and Grows the Product.

I like your step 4 immensely. Only because it will stop fans yelling out 'man up, man up, why don't they man up!'. Drives me batty.

[mjp]

Everytime there is a rule change, the coaches find a way around it. Believe me , if step 4 above was introduced, there are a number of strategies the coaches will come up with and then the game will be changed again, for the worse as it will get uglier.


Like what?

When the ball is kicked backwards, nothing changes - except for the fact that the player who is receiving the ball is immediately under pressure...perceived or otherwise. This would actively encourage the defending team to push up and cover - more chance of a turnover/positive play.

I am curious what the coaches would do to overcome this...the backwards kick would still happen - it is just less likely to be effective as a purely clock draining measure.

[bornadog]

Like what?

When the ball is kicked backwards, nothing changes - except for the fact that the player who is receiving the ball is immediately under pressure...perceived or otherwise. This would actively encourage the defending team to push up and cover - more chance of a turnover/positive play.

I am curious what the coaches would do to overcome this...the backwards kick would still happen - it is just less likely to be effective as a purely clock draining measure.

How about if a player knows they MUST kick forward, the opposition will flood forward of the player and ball movement will stagnate even further.

[Sockeye Salmon]

There would be no obligation to kick forwards. You can still kick backwards, it's just 'play on' when you do.

[mjp]

How about if a player knows they MUST kick forward, the opposition will flood forward of the player and ball movement will stagnate even further.

But there is no 'MUST'...it is simply that if they do, no mark will be paid.

If coaches have the chance to cause a turn-over close to goal, they will try and take it...

[bornadog]

But there is no 'MUST'...it is simply that if they do, no mark will be paid.

If coaches have the chance to cause a turn-over close to goal, they will try and take it...

The real issue for me is that we are changing the rule because the game has evolved and some people don't like it. I can't see the point of changing the game just because coaches have the tactic of chipping the ball around and playing posession footy. Just because people don't like this they call for a rule change. Every time there is a rule change, the game changes again, and not the way we think it is going to change.

As a coach mjp, surely you are constantly thinking how you can gain an advantage within the rules. You don't care how the game is played, your objective is to win whether its pretty footy or ugly footy. The guys that change the rules keeping wanting to counteract the coaches tactics all in the name of making the game more attractive as a spectacle, or making it more free flowing. When flooding was rampant a few years ago there were all sorts of cries to change the rules, thank god it didn't happen. As for kicking backwards, if the team that hasn't got the ball wants it, all they have to do is man up.

[Twodogs]

In another thread I solved all the AFL's fixturing problems in about 5 minutes.

My next AFL ****-up that I have to fix is the rules committee.

Step 1 - Kill Kevin Bartlett and his mates (except Luke Darcy obviously).
Hopefully this will prevent volunteers if they ever try to bring it back at some stage in the future.

Step 2 - Abolish the stupid 'hands in the back' and 'chopping the arms' rules.
If they actually give backmen the chance to defend, coaches might not have to put 15 blokes in the D50 to try to stop a goal. Give blokes under 6' 5" the chance to be a backman if they're good enough.

Step 3 - Abolish the quick kick-in rule.
Encourages rushed behinds and rewards the bloke who couldn't be bothered chasing his opponent and is now standing on his own on the wing.

Step 4 - Don't pay a mark from a backwards kick in the defensive half of the ground.
Nothing more infuriating than watching sides waste everyones time. I can hear Mike's voice now 'they should pick them up, yada, yada'. Let them kick it to each other if no-one picks them up but let's introduce some element of risk by calling 'play on' when they do.

Step 5 - Don't ever bring in other stupid rules like supergoals, playing on off the goalpost or limiting the number of interchanges.
Every time they bring in a gimmick they chip away at the fabric of the game and cheapen it a bit.



Nup-Seldom brings in bad rules, no matter what what all the nuff-nuffs think
Nup-It's not the only thing causing congestion of play and at least you see the occasional marking contest.
Nup-Why would we want to get rid of something that is to our advantage. If we do drop it I want us to get two goals a week headstart to compensate.
Maybe-I'm not that fussed about it but I have to give you something I suppose.
Agree-it's a simp-le game and complicationg it is stupid.





P.S.I wonder if everybody bitched and moaned about the out of bounds rule they bought 40 years ago or if everybody hated the new fangled boundary umpires at the turn of last century or including points in teams tally when the VFL started in 1897?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Nup-Seldom brings in bad rules, no matter what what all the nuff-nuffs think
Nup-It's not the only thing causing congestion of play and at least you see the occasional marking contest.
Nup-Why would we want to get rid of something that is to our advantage. If we do drop it I want us to get two goals a week headstart to compensate.
Maybe-I'm not that fussed about it but I have to give you something I suppose.
Agree-it's a simp-le game and complicationg it is stupid.





P.S.I wonder if everybody bitched and moaned about the out of bounds rule they bought 40 years ago or if everybody hated the new fangled boundary umpires at the turn of last century or including points in teams tally when the VFL started in 1897?

You've got to be kidding me! All they do is bring in disgraceful rules!

