Are You Sick Of The Afl Changing Rules Every Year

[Happy Days]

It shits me I'm so easily triggered by their now entirely predictable schtick but just trying to imagine the policing involved with a routine kick from a mark or free kick that occurs what, a hundred times a game?

The umpire must presumably now intently watch both the kicker and man on the mark, simultaneously, to determine if anyone flinches laterally in which case it's either play on or a fifty metre penalty.

Except a kicker's routinely given leeway to scan and half-heartedly test options before being called to play on yet the umpire alone now determines when and if the man on the mark can react to a kicker's behaviour.

What happens when the kicker feigns left or right - as so often occurs - and the man on the mark instinctively reads this, gesturing left or right in response, while still maintaining the mark, or even if just to brace in case he has to set off in pursuit to try narrowing an escape angle.

*whistle*

Even if it's adjudicated consistently and correctly a half-step flinch is going to cost goals, and results, while strangling yet more instinct out of a game that's built on it and yet increasingly starved of it.

At what point do these spivs answer charges of continually disfiguring the product in the chase for moar advertising revenue under the specious guise that more goals = a more attractive product to anyone that isn't an advertiser.

It's patently about making the game as freewheeling as possible to manufacture more scoring to manufacture more ad spots during a broadcast and more leverage over advertisers to demand more dollars. And we can all agree, that's good for footy.

Nah you're wrong. Its gonna be awesome and me and all my friends have been demanding it, Steve Hocking told me so.

[Vred]

Why not just make 6-6-6 permanent and not let players leave their zones.

stop changing rules, bloody AFL.

[jeemak]

Why not just make 6-6-6 permanent and not let players leave their zones.

stop changing rules, bloody AFL.

BAD..............


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOy6hqzfsAs

[macca]

I would have thought fatigue would not only add to congestion but also increase the risk of injury.
If a player gets tired isn't natural to slow the game down and hold onto the ball and chip it around.
I'd call them wankers but its an insult to a wanker.
Yep, it will lead to more soft tissues injury as players have to play under more fatigue . The game is actually becoming harder to watch now. I reckon the interchange reduction will shorten players careers. The more soft tissue injuries you get the hard it becomes to recover and you lose the elasticity and spring in the muscles

I foresee players will be rested due to muscle tightness .

More terrible ideas from City Hall . Sigh ... I really struggle now to watch a whole game of Afl due to the new rule changes

[bornadog]

Why not just make 6-6-6 permanent and not let players leave their zones.

Hope you are joking.

6-6-6 has done ZERO to enhance the game. What a joke, umpires standing there counting the players in each zone.

Since 1996, name one rule change that is better for the game? (except, those protecting the head/player from injury)

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The 3 players inside 50 is the worst. It's scary they're actually trialling this at VFL level. Can you imagine the game being held up whilst players run into the goal square and inside 50? It's ludicrous.

None of these changes will have any positive impact on the game. Do they consult players and coaches before they come out with this nonsense? I only continue to watch the sport because of the dogs. Without the club I wouldn't give it a bar of my attention.

[comrade]

Getting closer to netball with every passing season.

[Mitcha]

Just a question but shouldn't this one be in the AFL talk thread?

[SquirrelGrip]

Since 1996, name one rule change that is better for the game? (except, those protecting the head/player from injury)

In 1997, repeated abusive language to an umpire incurred a free plus 50-metre penalty. The offence was no longer necessarily reportable.

The AFL has a list of all rule changes since 1858 here: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The game just continues to deteriorate. What more can be said that hasn't already?

In another 10 years, the game will be unwatchable.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

And we don't yet know what rule(s) will be adjudicated differently during the season. The HTB interpretation changed twice this year.

[SquirrelGrip]

And we don't yet know what rule(s) will be adjudicated differently during the season. The HTB interpretation changed twice this year.

The change in how rules are adjudicated is a bigger issue than changes to the rules in my opinion. And when they are done on the fly mid-season, the frustration levels for the players (and difficulty levels for the poor umpires) is immense.

[bornadog]

In 1997, repeated abusive language to an umpire incurred a free plus 50-metre penalty. The offence was no longer necessarily reportable.

The AFL has a list of all rule changes since 1858 here: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

I don't count the early years rule changes, as the game was new, just made up, but after over 150 years, surely we have worked it out.

The changes they are making will effect the game.

The VFL ones are the last straw, the game will stop and start like gridiron. The second tier competition is supposed to help develop players, not confuse them.

What we have is a bunch of old men who played in the 80s and they are trying to bring in rules to make the game look the same. No rule change will ever, make the game into something you want it to look like.

[Twodogs]

Watch recruiters bring in athletes that can run all day with no footy intelligence.

I remember that movie, it was crap. I've got no idea why they are remaking it.

[Twodogs]

It shits me I'm so easily triggered by their now entirely predictable schtick but just trying to imagine the policing involved with a routine kick from a mark or free kick that occurs what, a hundred times a game?

The umpire must presumably now intently watch both the kicker and man on the mark, simultaneously, to determine if anyone flinches laterally in which case it's either play on or a fifty metre penalty.

Except a kicker's routinely given leeway to scan and half-heartedly test options before being called to play on yet the umpire alone now determines when and if the man on the mark can react to a kicker's behaviour.

What happens when the kicker feigns left or right - as so often occurs - and the man on the mark instinctively reads this, gesturing left or right in response, while still maintaining the mark, or even if just to brace in case he has to set off in pursuit to try narrowing an escape angle.

*whistle*

Even if it's adjudicated consistently and correctly a half-step flinch is going to cost goals, and results, while strangling yet more instinct out of a game that's built on it and yet increasingly starved of it.

At what point do these spivs answer charges of continually disfiguring the product in the chase for moar advertising revenue under the specious guise that more goals = a more attractive product to anyone that isn't an advertiser.

It's patently about making the game as freewheeling as possible to manufacture more scoring to manufacture more ad spots during a broadcast and more leverage over advertisers to demand more dollars. And we can all agree, that's good for footy.

It all seems to be about making football palatable to people who don't care about football. They run the risk of losing people like us who enjoy the game in pursuit of attracting the attention of people who don't like it but may have enjoyed Dustin Martin's GF heroics. The thing about heroics though is they are memorable because they are heroic. And the reason they are heroic and memorable is they only happen from time to time.

Anyway if they want to break down congestion then bring back third man up at ruck contests. But they will never admit to making an error.

[Rocket Science]

And we don't yet know what rule(s) will be adjudicated differently during the season. The HTB interpretation changed twice this year.

Haaaa. Of course. The additional, now demonstrated wildcard element of going "oops!" mid-season when something isn't working before telling the umps - and maybe even the clubs if they're lucky - "okay, stop paying those now".

It's thrilling, edge of the seat stuff, and I'm here for it.

[Rocket Science]

It all seems to be about making football palatable to people who don't care about football. They run the risk of losing people like us who enjoy the game in pursuit of attracting the attention of people who don't like it but may have enjoyed Dustin Martin's GF heroics. The thing about heroics though is they are memorable because they are heroic. And the reason they are heroic and memorable is they only happen from time to time.

Anyway if they want to break down congestion then bring back third man up at ruck contests. But they will never admit to making an error.

You betcha. When every game is a blizzard of goals and appended Bunnings ads then we'll just have to defer to Bruce, BT & Hame to enlighten us which ones are truly memorable and the AFEL's work here is done.

I propose by 2030 the field will consist of opposing 50 metre arcs, the entire centre of the ground excised because really who GAF about the cut and thrust of open play, with games decided by something akin to kick-to-kick just with goalposts involved that visibly amp up before shooting laser beams into the heavens, Death Star style, every time someone dobs one, which is often.

[Axe Man]

JJ Liston Trophy champion clips AFL over rule changes (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/localfooty/vfl/jj-liston-trophy-champion-clips-afl-over-rule-changes/news-story/d8d632530cf27690daaef617e250419e)

Star VFL players, including a JJ Liston Trophy-winner and a club captain, have hit out at the AFL over a key rule change for the second-tier league next year.

VFL star Tommy Gribble’s message to the AFL is clear: we’re players, not rat labs.

Werribee’s 2019 JJ Liston Trophy winner and other VFL players took to Twitter on Wednesday night to deliver a verbal shirt-front to the AFL over a major rule change to the competition next year.

The AFL announced yesterday that a minimum of three players from each team must stand inside 50m – with one pair in the goalsquare – at all kick-ins, boundary throw-ins and ball-ups.

It said play would not restart until all players were in position.

“Where a team fails to comply at a boundary throw-in or a ball-up, a free kick shall be awarded to the player of the opposing team at the point of the stoppage.

“Where the attacking teams fail to comply at a kick-in, a 50m penalty shall be awarded to the defending team.’’

The AFL said the rule would be “closely monitored prior to consideration as to whether it is implemented in the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership Season’’.

Other rules were also announced.

VFL clubs were told of the changes shortly before they were detailed in an AFL media release.

Gribble gave the league a clip on social media, tweeting: “Hey @AFL here’s an idea – how about if you want to tweak the rules of the competition you do it to your competition and test it on that.

“Stop ruining the credibility of the VFL comp making all these test rules and list/age requirements, we are players, not lab rats.’’

Contacted this morning, Gribble said Werribee had asked him to not make further comment.

Coburg captain Peter McEvoy and senior player Jesse Corigliano chipped in too, with Corigliano calling the 50m rule “plain stupid’’.

“Good to know that aspiring draftees and AFL players trying to cement a spot in their team’s best 22 will be playing under a completely different set of rules than the @afl competition…,’’ he said.

McEvoy said the VFL had become the “crash test dummy’’.

He said each year “these nonsensical rules additions erode the originality of our game’’.

“Again zero consultation with players/coaches. It will be a disaster to adjudicate, will increase time wasting + injuries and create confusion for AFL players,’’ McEvoy said.

Former Port Melbourne senior coach David Dunbar said the VFL had been “destroyed’’ and was now “just a shambles of a competition’’.

Williamstown assistant coach Brett Henderson weighed in too.

“Hey @AFL, the @VFL is not a gimmick’’. It’s a serious competition with an edge. How about just giving sides 100 points at the start of the game and play for 10 minutes … same result and as a bonus you get shortened games and high scoring at the same time. Oh and you could ask fans.’’

Veteran Frankston timekeeper Michael Robinson said quarters could blow out to 40 minutes in the VFL.