Not all rule changes are bad.
The out of bounds on the full was a good rule change (circa 1968ish)
The centre diamond/square (1972/73)
Dropping the ball when Kevin Bartlett threw it out in front of him (1980)

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game.

[Mofra]

You've got to be kidding me! All they do is bring in disgraceful rules!

Not all rule changes are bad.
The out of bounds on the full was a good rule change (circa 1968ish)
The centre diamond/square (1972/73)
Dropping the ball when Kevin Bartlett threw it out in front of him (1980)

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game.
Agree Sockeye - some changes are good. I like the centre circle change, simply because it is designed with ruck's safety in mind.

Most of the recent changes (either to the rules or interpretation) appear to be trying to take some of the "grey area" out of the game. AFL is already one of the difficult games in the world to umpire because so many of the rules are interpretive (eg. what constitutes "deliberate out of bounds" is as much decided by the crowd as the umpire), not to mention how fit the umpires need to be just to keep up with the play.

[Go_Dogs]

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game

I don't have a problem with the rule changes, consistency of decisions by the umpires is what lets it down. If it was the same at both ends all year, no one would complain.

[Twodogs]

You've got to be kidding me! All they do is bring in disgraceful rules!

Not all rule changes are bad.
The out of bounds on the full was a good rule change (circa 1968ish)
The centre diamond/square (1972/73)
Dropping the ball when Kevin Bartlett threw it out in front of him (1980)

The vast majority of rule changes have been bad for the game.


You're making my point for me. They are all good changes, the game would be much worse without them. But I'll bet there were any number of people complaining about them when they were made. Now we look back and know the changes were for the good. At the time I there would have been supporters threataning to burn down H. C.A. Harrison's house unless he stopped ruining the game.

[bornadog]

when does changing the rules stop then????

[hujsh]

You're making my point for me. They are all good changes, the game would be much worse without them. But I'll bet there were any number of people complaining about them when they were made. Now we look back and know the changes were for the good. At the time I there would have been supporters threataning to burn down H. C.A. Harrison's house unless he stopped ruining the game.

But there wouldn't be many more than what he said.

[LostDoggy]

Agree Sockeye - some changes are good. I like the centre circle change, simply because it is designed with ruck's safety in mind.

Most of the recent changes (either to the rules or interpretation) appear to be trying to take some of the "grey area" out of the game. AFL is already one of the difficult games in the world to umpire because so many of the rules are interpretive (eg. what constitutes "deliberate out of bounds" is as much decided by the crowd as the umpire), not to mention how fit the umpires need to be just to keep up with the play.


"Deliberate out of bounds" is a killer for me. Please help me see if I've got this right: if you take or knock the ball deliberately out of bounds a freekick is awarded against your team at the spot the ball crossed the line. Right?

Now, how is:

1. Spoiling a ball into the forward-line by punching it deliberately out of bounds
2. Running in a straight line and picking up the ball and immediately going out of bounds

and my favourite:

3. Picking up the ball and pretending to 'side-step' a player but taking the ball out of bounds as you do so

not 'deliberately' taking the ball out of bounds?

Isn't the whole point of the rule to force teams to try to keep the ball in and therefore force a more continuous, flowing game? Thus, if the rule is policed correctly,

1. A kick into the forward-line has to be spoilt back out towards the field of play or at least a general forward direction
2. A player running for a ball near the boundary line actually has to try to circle the ball and play it rather than run it straight out

and

3. If you have the ball in your hands you by definition HAVE IT UNDER CONTROL, so if you try to beat a player and step over the boundary line it MUST be deliberate, by definition! It CANNOT logically be anything else. It's the same case as taking the ball from a bounce and trying to beat your man constituting prior opportunity.

I think this rule as it is currently policed is just a blight on the game as it is the ONE area that players are actually rewarded by 'acting' stupid or clumsy, and dishonestly, essentially. Just so ridiculous when these elite athletes all of a sudden can't pick up a ball or run properly or pretend to fall over. Until we fix this area footy has no moral high ground over soccer players 'diving'.

[hujsh]

When the ball is kicked 50+m in the wet and it just rolls over the line and it is paid deliberate a little piece of all AFL lovers dies inside

[LostDoggy]

When the ball is kicked 50+m in the wet and it just rolls over the line and it is paid deliberate a little piece of all AFL lovers dies inside

YES EXACTLY!

Are AFL umpires actually deliberately unintelligent or unsophisticated? It's not just so much that they are generally inconsistent -- that's just human -- but there's this almost deliberate naivety, almost as if they were actually trying to frustrate the rational mind.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What if the rule was 'primary intention'?

If your primary intention was to spoil, you can punch it out.

If your primary intention was to gain yardage for your team, if it rolls out of bounds it should be OK. The grey area becomes how much is enough? That will always depend on the circumstance.

[Mofra]

If your primary intention was to gain yardage for your team, if it rolls out of bounds it should be OK. The grey area becomes how much is enough? That will always depend on the circumstance.
That's the problem. Depending on circumsatnce basically means it is up the individual umpire's decision at that time. Given the number of umpires in teh system, there is no way we can hope to gain consistency.

I can't think of any other sport that is as difficult to umpire as AFL.