He said the new zone rule would make the VFL more like America’s NFL.

[Topdog]

Glowing reviews from players and coaches to start off with.

[soupman]

I did not realise that 3 inside 50 requirement applied for kick ins. I guess we are never gonna see a quick kick out ever again. The whole ground is gonna be waiting for Mitch Wallis to waddle back to the goalsquare before we can do anything.

[comrade]

I'm glad the players are having a crack at the AFL.

[bornadog]

I did not realise that 3 inside 50 requirement applied for kick ins. I guess we are never gonna see a quick kick out ever again. The whole ground is gonna be waiting for Mitch Wallis is waddle back to the goalsquare before we can do anything.

Once you destroy the principles of the game - it just won't be the same game

[comrade]

Once you destroy the principles of the game - it just won't be the same game

Zones are the antithesis of what Aussie Rules is all about - a chaotic 360 degree game where the players can run anywhere (within reason).

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I did not realise that 3 inside 50 requirement applied for kick ins. I guess we are never gonna see a quick kick out ever again. The whole ground is gonna be waiting for Mitch Wallis to waddle back to the goalsquare before we can do anything.

You forgot for all throw-ins and ballups too. Each damn ball up we'll have to wait for players to waddle on back to the goal square.

And even if there are 3 players inside both 50s, we'll have to wait for the umpires to do the check! So they'll be shouting to each other for confirmation??? That'll be at least 5 extra seconds for each ballup. It'll just allow even more players to get to the ballup negating the 3 inside 50. It's so stupid it's beyond comprehension.

[jeemak]

You forgot for all throw-ins and ballups too. Each damn ball up we'll have to wait for players to waddle on back to the goal square.

And even if there are 3 players inside both 50s, we'll have to wait for the umpires to do the check! So they'll be shouting to each other for confirmation??? That'll be at least 5 extra seconds for each ballup. It'll just allow even more players to get to the ballup negating the 3 inside 50. It's so stupid it's beyond comprehension.

Come on mate they're not so completely insane that they'd include ball-ups! Truthfully, they've excluded them from the requirement.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Come on mate they're not so completely insane that they'd include ball-ups! Truthfully, they've excluded them from the requirement.

Think again.

[jeemak]

Think again.

Well they haven't yet.....and I was being facetious. They are bonkers enough to eventually do it though.

[bornadog]

Come on mate they're not so completely insane that they'd include ball-ups! Truthfully, they've excluded them from the requirement.

believe it.


In the league-second-teir comp, which will replace the VFL and NEAFL next season, a minimum of three players from each team will have to be inside their team’s attacking 50m arc at all kick-ins and boundary throw-ins and ball-ups.

[jeemak]

Huh? Boundary throw-ins and kick-ins.........not ball-ups......

[bulldogsthru&thru]

JJ Liston Trophy champion clips AFL over rule changes (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/localfooty/vfl/jj-liston-trophy-champion-clips-afl-over-rule-changes/news-story/d8d632530cf27690daaef617e250419e)

Star VFL players, including a JJ Liston Trophy-winner and a club captain, have hit out at the AFL over a key rule change for the second-tier league next year.

VFL star Tommy Gribble’s message to the AFL is clear: we’re players, not rat labs.

Werribee’s 2019 JJ Liston Trophy winner and other VFL players took to Twitter on Wednesday night to deliver a verbal shirt-front to the AFL over a major rule change to the competition next year.

The AFL announced yesterday that a minimum of three players from each team must stand inside 50m – with one pair in the goalsquare – at all kick-ins, boundary throw-ins and ball-ups.

It said play would not restart until all players were in position.

“Where a team fails to comply at a boundary throw-in or a ball-up, a free kick shall be awarded to the player of the opposing team at the point of the stoppage.

“Where the attacking teams fail to comply at a kick-in, a 50m penalty shall be awarded to the defending team.’’

The AFL said the rule would be “closely monitored prior to consideration as to whether it is implemented in the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership Season’’.

Other rules were also announced.

VFL clubs were told of the changes shortly before they were detailed in an AFL media release.

Gribble gave the league a clip on social media, tweeting: “Hey @AFL here’s an idea – how about if you want to tweak the rules of the competition you do it to your competition and test it on that.

“Stop ruining the credibility of the VFL comp making all these test rules and list/age requirements, we are players, not lab rats.’’

Contacted this morning, Gribble said Werribee had asked him to not make further comment.

Coburg captain Peter McEvoy and senior player Jesse Corigliano chipped in too, with Corigliano calling the 50m rule “plain stupid’’.

“Good to know that aspiring draftees and AFL players trying to cement a spot in their team’s best 22 will be playing under a completely different set of rules than the @afl competition…,’’ he said.

McEvoy said the VFL had become the “crash test dummy’’.

He said each year “these nonsensical rules additions erode the originality of our game’’.

“Again zero consultation with players/coaches. It will be a disaster to adjudicate, will increase time wasting + injuries and create confusion for AFL players,’’ McEvoy said.

Former Port Melbourne senior coach David Dunbar said the VFL had been “destroyed’’ and was now “just a shambles of a competition’’.

Williamstown assistant coach Brett Henderson weighed in too.

“Hey @AFL, the @VFL is not a gimmick’’. It’s a serious competition with an edge. How about just giving sides 100 points at the start of the game and play for 10 minutes … same result and as a bonus you get shortened games and high scoring at the same time. Oh and you could ask fans.’’

Veteran Frankston timekeeper Michael Robinson said quarters could blow out to 40 minutes in the VFL.

He said the new zone rule would make the VFL more like America’s NFL.
According to this

[jeemak]

Well I'm confused. I was pretty sure it was just for throw-ins and kick-ins......

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Well I'm confused. I was pretty sure it was just for throw-ins and kick-ins......

The official imagery I saw also had Ball-ups mentioned.

[jeemak]

The official imagery I saw also had Ball-ups mentioned.

Well it wouldn't be the AFEL if there wasn't ambiguity and confusion!

[Hotdog60]

The VFL players need to ban together and not follow the rule and if the umpire gives a free kick the opposing side should refuse to take it.
Create a stand off and see where it goes. Not for just one game but all the games. They can tell the umpires to go back to last years rules or we'll walk off. See how that would go down with round one a wipe out.

[bornadog]

The VFL players need to ban together and not follow the rule and if the umpire gives a free kick the opposing side should refuse to take it.
Create a stand off and see where it goes. Not for just one game but all the games. They can tell the umpires to go back to last years rules or we'll walk off. See how that would go down with round one a wipe out.

Clubs should ban together and complain before it is introduced.

[bornadog]

The official imagery I saw also had Ball-ups mentioned.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnFYzbNXUAYzWY7?format=jpg&name=large

[jeemak]

Sauce?

[bornadog]

Sauce?

You can't believe it can you ;)

[jeemak]

You can't believe it can you ;)

No......I can't. I won't. Never.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

No......I can't. I won't. Never.

Denial. I wait with a bit of fear the anger stage.....

[Axe Man]

The VFL players need to ban together and not follow the rule and if the umpire gives a free kick the opposing side should refuse to take it.
Create a stand off and see where it goes. Not for just one game but all the games. They can tell the umpires to go back to last years rules or we'll walk off. See how that would go down with round one a wipe out.


Clubs should ban together and complain before it is introduced.

Just like in the excellent WWII series Ban of Brothers?

[Twodogs]

Just like in the excellent WWII series Ban of Brothers?

Shakespeare has Henry V saying it at Agincourt first.

[SquirrelGrip]

On St Crispin's Day no less - "We few, we happy few, we ban of brothers"!

[Mofra]

I loved the justification of making "more Dustin Martin moments". You could play the game with 11 a side and a round ball and Ronaldo couldn't make more Dustin Martin moments.
They could always hold the draft in a Chinese restaurant with an open bar.

[SonofScray]

Hocking is a scourge on the game.

The AFL have been fantastic for the league and the industry of footy, but they haven't been great custodians of the game IMO. Nor has our footy media, which is incredibly homogenous in its make up. There is just so much myopic assessment of the game and fingers in the pie focusing on intangibles and product development that we are saturated with problems and deficits and negatives.

Where is the celebration of the game? Appreciation of the contest? Challenges for players and coaches to innovate or demonstrate qualities we love to see? Variety in strategy?

Its all been boiled to down to Goals = gratification + ads = $ = good, therefore, more goal plz.

[Twodogs]

On St Crispin's Day no less - "We few, we happy few, we ban of brothers"!


https://youtu.be/LuKGVW83dW0

[azabob]

A pretty good “Explainer” of the new rules.

At the start of an article it asks a great question

So what are these changes? What impact will they have? And will they make the game more "televisual"?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-is-the-afl-changing-the-rules-again-20201120-p56gd2.html

[bornadog]

A pretty good “Explainer” of the new rules.

At the start of an article it asks a great question

So what are these changes? What impact will they have? And will they make the game more "televisual"?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-is-the-afl-changing-the-rules-again-20201120-p56gd2.html

I don't accept that any of the reasons put forward will enhance the game.

[Twodogs]

https://youtu.be/LKj8IaN_0mU

[bornadog]

https://youtu.be/LKj8IaN_0mU

Thanks TD. These rules will do nothing to make the game better, just complicate umpiring even more

[Hotdog60]

Thanks TD. These rules will do nothing to make the game better, just complicate umpiring even more

The chart shows that decreasing the rotations has done nothing to stop congestion yet this guy suggests that they will cut it more just to prove their point.
I may be stupid but I would have thought if a player is fatigued he will play keepings off to give players a bit of a reprieve so expect more chipping around half back. Also wouldn't the skills drop off as a player tires so are they after the game on display look like under nines.
I suppose they are looking at zones so the Dogs need to get on the front foot and start drafting nine year old's.

[bornadog]

The chart shows that decreasing the rotations has done nothing to stop congestion yet this guy suggests that they will cut it more just to prove their point.
I may be stupid but I would have thought if a player is fatigued he will play keepings off to give players a bit of a reprieve so expect more chipping around half back. Also wouldn't the skills drop off as a player tires so are they after the game on display look like under nines.
I suppose they are looking at zones so the Dogs need to get on the front foot and start drafting nine year old's.

I don't want to see the stars of the game fatigued and skills dropping off, which will mean fewer goals anyway.

[Rocket Science]

I for one welcome the AFEL's new marketing pitch to the world ...

"A professional sporting code that purposely fatigues its players?

MAN, I'd like to see that."

[jeemak]

The chart shows that decreasing the rotations has done nothing to stop congestion yet this guy suggests that they will cut it more just to prove their point.
I may be stupid but I would have thought if a player is fatigued he will play keepings off to give players a bit of a reprieve so expect more chipping around half back. Also wouldn't the skills drop off as a player tires so are they after the game on display look like under nines.
I suppose they are looking at zones so the Dogs need to get on the front foot and start drafting nine year old's.

It boggles the mind, doesn't it. Like there's some magic number where you fatigue people just enough and the flood gates open!

And you're right, teams will play keepings off, they will prioritise defence, and they will transition the ball forward more slowly when they're tired.

As for the man on the mark rule, the AFL is saying that if a player runs further away from the kicker but inboard they may have a fifty paid against them. Good luck umpiring that without making the crowd irate!

[Twodogs]

I don't understand why they are bringing in the man on the mark rule at all. It makes no sense, will have a derogatory effect on the game, will infuriate supporters and be impossible to umpire.

All in all it should be an outstanding success. :rolleyes:

[josie]

AFL loves tinkering. Keeps a few favoured ones in a job that is not needed. Prefer it if they money goes to helping out clubs instead. It is what it is. Let’s hope we adjust quicker than others.

Do you think we have enough high endurance players to make this work to our advantage?

[jeemak]

AFL loves tinkering. Keeps a few favoured ones in a job that is not needed. Prefer it if they money goes to helping out clubs instead. It is what it is. Let’s hope we adjust quicker than others.

Do you think we have enough high endurance players to make this work to our advantage?

I think so.......relative to most other clubs we're probably OK.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Quarter lengths will return to 20min next year. Thats minutes for those of you confused over measurements. It's a measurement of time and used to measure quarter length in the AFL.

Also been mentioned that floating fixtures will return. Only the first 6 rounds will be locked in.

[Topdog]

Oh geez here we go again.

New rule adjustment ��

- players on the mark cannot move laterally
- players cannot swap on the mark
- new 5m protected area around the player on the mark that teammates cannot enter https://t.co/J0CXKqtVRb

People already saying that players will just not be on the mark and again stand 5m behind it

[hujsh]

Oh geez here we go again.

New rule adjustment ��

- players on the mark cannot move laterally
- players cannot swap on the mark
- new 5m protected area around the player on the mark that teammates cannot enter https://t.co/J0CXKqtVRb

People already saying that players will just not be on the mark and again stand 5m behind it


I think I asked in another thread why you'd bother maning the mark. If it prevents you from covering someone further up the field the only time it seems worth-while is when they take a set shot or if your defensive structure is set up already

[Hotdog60]

Players should get the umpire to point where exactly the mark is, stand on with arms folded and not move until called to play on.
It would be such a good look for the AFL and I wonder how long it will be before the memo goes out.

[Axe Man]

Players should get the umpire to point where exactly the mark is, stand on with arms folded and not move until called to play on.
It would be such a good look for the AFL and I wonder how long it will be before the memo goes out.

I think it would be best if the umpires carry little spray cans like the soccer refs and paint a little circle for the player to stand in every time there is a mark or a free kick.

[AshMac]

I think I asked in another thread why you'd bother maning the mark. If it prevents you from covering someone further up the field the only time it seems worth-while is when they take a set shot or if your defensive structure is set up already

This was my though too - the player Manning needs to decide whether to stand on the mark and stop the player playing on, or to move upfield and provide another defensive option.

I suppose the net outcome will be many more 50m penalties early and the player chasing the overlap runner not being able to charge to the marking player knowing they switch w the original man on the mark.

ItÂ’ll have a big impact on the game IMO

[hujsh]

Report on SEN that isn't up anymore that Steve Hocking wanted to make defensive spoils over the boundary line a free kick but the clubs put their foot down at that point.

Not sure why it was taken down though so take it with a grain of salt

[bornadog]

Report on SEN that isn't up anymore that Steve Hocking wanted to make defensive spoils over the boundary line a free kick but the clubs put their foot down at that point.

Not sure why it was taken down though so take it with a grain of salt

These pricks in AFL HQ should be sacked.

[Vred]

These pricks in AFL HQ should be sacked.

There's a petition going around at the moment asking for the sacking of Steve Hocking...

[Hotdog60]

Post a link I'll sign...

[Vred]

Post a link I'll sign...


Have at it

https://www.change.org/p/afl-petition-for-the-afl-to-sack-steve-hocking-for-ruining-the-game?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_27493998_en-AU%3A7&recruiter=1182196865&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share

[bornadog]

Have at it

https://www.change.org/p/afl-petition-for-the-afl-to-sack-steve-hocking-for-ruining-the-game?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_27493998_en-AU%3A7&recruiter=1182196865&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share

signed and shared

[hujsh]

Petition was made partly in jest BTW

[Hotdog60]

Petition was made partly in jest BTW

And let it gain momentum. :)

[bornadog]

AFL outlines tighter interpretations of existing rules (https://www.afl.com.au/news/696858/)

The AFL has today written to Club General Managers of Football and Senior Coaches outlining tighter interpretations of existing rules relating to Time Delay and Holding the Ball ahead of the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership Season.

This follows in-depth game analysis across the course of the 2021 season and comes after meetings with each AFL Club led by Executive General Manager Football Andrew Dillon and General Manager Football Brad Scott held across November and December last year.


In summary, the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership Season will see the following:

Time Delay



In 2022, Umpires will be less lenient towards Players who deliberately delay the play. A Free Kick or 50-Metre Penalty will be awarded under existing Law 19.2 (f).
In 2022, Umpires will no longer give a warning to Players who deliberately engage in Time Wasting and a Free Kick will be awarded under existing Law 18.13 (d).


Holding the Ball



In 2022, Umpires will be less lenient towards Players who have had Prior Opportunity and do not immediately and Correctly Dispose of the Football when they are Legally Tackled under existing Law 18.6.2.




In 2022, a Free Kick will be awarded against a Player who ducks their head prior to being Legally Tackled and does not immediately and Correctly Dispose of the Football. Umpire cues for Prior Opportunity includes: evading, fending, ducking, has a prior option (i.e. goes to handball / kick and decides not to), is balanced and steady, is awarded a mark or free-kick, or drives their head.


AFL Executive General Manager Andrew Dillon said the league looked forward to 2022 being a year of consolidation on the field despite the constantly changing environment off the field as a result of the pandemic.

"Firstly, I want to acknowledge the dedication of everyone in the football community in supporting the 2022 NAB AFL Women's Competition," Mr Dillon said.

"We are proud to have had the NAB AFLW Competition kick off the football calendar strongly and welcome fans back to games in 2022. To see the standard of footy on display in the openings rounds and the emerging talent making an immediate impact on the competition is very exciting for football and highlights the continued progression of AFLW.

"In the last week, players from AFL men's programs returned to the training track and those players, along with fans across the country, are excited for the AFL season to commence in a couple of months.

"We are looking forward to 2022 being a year of consolidation and, as such, want to reinforce there would be no material rule changes introduced for the men's competition this season. Following meetings with each of the 18 AFL Clubs across November and December last year, we have worked closely as a Football Operations and Umpiring Department to tighten up on the interpretations of existing rules relating to Time Delay and Holding the Ball.

"In relation to time delay, there will be less leniency towards players who delay play and, secondly, with holding the ball there will be less leniency towards players who have had prior opportunity and do not immediately dispose of the football.

"The tightening up of these existing rules comes after the Game Analysis team, made up of AFL and AFL Club staff, identified trends in the way the game was being played and umpired in the AFL and aims to deliver a game that is played and umpired in line with the spirit and intention that is consistent with the Laws of Australian Football.

"AFL umpires have also resumed training and we commend their commitment and professionalism as we worked through these interpretations as a collective. Last year, AFL umpires took part in over 500 club visits across the pre-season period which was beneficial to both players and umpires. We will continue that connection between AFL umpires and AFL Clubs in the lead up to games in 2022."

The AFL’s Game Analysis Team will continue to analyse data, insights and identify trends that are shaping the way the game is played in the AFL and AFLW competitions.

The rules, as written in the Laws of Australian Football and referred to above, can be found below:

TIME DELAY

The wording of the law refers to where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is unnecessarily causing a delay in play.

19.1 Spirit and Intention
After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty-Metre Penalty will be awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves in an unsportsmanlike manner.


19.2 When Imposed
Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty-Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team:

(f) engages in any conduct which delays or impedes the play; or

18.13 Other
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(d) engages in Time Wasting

HOLDING THE BALL

18.6.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.

18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity
Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.

[GVGjr]

That ducking the head rule change will cause some angst

[jeemak]

That ducking the head rule change will cause some angst

As long as everyone runs around absolutely upright like a normal freak would then it will be OK.

Too high in a tackle is problematic, as it should be the onus of he tackler and not the ball carrier for the tackle to remain legal. Just simplify it to the following:

- If a ball carrier leads with the head, that's prior
- If a ball carrier runs through a tackle and it slips below the knee it should be tripping
- If a ball carrier is strong enough to use his arms to force a tackle high then it should be a free kick for too high

[jazzadogs]

That ducking the head rule change will cause some angst

My biggest frustration with 'ducking' is that frequently a player bending over to pick the ball up will be told they ducked. The player has to be given the opportunity to get the ball, and there is no way to pick up a ball off the ground without lowering your head - I hope the umpires pay attention to that when enforcing ducking.

The time delay rule will be interesting - will the player standing over the ball refusing to pick it up and give it back be deemed 'unsportsmanlike'?

Either way, can't wait for both interpretations to fade away by round 4.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Last year we clearly prepared well for the rule changes and flew out of the blocks. Hope our analysis this year is as good and we use the changes to our advantage.
Equally I hope that the player with the ball gets a fair chance to dispose of it.
Get your leading goal kicking techniques down pat Bulldogs forwards. The ball will be coming in fast.

[I'm Not Bitter Anymore!]

What could go wrong?

[MrMahatma]

This one feels like it'll be chaos in the first week or 2 then soften. I think if adjudicated sensibly it'll be good.

BUT... gee it's a hard game to umpire.

[GVGjr]

This one feels like it'll be chaos in the first week or 2 then soften. I think if adjudicated sensibly it'll be good.

BUT... gee it's a hard game to umpire.

I know we can frustrated with rule changes but it must be a nightmare for the umpires.

[Twodogs]

My biggest frustration with 'ducking' is that frequently a player bending over to pick the ball up will be told they ducked. The player has to be given the opportunity to get the ball, and there is no way to pick up a ball off the ground without lowering your head - I hope the umpires pay attention to that when enforcing ducking.

The time delay rule will be interesting - will the player standing over the ball refusing to pick it up and give it back be deemed 'unsportsmanlike"?

Either way, can't wait for both interpretations to fade away by round 4.


I can see the ball being returned to the wrong player a lot.

[jazzadogs]

I can see the ball being returned to the wrong player a lot.

Which, if anything, is actually unsportsmanlike from the team receiving the free kick.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm sick of it. Soccer is so steeped in tradition you wouldn't likey tinker with the game like we do in AFL.
It needs more independent oversight. AFL should be classed as Australian heritage ( or something like that! ) listing and do more to protect the traditions.

[SonofScray]

Perhaps players will all be treated like The Bont when getting pinged for HTB now. I swear he gets done more than most.

[mjp]

Which, if anything, is actually unsportsmanlike from the team receiving the free kick.

It's funny right. Once upon a time (and not that long ago) if the player who took a mark/received a free kick didn't 'move it' he could (and would) be penalised for wasting time.

Now? Just stand there and hold it forever...it is not 'unsportsmanlike' but it isn't really aligned with the aim of the game (scoring goals). There will always be good games and bad games (of every sport) but I just wish we could encourage players to move it on more quickly and be prepared to kick to a contest more often. (Contest is not massive pack of players btw).

[bornadog]

Hard to interpret’: Holding the ball ruling under the microscope (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/hard-to-interpret-holding-the-ball-ruling-under-the-microscope-20220207-p59uf2.html)


Western Bulldogs champion Marcus Bontempelli has warned the tightened holding-the-ball ruling remains a work in progress, with the toughest call for umpires set to be judging if a player has been tackled spinning out of a pack.

In a bid to keep the game moving and ease the growing frustration felt by players and coaches last season, the AFL has upgraded its ruling, declaring that if players choose to evade, fend, duck or neglect a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, they will be penalised.

The AFL also hopes a quicker call will help alleviate a tendency for the tackled player to be, as AFL operations general manager Brad Scott said, “dumped into the ground”, thereby increasing the risk of head injury.

Bontempelli said umpires had recently stood in a Bulldogs’ intra-club clash, and defining whether a player had been fully tackled when stepping out of a pack was a topic of debate.


“There is probably a bit more focus on it [getting rid of the ball] and the 360 element, or the spin element. That will be the one that will probably be hard to interpret at different points, whether someone is actually being tackled or just sort of held when they are spinning out, which does happen at times during games. We will see how that pans out,” he said.


Bontempelli, officially reappointed as Bulldogs captain on Monday, said interpretations could differ between umpires. The brilliant Bulldogs’ swingman is a master of clearing the ball through the use of his strong torso and high-body handballs.

“We probably had one or two examples out here the other week, where Bailey Dale or one or two of the boys, they [umpires] let it go unless it was a fully controlled tackle,” he said.

“Each umpire will probably interpret it somewhat differently but it [being penalised] was only if you really got spun and couldn’t get rid of the ball. I think if your hands are free, I don’t think you’ll be able to go around a couple of times. But it seemed like there will be a bit of give and take.”

Senior coaches Damien Hardwick, Brett Ratten and Chris Fagan were among those confused by the holding-the-ball interpretation last season when teams logged high-tackle counts but the free kicks were not as forthcoming as coaches had hoped.

Coaches, players and supporters will get a clearer definition of what umpires are thinking when official practice matches begin this month, and then through the AAMI Community Series, leading into the home-and-away season, beginning in March.

Among the AFL’s rule or interpretation changes, players also understand they need to have a greater duty of care towards each other in a year when the bump policy has been tightened around head-high contact.

More suspensions are likely to be given if a player opts to bump rather than tackle and an opponent is hit in the head.

Under rule changes made before Christmas, the potential to cause injury “must be factored” into impact grading by the match review officer, having previously required only “strong consideration” to the consequences of front-on contact or a high bump. This means that bumps are now less likely to be graded as low impact, thereby escaping suspension.

“There has been a bit of a shift the last few years about avoiding the bump almost [on] every occasion you can because you are liable if you get head knocks,” he said.

“We are always tinkering with things. It’s great to get the umpires out … and there is good back and forth. We are always learning and adapting to things.”

The changes came after much agitation last year when Adelaide’s David Mackay was found not guilty of rough conduct over a collision with Hunter Clark which left the St Kilda player with a broken jaw in two places. Clark is still dealing with the fall-out of that clash.

There were also confusing decisions last year, including when Geelong captain Joel Selwood was fined $3000 but escaped a ban for his late-season high bump on Greater Western Sydney defender Sam Taylor.

Concussion remains a hot-button issue, with prominent lawyer Greg Griffin and player manager Peter Jess working towards a class action or launching individual cases against the AFL on behalf of players impacted post career by head knocks.

[bornadog]

Another grey area where the umps will end up making errors


‘They won’t be rewarded’: AFL issues warning to clubs, players on high contact
By Michael Gleeson

The AFL has issued a warning to clubs, saying any player who ducks or shrugs into tackles will not win head-high free kicks and all players should stop using their heads to draw frees.

After weeks of controversy around Collingwood’s Jack Ginnivan and whether he was being umpired differently, the AFL sent a reminder to all clubs, commentators and fans that the umpires have been told not to reward players who try to milk frees.
The AFL has provided video examples from round 18 to clarify high tackles and how umpires have been instructed to officiate them.

The league said any player who ducks, drops or shrugs into a tackle to draw high contact would be called to play on. Ginnivan has stopped being paid free kicks in recent weeks for high contact to which he contributes. Some other players, however, have been paid frees for similar incidents.

The AFL said in round 18 umpires had wrongly paid a free kick to Melbourne’s Kysaiah Pickett for head-high contact when the Demons forward had raised his arm to force the tackle to go high. Play on should have been called.

AFL umpires’ boss Dan Richardson said in the message to all clubs that while tacklers have a duty of care not to hit opponents high, the player being tackled also had a duty of care to themselves not to deliberately put their head at risk in trying to draw a free kick.

Earlier this week, doctors told The Age that players who duck into tackles to attract free kicks must be “protected against themselves” and warned of the risk of neck injury, brain injury and concussion associated with the tactic.

“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded,” Richardson said.

“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact,” Richardson said.

“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.

“Our umpires strive to get every decision right, every single time, however there are instances where, just like players, decisions are made at full speed at ground level without the benefit of slow-motion replay.

“The health and safety of players is the primary concern of both the AFL and the clubs, and we will continue to work with clubs, their coaching panels, as well as players to ensure the safety of the game.”

The AFL said the rules had been in place all year and the interpretation had not changed.

Despite that, there appeared to have been a palpable shift in how umpires have approached such incidents in recent weeks.

Ginnivan, who had been the lightning rod for the issue after being awarded the most head-high free kicks in the first part of the year, has stopped receiving such free kicks as frequently and play on is more often being called.

The league issued a video explanation of three tackles from the last two rounds. One involving Ginnivan the AFL said was correctly called play on, as he lowered his body and raised his arm.

Another involving Pickett looked from the umpires’ view to be a clear high-contact free but from another angle showed the umpire was mistaken in giving the free kick, as Pickett raised his arm to draw the free and play on should have been called.

In another, Hawks defender James Blanck had prior opportunity to get rid of the bal then dropped into a tackle and was taken high. Having had prior opportunity and then ducking into the tackle he was correctly penalised for holding the ball.

The AFL said the instructions to umpires are:


Where the tackle is reasonably applied, there is no prior opportunity and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – play on should be called.
Where the tackle is reasonably applied, and there is prior opportunity, and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – holding the ball should be called.
If a player has their head over the ball and trying to gain possession and contact is high, a free kick for high contact will be called.”

[MrMahatma]

What should they do though? It’s complete BS when players push tackles high. I know McLean is a master of it but it sucks. The players actively make it harder on the umps.

[Happy Days]

So why can Selwood do this for 15 years and Channel Seven campaign the whole time to give him an OAM, but Ginnivan (and apparently only Ginnivan) does it for 5 minutes and now suddenly the entire rule is changed?

[Dancin' Douggy]

Now watch more and more higher and harder tackles as defenders now feel they've been given a green light to tackle high. If a player ducks are leans into a high tackle, the tackler knows, or guesses it won't be a free kick so it's carte blanche for maximum force to be applied. Every rule change has unintended consequences.

[mjp]

So why can Selwood do this for 15 years and Channel Seven campaign the whole time to give him an OAM, but Ginnivan (and apparently only Ginnivan) does it for 5 minutes and now suddenly the entire rule is changed?

So - the Selwood/Shuey show has gone on for long enough though hasn't it? I actually don't mind what has caused the change but I think what Ginnivan (and Pickett from what I saw in Alice Springs) is different as follows:

- Selwood wins the footy and IF TACKLED drops his knees to try and draw a free. The tackler actually has a chance here as if they go low they will stick the tackle...you will notice in the last few years he hasn't been getting as many of these.

- Ginnivan (and his apostles) seem to be taking the approach that drawing the kick IS the strategy - they ENGAGE the tackler (like a touch football player trying to draw offsides by running into the oppo) and - because they are 'in charge' of the contact, lift their elbow immediately forcing an arm up around the shoulder.

I think what Selwood/Shuey have been doing is marginal but ultimately against the spirit of the law and they should not have been rewarded with free kicks. I think what Ginnivan has been doing is 100% against the spirit of the law and they should not be rewarded.

As for the argument that he's being umpired differently, well...have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? No-one likes being made a fool of and the umpires are annoyed that they are being 'tricked' into awarding free kicks.

The fact that Selwood 'got away with it' doesn't make what Ginnivan is doing right and this is the perfect example of a rule being instituted (like KB throwing the ball away to avoid being tackled, Hawks kicking points for the other team on purpose in order to retain possession) to avert a situation where a player/coach is 'exploiting' what is a 'hole' in the game that is against the spirit of the game.

To compare this change to stupid changes to the games fabric like '6-6-6' or 'Stand' or the protected area or whatever...this isn't in the same ball park as those things. It is a rule telling players to compete 'straight up' rather than trying to manipulate an existing rule for their advantage...that isn't how games (are supposed) to work. Everyone is supposed to compete as hard as they can INSIDE the rules, not attempt to find weaknesses in them for their individual advantage. Play it straight up. He gets his hands on the footy - create some separation from your opponent and kick or handball the ball through the goals or too a team-mate.

I actually can't understand how anyone sees this change as a bad thing.

[jeemak]

The onus should be on the tackler to make sure it doesn't slip high just like the onus in on the tackler to make sure the tackle doesn't slip below the knees.

Simple.

If I am able to run and a tackle trips me, I should get a free kick. If I am able to move my arms and the tackle slips high I should get a free kick.

We want less congestion but we seem to do everything we can to cause more of it. Get tacklers going for the waist instead of the top of the arms and you get less balls pinned, and less congestion.

[EasternWest]

It doesn't bother me. It never has. If the tackle goes high it's a bad tackle. If someone has found a way to work the system good for them.

I honestly can't believe the hubbub over this.

[Sedat]

Ginnivan is such a soft target, as was McLean a few years ago. This scourge was created and trademarked by Selwood 15 years ago - everything that has happened since has been as a direct result of him. The new guys have added mayo to it, but it is essentially the same tactic that never existed prior to Selwood.

Oh but he shrugs and he's so brave and a true champion of the game. Lol

[Grantysghost]

The onus should be on the tackler to make sure it doesn't slip high just like the onus in on the tackler to make sure the tackle doesn't slip below the knees.

Simple.

If I am able to run and a tackle trips me, I should get a free kick. If I am able to move my arms and the tackle slips high I should get a free kick.

We want less congestion but we seem to do everything we can to cause more of it. Get tacklers going for the waist instead of the top of the arms and you get less balls pinned, and less congestion.

There's merit in your argument Jee, and I agree mainly however watching Pickett on the weekend he literally pushed the tackle high.
Just dropped his weight at the first sign of contact and used his arm to push the tacklers arm to his neck.

Not sure what the tackler could do there.

[bornadog]

The onus should be on the tackler to make sure it doesn't slip high just like the onus in on the tackler to make sure the tackle doesn't slip below the knees.

Simple.

If I am able to run and a tackle trips me, I should get a free kick. If I am able to move my arms and the tackle slips high I should get a free kick.

We want less congestion but we seem to do everything we can to cause more of it. Get tacklers going for the waist instead of the top of the arms and you get less balls pinned, and less congestion.

Bevo in his presser agrees with you.

[bornadog]

There's merit in your argument Jee, and I agree mainly however watching Pickett on the weekend he literally pushed the tackle high.
Just dropped his weight at the first sign of contact and used his arm to push the tacklers arm to his neck.

Not sure what the tackler could do there.

The tackler needs to tackle under the arm pit, so there is no way he can shrug off the tackle, however, this leaves the ball carriers arms free.

[Grantysghost]

The tackler needs to tackle under the arm pit, so there is no way he can shrug off the tackle, however, this leaves the ball carriers arms free.

It's tough when they're tiny and drop making the tackle area small.

[jeemak]

There's merit in your argument Jee, and I agree mainly however watching Pickett on the weekend he literally pushed the tackle high.
Just dropped his weight at the first sign of contact and used his arm to push the tacklers arm to his neck.

Not sure what the tackler could do there.

What happens if you use your hands to brush off the tackle and it forces the tackle low and you get tripped, is that play on? What about if you goose step or high knee it out of the tackle and the tackler grabs your leg, is that play on?

If you go for the waist neither of those this is likely to happen. People talk about prior opportunity being a major reason for congestion, but tackling technique has been a strong contributor as well. Why we'd make it easier for the tackler is beyond me, but it's the AFL I guess.

[Grantysghost]

What happens if you use your hands to brush off the tackle and it forces the tackle low and you get tripped, is that play on? What about if you goose step or high knee it out of the tackle and the tackler grabs your leg, is that play on?

If you go for the waist neither of those this is likely to happen. People talk about prior opportunity being a major reason for congestion, but tackling technique has been a strong contributor as well. Why we'd make it easier for the tackler is beyond me, but it's the AFL I guess.

It's a free for the tripping ones. It's a lot easier to flop than to jump, well it appears to be anyway.

I'm ok with the free kick being paid most of the time, but some of the Ginnivin and Pickett ones over the weekend were very hard to avoid.

Not sure it should be blanket rule, probably makes it just as hard to umpire.

[jeemak]

It's a free for the tripping ones. It's a lot easier to flop than to jump, well it appears to be anyway.

I'm ok with the free kick being paid most of the time, but some of the Ginnivin and Pickett ones over the weekend were very hard to avoid.

Not sure it should be blanket rule, probably makes it just as hard to umpire.

Not difficult if you try and tackle at the waist rather than trying to land the perfect arm pinning tackle.

Funnily, might even be easier to avoid sling tackle related concussions if players actually have arms free to brace.

But of course, why would that enter your thoughts when you can just make the game more difficult to adjudicate and piss everyone off more due to the inconsistent way in which rules are applied......

[bornadog]

Not difficult if you try and tackle at the waist rather than trying to land the perfect arm pinning tackle.

Funnily, might even be easier to avoid sling tackle related concussions if players actually have arms free to brace.

But of course, why would that enter your thoughts when you can just make the game more difficult to adjudicate and piss everyone off more due to the inconsistent way in which rules are applied......

Spot on Jeemak. I posted elsewhere that Tony Libba always went for the hips in a tackle and was very successful.

AFL have no brains and this is just another typical knee jerk reaction.

[mjp]

What happens if you use your hands to brush off the tackle and it forces the tackle low and you get tripped, is that play on? What about if you goose step or high knee it out of the tackle and the tackler grabs your leg, is that play on?



Use your hands to make the tackle slip low?

How exactly would you do that?

Goose step through the tackle and intentionally get tripped?

Please.

I'm all for examples as to how 'other' methods of milking free-kicks are not being legislated out of the game but seriously? You can't fall 'UP' in a tackle. You can only fall down.

[jeemak]

Use your hands to make the tackle slip low?

How exactly would you do that?

Goose step through the tackle and intentionally get tripped?

Please.

I'm all for examples as to how 'other' methods of milking free-kicks are not being legislated out of the game but seriously? You can't fall 'UP' in a tackle. You can only fall down.

Are you telling me you've never seen a player shrug a tackle, move forward and the tackle's slipped low? With all of the footy you've watched?

I'm not talking about dropping the knees, I'm talking about raising arms and forcing the tackle high. I'm talking about what happens when a player tries to break a tackle by either running or moving their arms. In those instances the onus should be on the tackler to keep it legal.

Why should the player who's been tackled be responsible for the tackle being legal? It doesn't make any sense.

[mjp]

Are you telling me you've never seen a player shrug a tackle, move forward and the tackle's slipped low? With all of the footy you've watched?

I'm not talking about dropping the knees, I'm talking about raising arms and forcing the tackle high. I'm talking about what happens when a player tries to break a tackle by either running or moving their arms. In those instances the onus should be on the tackler to keep it legal.

Why should the player who's been tackled be responsible for the tackle being legal? It doesn't make any sense.

I see it once every few weeks. What I'm saying is it's pretty hard for the person being tackled to manipulate the scenario you are talking about .

The person being tackled (under the Ginnivan rule) IS responsible for the contact being illegal. They are manipulating the rules for their own purposes and it is BS. They are instigating the contact and lifting an arm + dropping knees to contribute to the tackle being high.

Just like KB 'bouncing it' just as he was about to be tackled - "I'm without the ball umpy, really I am" - they are manipulating the rules. The tackle is WITHIN THE RULES. It is between the knees and shoulders. They are CAUGHT. It is up to them to get out of it. If the initial contact is A-OK and the player being tackled raises and arm to lift the tackle high, to me that is the same as attempting a fend-off. That IS their prior opportunity. They either dispose of it correctly IMMEDIATELY or they are holding the ball.

The Pickett one last weekend was a disgrace. Dropped his head, knees and raised his arm. That's crap and it's not within the spirit of the game - we want an honest contest where the ball carrier - particularly one as talented as Pickett - evades the tackle, or dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodges his way through trouble...not drops to his knees trying to get a free kick. I don't want to watch that, I don't want him rewarded for what is bs play and I want the message sent loud and clear that if you do so you will be adjudicated as if you have HAD prior opportunity.

[jeemak]

I get all of it except the raising the arm bit, and citing the fend off as comparable doesn't make sense. Just because I fend off it doesn't mean it's open slather to hit me in the face!

Really I don't know how we got ourselves into such a frenzy that we feel we have to reward the tackler at all costs.

Anyway, I'll die on this hill and I think I've made my point. So enough out of me for now.

[Grantysghost]

I get all of it except the raising the arm bit, and citing the fend off as comparable doesn't make sense. Just because I fend off it doesn't mean it's open slather to hit me in the face!

Really I don't know how we got ourselves into such a frenzy that we feel we have to reward the tackler at all costs.

Anyway, I'll die on this hill and I think I've made my point. So enough out of me for now.

I'll give you the footage to continue the discussion with.

When I look at it the tackler definitely comes in too high which makes it easy to slip up.

But this one should be play on for me. Critical moment in the game too.


https://youtu.be/6pwjd_iiglM

[bornadog]

I'll give you the footage to continue the discussion with.

When I look at it the tackler definitely comes in too high which makes it easy to slip up.

But this one should be play on for me. Critical moment in the game too.


https://youtu.be/6pwjd_iiglM

Free kick every day. Tackle him lower and it won't happen. He has every right to try and shrug the tackle

[mjp]

Free kick every day. Tackle him lower and it won't happen. He has every right to try and shrug the tackle

That right arm goes straight up. Tackle hits him mid arm.

The tackler is obligated to tackle between the knees and the shoulders. He does. HOLDING. THE. BALL.

[bornadog]

That right arm goes straight up. Tackle hits him mid arm.

The tackler is obligated to tackle between the knees and the shoulders. He does. HOLDING. THE. BALL.

But he got him high :D

[Grantysghost]

That right arm goes straight up. Tackle hits him mid arm.

The tackler is obligated to tackle between the knees and the shoulders. He does. HOLDING. THE. BALL.

Yeah agree that's a really blatant one where he hooks his arm around and forces it up. It wasn't a dodge. Maybe Jonas could've gotten lower but the height was legal that he tackled with, plus the height difference makes it very difficult.

[jeemak]

If I knock a tacklers arm into my face when he tries to tackle me without grabbing me it's play on then?

[mjp]

Yeah agree that's a really blatant one where he hooks his arm around and forces it up. It wasn't a dodge. Maybe Jonas could've gotten lower but the height was legal that he tackled with, plus the height difference makes it very difficult.

And he got a free kick right in front in a really close game...

Not only that, it impacts on 'future' tackling efforts. You all of a sudden worry about conceding a kick so you either:

- Go HARDER and actually injure him. Not ideal.
- Slow down and get brushed aside - goal. Also not ideal.

I actually don't understand how anyone can argue this action is OK. He's trying to draw a free kick and that is his ONLY intention.

[jeemak]

What they should do is change the name of free kicks to penalties, and over time change the attitude towards why/ how they are awarded.

I really don't know when drawing a free kick became a bad thing instead of being a smart thing. I get this particular example is polarising and plays on people's emotions for some reason, but there needs to be an attitudinal change to the way we view frees because by and large if a player is playing for them they usually get found out and stop.

Drawing a penalty or a free kick is an art......but only sometimes I guess.

[jeemak]

And he got a free kick right in front in a really close game...

Not only that, it impacts on 'future' tackling efforts. You all of a sudden worry about conceding a kick so you either:

- Go HARDER and actually injure him. Not ideal.
- Slow down and get brushed aside - goal. Also not ideal.

I actually don't understand how anyone can argue this action is OK. He's trying to draw a free kick and that is his ONLY intention.

You missed one. Go LOWER.

[Grantysghost]

You missed one. Go LOWER.

Isn't that what Michelle Obama said?

I think we should just remove the ability to defend. It's ruining the game.

[jeemak]

Isn't that what Michelle Obama said?

I think we should just remove the ability to defend. It's ruining the game.

It would certainly do a lot for the congestion problem!

No defence, just starting positions and if the opposition makes a skill error it's a turn over and you get to try your luck going forward without making a mistake.

[Grantysghost]

It would certainly do a lot for the congestion problem!

No defence, just starting positions and if the opposition makes a skill error it's a turn over and you get to try your luck going forward without making a mistake.

Robbie McComb has entered the chat.

Actually our Robbie was part of the game day experience at the Saints game; he was kicking sky balls to people to mark for CASH!

Sprayed them all.

Not really but would’ve been funny if he did.

[bornadog]

https://www.woof.net.au/forum/blob:https://www.woof.net.au/390bb61f-c322-4787-8a88-2936f43caf32

[Happy Days]

Robbie McComb has entered the chat.

Actually our Robbie was part of the game day experience at the Saints game; he was kicking sky balls to people to mark for CASH!

Sprayed them all.

Not really but would’ve been funny if he did.

He actually fully sprayed one. I wasn’t sure it was him until that happened.

[Grantysghost]

He actually fully sprayed one. I wasn’t sure it was him until that happened.
Haha gold !

[Grantysghost]

https://www.woof.net.au/forum/blob:https://www.woof.net.au/390bb61f-c322-4787-8a88-2936f43caf32
Really made me think that one bad. I think I’ve just had an existential crisis….

Staring into the void that post…the lonely abyss. Why are we here? Where did we come from? When will Lachie Mac get his Brownlow?

I need some time to process this.

[hujsh]

I wonder if it's more or less amusing that I can't see the picture BAD posted and just have to infer what it could be from the myriad of reactions?

[MrMahatma]

I wonder if it's more or less amusing that I can't see the picture BAD posted and just have to infer what it could be from the myriad of reactions?

What’s unseen can’t be unseen!

[bornadog]

I wonder if it's more or less amusing that I can't see the picture BAD posted and just have to infer what it could be from the myriad of reactions?

Ok didn't work with mobile. Here it Is

PS some funny responses made me laugh

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYEvvYzaUAAydZB?format=jpg&name=large

[jeemak]

Ok didn't work with mobile. Here it Is

PS some funny responses made me laugh

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYEvvYzaUAAydZB?format=jpg&name=large

BAD I didn't think anything could get me hotter than you posting a blank post, but here we are...........

The maniacal response to this particular issue has been pretty interesting. Footy's changed a lot.

[Hotdog60]

Isn't that what Michelle Obama said?

I think we should just remove the ability to defend. It's ruining the game.

Just to expand on that thought we could put a big metal ring between the goal post and may be put a net on it and they have to get the ball through the ring for 6 points and if they shot out side the 50 m arch they get in the net 9 points. :cool:

[Grantysghost]

Ok didn't work with mobile. Here it Is

PS some funny responses made me laugh

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYEvvYzaUAAydZB?format=jpg&name=large

Bevo v the afl part 33.

He's still annoyed with the third man up change ha.

[Mofra]

It's not just changing rules.

It's changing interpretations of rules mid-season which is a massive issue.

[Bulldog Joe]

Free kick every day. Tackle him lower and it won't happen. He has every right to try and shrug the tackle

Strongly Strongly Disagree.

The initial tackle was not high. Pickett made it slip up by his action and it looked way worse than it actually was.

In attempting to evade the legal tackle I believe that Pickett used his prior opportunity and it was either a free against Pickett or simply play on, with play on being the best option.

Unfortunately the ump is most likely to call this high due to the speed of the game and the difficulty to adjudicate.

The penalty for Pickett (plus Ginnivan and Weightman et al) is that subsequent matches are likely to seem him not paid frees that are warranted. This is already happening to Weightman who stills plays for too many.

[Sedat]

It's not just changing rules.

It's changing interpretations of rules mid-season which is a massive issue.
Often it is mid-game (ie: put the whistle away in the last qtr) and definitely it happens mid-round - Friday nights are umpired vastly differently to the off-broadway 4.35pm Saturday and 4.40pm Sunday timeslots for example

[MrMahatma]

The penalty for Pickett (plus Ginnivan and Weightman et al) is that subsequent matches are likely to seem him not paid frees that are warranted. This is already happening to Weightman who stills plays for too many.

Cody seems to be more of a diver than a ducker recently.

[Happy Days]

Yeah Cody has a way deeper diving kit bag than those other guys he’ll be fine.

[boydogs]

I always thought it was on the tackler to go low and not try to pin the arms, else they risk being drawn high

I didn’t like the optics of McLean playing for a free being the last play of our GF win, I thought the rule would change after that, I’m surprised it took so long

[bornadog]

Just to expand on that thought we could put a big metal ring between the goal post and may be put a net on it and they have to get the ball through the ring for 6 points and if they shot out side the 50 m arch they get in the net 9 points. :cool:

Won't be long and our rules will be very similar to Gaelic Football, where you can't go to ground and pickup the ball.

Our game was built on the ball getter being rewarded not the tacklers.

[SonofScray]

The hysteria is ridiculous.

Improve your tackling. Or, here's a novel idea, get to the ball first.


That being said, I think the sliding rule, the treatment of incidental head high contact, and the length of time it takes for the umpires to blow the whistle all have contributed to the farce.

[Axe Man]

Looks like Bevo will be inviting Damo down to the Yarraville nets...

https://i.postimg.cc/rFjkgbsm/Capture.png (https://postimages.org/)

[Axe Man]

Won't be long and our rules will be very similar to Gaelic Football, where you can't go to ground and pickup the ball.

Our game was built on the ball getter being rewarded not the tacklers.

I find this a strange stance from someone who wants to do away with prior opportunity. That would be the ultimate in punishing the ball winner and rewarding the tackler for being second to the ball.

[Grantysghost]

Looks like Bevo will be inviting Damo down to the Yarraville nets...

https://i.postimg.cc/rFjkgbsm/Capture.png (https://postimages.org/)

I agree with Damo, I'm over Bevo being angry at the AFL. I just want to hear him talk about the Bulldogs. Not saying never, but don't take the angry pills every time there's a change.

[Happy Days]

It is never gonna stop being weird to me that the AFL publishes that article on their own website.

[bornadog]

I agree with Damo, I'm over Bevo being angry at the AFL. I just want to hear him talk about the Bulldogs. Not saying never, but don't take the angry pills every time there's a change.

Is this one of your jokes that I don't get?

[EasternWest]

Is this one of your jokes that I don't get?

GG has jokes?

[mjp]

Is this one of your jokes that I don't get?

I think he's saying that he's tired of Bevo being the default voice of Anti-AFL doom every time 'something' is announced. If feels like if you want an angry 'Anti-AFL' story/counter AFL-viewpoint, just give Bevo a call down at the 'dogs and he'll provide the clickbait.

I don't want him to be happy Jack but I really wish we got to 'sometimes' see Happy Bevo - I'm not asking him to inherit Neale Daniher's 'The Rev' mantle back from when he was coaching the Dees but an occasional positive message about the game, the club, his life etc...I mean, I know it's too much to ask but should it be?? I have spoken to people who have had interactions with our coach and couldn't be more positive about the experience...yet I swear 90% of the headlines he is part of have negative connotations.

I've said this one million times. The Bulldogs are my 'FUN'. For most supporters it is a 'FUN' part of their lives. I know it's life and death for those involved but perhaps just an occasional acknowledgement that most people WATCH the game for enjoyment and it's OK to reflect positively on the experience would be amazing. (Oh yeah - and maybe open up training a bit and look after the supporters a bit more and don't treat them as if they are part of an anti-Bulldogs conspiracy).

[Grantysghost]

GG has jokes?

A pirate walked into a bar with the steering wheel from his ship down his pants….

The barmen, looking bewildered eventually asked the pirate “why do you have a steering wheel down your pants?”

The pirate turned, wiped his mouth and exclaimed “Arrrrr, it’s drivin’ me nuts!”

[Grantysghost]

I think he's saying that he's tired of Bevo being the default voice of Anti-AFL doom every time 'something' is announced. If feels like if you want an angry 'Anti-AFL' story/counter AFL-viewpoint, just give Bevo a call down at the 'dogs and he'll provide the clickbait.

I don't want him to be happy Jack but I really wish we got to 'sometimes' see Happy Bevo - I'm not asking him to inherit Neale Daniher's 'The Rev' mantle back from when he was coaching the Dees but an occasional positive message about the game, the club, his life etc...I mean, I know it's too much to ask but should it be?? I have spoken to people who have had interactions with our coach and couldn't be more positive about the experience...yet I swear 90% of the headlines he is part of have negative connotations.

I've said this one million times. The Bulldogs are my 'FUN'. For most supporters it is a 'FUN' part of their lives. I know it's life and death for those involved but perhaps just an occasional acknowledgement that most people WATCH the game for enjoyment and it's OK to reflect positively on the experience would be amazing. (Oh yeah - and maybe open up training a bit and look after the supporters a bit more and don't treat them as if they are part of an anti-Bulldogs conspiracy).

Spot on. Can’t see the point of biting every time. It’s what they want. As much as it may seem that way to some there’s no media conspiracy against Bevo. He just doesn’t appear to be able to keep his emotions in check long enough to handle them.
They’re parasites they’ll feed off his anger like Cartman drinking Scott Tenorman’s tears!

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xBwn8AU6Bp1hKM/giphy.gif

[bornadog]

Spot on. Can’t see the point of biting every time. It’s what they want. As much as it may seem that way to some there’s no media conspiracy against Bevo. He just doesn’t appear to be able to keep his emotions in check long enough to handle them.
They’re parasites they’ll feed off his anger like Cartman drinking Scott Tenorman’s tears!

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xBwn8AU6Bp1hKM/giphy.gif

This is one issue I am so happy he tackled and answered. Everyone is so meek and mild and accept all the bullshit from AFL house. They are a joke of an organisation.

There is a lot to be angry about. Having said that the last few pressers have been fantastic

[Dancin' Douggy]

OK. I'm cutting and pasting and reposting my own post.

Now watch more and more higher and harder tackles as defenders now feel they've been given a green light to tackle high. If a player ducks are leans into a high tackle, the tackler knows, or guesses it won't be a free kick so it's carte blanche for maximum force to be applied. Every rule change has unintended consequences.

Did you see that tackle against Ginivan that started high and then turned into a vicious headlock and a crunch into the ground.

Last week it was borderline reportable...........now it's "PLAY ON!!!".
The AFL have just declared open season on small forwards and now they have a target painted on their necks. Someone is gonna get their neck broken in a crunching headlock tackle............ The umpires now have another 'shade of grey' to deal with.
The AFL rules committee is run by imbeciles.

[jeemak]

Dude, everyone knows that it's perfectly natural for players to be perfectly perpendicular to the ground when they have the footy.

There's absolutely no excuse not to be standing up exactly straight at all times on the footy field.

[boydogs]

OK. I'm cutting and pasting and reposting my own post.

Now watch more and more higher and harder tackles as defenders now feel they've been given a green light to tackle high. If a player ducks are leans into a high tackle, the tackler knows, or guesses it won't be a free kick so it's carte blanche for maximum force to be applied. Every rule change has unintended consequences.

Did you see that tackle against Ginivan that started high and then turned into a vicious headlock and a crunch into the ground.

Last week it was borderline reportable...........now it's "PLAY ON!!!".
The AFL have just declared open season on small forwards and now they have a target painted on their necks. Someone is gonna get their neck broken in a crunching headlock tackle............ The umpires now have another 'shade of grey' to deal with.
The AFL rules committee is run by imbeciles.

Rhylee West got mauled last night, and it was play on

[bornadog]

Here we go again. Umpires expected to adjudicate on this:


Players who try to milk 50m penalties by faking handballs are in the AFL's sights in a change to the 'stand' rule, reports

What if the player changes there mind and they haven't actually moved off the mark?

[Grantysghost]

Here we go again. Umpires expected to adjudicate on this:



What if the player changes there mind and they haven't actually moved off the mark?

Wow tackling the big issues.

[bornadog]

Wow tackling the big issues.

GG, the AFL is making a mockery of football

[GVGjr]

GG, the AFL is making a mockery of football

What is your issue with this rule change?

[bornadog]

What is your issue with this rule change?

Why can't a player do a fake handball motion to trick the option player. It has been done for over 100 years ie selling the dummy.

Why can't a player change their mind? As long as they don't go off their mark, the player with the ball has the option to handball or kick it, but could change their mind. I don't understand why there is a problem. Now the umpire has to decide whether the player was trying to sell the dummy or the player changed their mind. It makes the umpire's job even more difficult.

[Grantysghost]

Wow tackling the big issues.

Yes I was speaking in context of the afl not you.

Seriously why is this something to be worried about.

You can pick the eyes out of every moment and find a rule change its crazy.

[jeemak]

So a rule that's designed to make players stand still allows players not to stand still.

Brilliant!

[jazzadogs]

Gonna be a lot of guys getting called play on because they looked the wrong way. I still don't like the stand rule, and this is unnecessary tinkering.

[hujsh]

If it just means you don't give away a 50 for reacting to a fake handball I can live with it. The fact you need rules like this to fix the previous rule would normally be an indication that the initial rule was dumb but I'm pretty sure all the Channel 7 blokes said it made the game higher scoring so that can't be it

[Axe Man]

The no 50 for fake handballs is a sensible change. Not sure about the protected area one, need to see it in action. Couldn't care less about the goal shot warning, players need to be switched on.

No 50m penalties for fake handballs among rule tweaks (https://www.afl.com.au/news/873433/no-50m-penalties-for-fake-handballs-among-rule-tweaks)

The AFL has made tweaks to three rule interpretations ahead of the 2023 season

A 50m penalty will no longer be paid if a player fakes a handball while behind the mark, drawing their opponent off their position.

It's one of three tweaks to rule interpretations that have been made ahead of the 2023 Toyota AFL Premiership Season, with the League aiming to simplify the game for officiating, minimising delays and reducing player exploitation of rules.

The modification expected to have the greatest impact on games is around drawing a 50m penalty with a fake handball, a move used by players last season, when they would goad their opponent into moving off the mark before play on was called.

In the video below, Brisbane captain Dayne Zorko gives away a 50m penalty after moving off the mark as St Kilda forward Jack Higgins shaped to handball. This will no longer result in a 50m penalty.

Additionally, players have to make an immediate decision regarding the 5m protected area. When a player is penalised for giving away a free kick or loses a marking contest, they must stand the mark or immediately leave the protected area.

In the video below, Collingwood star Darcy Moore is not in the contest but opts to enter the protected area. He must stand the mark. The example below would now result in a 50m penalty as he has left the area after initially deciding to enter.

The third change will see players no longer given an alert by umpires at the 15-second mark of their set shot, instead receiving just a warning at 25 seconds. Players are allowed 30 seconds to start their set-shot approach.

[chef]

Create a new rule so players cant milk that other new rule. AFL is run by morons.

[hujsh]

Protected area one is sussy and will produce more stupid 50s which I believe spectators love

[jeemak]

Shouldn't the player just have to stand still until he's called to move or the ball has been disposed of, irrespective of what the player with the ball does?

Why make it any harder than the ridiculous rule in the first place.

Don't move until told to do so or the ball has been disposed of. Yes it's madness, but why you'd make it even more mad is beyond me.

[bornadog]

Shouldn't the player just have to stand still until he's called to move or the ball has been disposed of, irrespective of what the player with the ball does?

Why make it any harder than the ridiculous rule in the first place.

Don't move until told to do so or the ball has been disposed of. Yes it's madness, but why you'd make it even more mad is beyond me.

The stand rule is the biggest farce since the game began

[azabob]

Shouldn't the player just have to stand still until he's called to move or the ball has been disposed of, irrespective of what the player with the ball does?

Why make it any harder than the ridiculous rule in the first place.

Don't move until told to do so or the ball has been disposed of. Yes it's madness, but why you'd make it even more mad is beyond me.

Are you this rational in real life?

[jeemak]

The stand rule is the biggest farce since the game began

It's on par with having to stand perfectly upright when taking possession of the ball and evading a tackle just in case you cause a tackle to slip over your shoulders.

That's the dumbest and least physically possible shit the AFL has come up with yet.

[FrediKanoute]

I think the time rule change is probably the worst. Can you imagine a player being forced to rush a shot at goal. What was wrong with the 15 sec warning? A 5 sec warning means by the time its given and the player reacts they have about 3 seconds to take a shot.

[jeemak]

I think the time rule change is probably the worst. Can you imagine a player being forced to rush a shot at goal. What was wrong with the 15 sec warning? A 5 sec warning means by the time its given and the player reacts they have about 3 seconds to take a shot.

Don't they have to start their run up by the time the clock is up?

[mjp]

The no 50 for fake handballs is a sensible change. Not sure about the protected area one, need to see it in action. Couldn't care less about the goal shot warning, players need to be switched on.


So - we’ve had to add a rule because ‘we’ (the devil incarnate Steven Hocking) introduced the stupidest rule in the history of the game...but the players worked out they could trick the oppo into breaking the rule? So dumb rules are A-OK but gamesmanship is out?

This frustrates me beyond belief. The new rule is too tricky and has had outcomes we were unable to predict (because we are stupid)...so the new rule doesn’t count if you’re ‘sneaky’...but if you move one micro-second before an umpire who is concentrating on watching the protected area (another completely stupid rule) calls play on...even though he DID play on...then it’s still 50?

This just gets more and more stupid.

Custodians of the game? Right.

[Axe Man]

The stand rule is stupid but if we are going to have it I would prefer some leniency on tiny little movements from the man on the mark that don't disadvantage the team in possession in any way. A 50 metre penalty is a huge punishment for a little foot shuffle.

[bornadog]

Clubs warned over late-season standing mark crackdown

THE AFL has warned clubs that it will crack down on players infringing on the standing the mark rule across the final month of the season, issuing a memo to teams on Wednesday regarding the strict enforcement of the existing rule.


The League wrote to clubs following an increase of instances where players had infringed on the mark when told to 'stand' by umpires, particularly when the defending team marked deep inside the 50m arc.


keep reading here (https://www.afl.com.au/news/992768/clubs-warned-over-late-season-standing-mark-crackdown)

I still don't understand the point of this stupid rule

[Topdog]

I still don't understand the point of this stupid rule

Its just so stupid, the entire system is farcical. Sending out a memo warning they will be more strict on a rule.

[bornadog]

Its just so stupid, the entire system is farcical. Sending out a memo warning they will be more strict on a rule.

Does any other sport in the world do that

[Sedat]

I'm sick of the AFEL changing the rules every week. And I'm being generous, they sometime change them in between quarters.

But it's all incremental content for the AFEL, which is ultimately all they give a shit about. More content = more exposure = more TV rights money

[EasternWest]

I'm sick of the AFEL changing the rules every week. And I'm being generous, they sometime change them in between quarters.

But it's all incremental content for the AFEL, which is ultimately all they give a shit about. More content = more exposure = more TV rights money

But more money means more strobe lights. And how can that be bad? Stop whinging.

[GVGjr]

If there was a (one) rule change over the last few years you could either abolish, amend or roll back what would it be?

For me it's for teams having to nominate someone to do the ruck duties for the throw-ins and ball ups.
Surely the umpire doesn't need to be checking for this and if a 3rd player enters the contest then it's a free against that team.

[bornadog]

If there was a (one) rule change over the last few years you could either abolish, amend or roll back what would it be?

For me it's for teams having to nominate someone to do the ruck duties for the throw-ins and ball ups.
Surely the umpire doesn't need to be checking for this and if a 3rd player enters the contest then it's a free against that team.

Too hard to nominate one :)

[Sedat]

If there was a (one) rule change over the last few years you could either abolish, amend or change what would it be?

For me it's for teams having to nominate someone to do the ruck duties for the throw-ins and ball ups.
Surely the umpire doesn't need to be checking for this and if a 3rd player enters the contest then it's a free against that team.
Prior opportunity - Paul Roos killed the modern game with his shithouse stoppage/tackling heavy game plan 20 years ago because of the stupid interpretation by the rules committee at the time to allow ridiculous latitude to players to get rid of the ball under the misguided obsession with prior opportunity - all this did was create massive congestion and greatly increased stoppages/tackling, and made the game unwatchable and frankly rubbish.

And because of this shit rule, so many other rules have had to be modified/tweaked/altered when the solution is just to get rid of prior opportunity. It's really simple - if you get the ball and don't dispose of it correctly, you're gone. Smart players will tap the ball on and keep it in motion if they are under the pump and about to be tackled. Then the onus is on the tackler to be just as smart and tackle correctly only when player is in possession, or they will concede a free kick. And the onus is on the player with/about to get the ball to use it or lose it.

I hate prior opportunity.

[bornadog]

Prior opportunity - Paul Roos killed the modern game with his shithouse stoppage/tackling heavy game plan 20 years ago because of the stupid interpretation by the rules committee at the time to allow ridiculous latitude to players to get rid of the ball under the misguided obsession with prior opportunity - all this did was create massive congestion and greatly increased stoppages/tackling, and made the game unwatchable and frankly rubbish.

And because of this shit rule, so many other rules have had to be modified/tweaked/altered when the solution is just to get rid of prior opportunity. It's really simple - if you get the ball and don't dispose of it correctly, you're gone. Smart players will tap the ball on and keep it in motion if they are under the pump and about to be tackled. Then the onus is on the tackler to be just as smart and tackle correctly only when player is in possession, or they will concede a free kick. And the onus is on the player with/about to get the ball to use it or lose it.

I hate prior opportunity.

Couldn't agree more. Players have now learnt to grab the ball just as they are about to be tackled and force the stoppage. It is a real art the way they do it.

[jeemak]

I don't like abolishing prior opportunity, you'll just have players sitting off waiting for someone else to grab it and then ping them with far superior tackling techniques compared to those that existed twenty years ago. A more strict interpretation of prior opportunity wouldn't go astray, however.

Umpires should just call a ball up much more quickly and not await nomination for a ruck contest. To me that finds the balance between improved tackling techniques, needing to give the ball player a chance and keeping the game moving.

Also, the ridiculous nature of the over the shoulder, lowering the body and shrugging the shoulders interpretation makes the game a laughing stock. Players need to adjust body height to change direction, so unless leading with the head a tackle that slips high/ above the shoulders should be penalised - no matter how it slips above the shoulders. It's illogical that using your legs to break a tackle and make it slip below the knees is treated differently than using your arms to break a tackle and make it slip above the shoulders. A simpler interpretation here would result in tackles being aimed at the waist again, arms freeing up, and handballs clearing congestion.

[Happy Days]

Abolishing third man up was and is totally inconsistent with every other rule change that has been brought in since with the intention of speeding the game up.

[Topdog]

Stand statue still

[mjp]

Stand statue still

Can I like this twice.

We've seriously turned into gerbils with this rule!

[jeemak]

Stand statue still

GVG asked for one so I went with a couple in the same area, but this is next cab off the rank.

[Topdog]

Can I like this twice.

We've seriously turned into gerbils with this rule!

Even from a viewing perspective it just looks outright stupid. Everyone around them, including the player who marked the ball moves and 1 guy just stands there dead still unable to move. Insanity

[jeemak]

Even from a viewing perspective it just looks outright stupid. Everyone around them, including the player who marked the ball moves and 1 guy just stands there dead still unable to move. Insanity

You're forgetting that Steve Hocking's a genius and virtually saved the game with it. According to media experts on Ch7.

[bornadog]

I don't like abolishing prior opportunity, you'll just have players sitting off waiting for someone else to grab it and then ping them with far superior tackling techniques compared to those that existed twenty years ago. A more strict interpretation of prior opportunity wouldn't go astray,

I don't agree. Instead of the player grabbing the ball, they will tap it on, or punch, or use superior skills to elude the tackler.

The players are now playing for a stoppage because some teams (Dogs) are very good at stoppages.

[bornadog]

You're forgetting that Steve Hocking's a genius and virtually saved the game with it. According to media experts on Ch7.

ALL Steve Hocking rules should be abolished

[jeemak]

I don't agree. Instead of the player grabbing the ball, they will tap it on, or punch, or use superior skills to elude the tackler.

The players are now playing for a stoppage because some teams (Dogs) are very good at stoppages.

Superior skills to elude the tackler? Like that's just going to happen all of a sudden even when you incentivise more tackling which is a skill that's become highly developed already?

By eliminating prior opportunity you're incentivising effective tackling, and that's OK if you just want free kicks given all the time. But heaps of people want less free kicks than what's already being paid.

And at some point you're going to get people saying the game's ugly because people just tap the ball around in congested areas - resulting in more congestion. The game would look entirely ridiculous.

[Grantysghost]

Stand. Please why separate knob.

Players mark outside 50 and can now run INSIDE 50 to have a shot.

Spare me!

Also the way the umpire yells STAND STAND....!

All it's done is push zones deeper after the second phase.

Not sure there's any data to show it's done anything to improve the game.

Fight me (nets preferred).

[Sedat]

Superior skills to elude the tackler? Like that's just going to happen all of a sudden even when you incentivise more tackling which is a skill that's become highly developed already?

By eliminating prior opportunity you're incentivising effective tackling, and that's OK if you just want free kicks given all the time. But heaps of people want less free kicks than what's already being paid.

And at some point you're going to get people saying the game's ugly because people just tap the ball around in congested areas - resulting in more congestion. The game would look entirely ridiculous.
Most tackles are junk and have been since Paul Roos turned the game into an abomination. The only ones that matter are chase-down-from-behind tackles. Players (both the tackler and the player first to the ball) should be accountable to their own decision-making - if they make the wrong decision (ie: takes possession knowing he is about to be tackled, or tackles before the player takes possession of the ball), they punish their team by conceding a free kick. Taking possession, getting tackled and the umpire eventually calling it a draw just to allows another 10-15 players to converge at the next stoppage and is crap to watch.

[Grantysghost]

Most tackles are junk and have been since Paul Roos turned the game into an abomination. The only ones that matter are chase-down-from-behind tackles. Players (both the tackler and the player first to the ball) should be accountable to their own decision-making - if they make the wrong decision (ie: takes possession knowing he is about to be tackled, or tackles before the player takes possession of the ball), they punish their team by conceding a free kick. Taking possession, getting tackled and the umpire eventually calling it a draw just to allows another 10-15 players to converge at the next stoppage and is crap to watch.

Preach.

We are at the insane point now where players literally do 720s and dish it off and it's play on.

My other annoyance is the echo chamber around players evading or slipping a tackle by raising their arms.
Since when is that against any rule?
The onus is on the tackler to get the tackle right. Thing is they want it both ways : pin the arms to prevent clean disposal plus not get the slip.

Tackle loooooower.

Grinds my gears!

I don't want a high free kick paid however. It's play on.

[jeemak]

Preach.

We are at the insane point now where players literally do 720s and dish it off and it's play on.

My other annoyance is the echo chamber around players evading or slipping a tackle by raising their arms.
Since when is that against any rule?
The onus is on the tackler to get the tackle right. Thing is they want it both ways : pin the arms to prevent clean disposal plus not get the slip.

Tackle loooooower.

Grinds my gears!

I don't want a high free kick paid however. It's play on.

To your first point the umpire just needs to make a decision as to whether it's immediately pinned or not. If it is then it's a ball up straight away. If it isn't, it's a free kick for holding the ball.

Just make the decision more quickly. People forget there used to be ball ups all the time.

As for the tackle slipping upwards, couldn't agree more. It's bamboozling how confused that's gotten.

[jeemak]

Most tackles are junk and have been since Paul Roos turned the game into an abomination. The only ones that matter are chase-down-from-behind tackles. Players (both the tackler and the player first to the ball) should be accountable to their own decision-making - if they make the wrong decision (ie: takes possession knowing he is about to be tackled, or tackles before the player takes possession of the ball), they punish their team by conceding a free kick. Taking possession, getting tackled and the umpire eventually calling it a draw just to allows another 10-15 players to converge at the next stoppage and is crap to watch.

Don't give Paul Roos so much credit. There were ball ups before he became a coach, the thing that changed was how the umpires interpreted the contest and how far they let prior opportunity drift.

If it was immediately pinned it was a ball up. If it wasn't it was a free.

Why can't we give that a shot before we go nuclear?

[hujsh]

I like the weasly way they've set this question up on the survery
1452
Yes it's important to get the decision right or No leave it to the umpires.

How about yes BUT get better technology.
Yes BUT only overturn a decision when it is CLEAR that there has been a mistake.

[bornadog]

I like the weasly way they've set this question up on the survery
1452
Yes it's important to get the decision right or No leave it to the umpires.

How about yes BUT get better technology.
Yes BUT only overturn a decision when it is CLEAR that there has been a mistake.

I would go with option two