Are You Sick Of The Afl Changing Rules Every Year

[bornadog]

What do you think about the AFL and their rules committee, tinkering and changing the game? Has this effected the game over the years? IF you are happy with rule changes, should we have more?

Personally, I can't stand the AFL constantly changing the rules, experimenting in the preseason with no kicking backwards, minimum length of a kick etc. Why do we want to constantly change the greatest game in the world? I really can't see the point and it only confuses players, umpires and supporters.

[bulldogtragic]

I'm with you BAD. I'm a firm believer that the game continually evolves, and when coahces and players think of ways to change it for the better or worse, the game will adapt on its own for the better. I detest officials changing the nature of our game either because they dont like some new aspects or they are trying to challenge other sports like soccer. The game should be left alone for the most part. I hope that one day footy will go back to long kicking, contests and drafting people with more football ability than athletic ability. The game and clubs can do that without rule changes. Perhaps those in at the AFL rule change commitee feel the need to something to justify their existance?

[GVGjr]

While rule changes are now a part of AFL each year I am with BAD and 42 that so many changes are not required.

If the devote a team to review the rules each year then changes will occur because this group at least must be seen to be doing something.

I suppose the real question is what rule changes over the last couple of years do you think the AFL got wrong?

[southerncross]

Too many changes as far as I am concerned. Rules for rules sake.

They are making it to easy of forwards from what I can tell.

[Twodogs]

I suppose the real question is what rule changes over the last couple of years do you think the AFL got wrong?


I really, really like the rule that lets a defender kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags. It makes it harder for the defending team to set up a zone defence and ZDs are a major blight on the modern form of the game. I hate seeing players run to mind space and really like the fact that with the quick kick in pretty much the only option is to go man on man.

[The Coon Dog]

I really, really like the rule that lets a defender kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags. It makes it harder for the defending team to set up a zone defence and ZDs are a major blight on the modern form of the game. I hate seeing players run to mind space and really like the fact that with the quick kick in pretty much the only option is to go man on man.
And it helps when we have a kickerinnerer like Lindsay Gilbee.

[Twodogs]

And it helps when we have a kickerinnerer like Lindsay Gilbee.



Well, yes. It does!

[bulldogtragic]

And it helps when we have a kickerinnerer like Lindsay Gilbee.
How is young Andrejs kicking?

Early reports were he's a gun kick, Gilbee-esq. Could be very handy when Andrejs gets to be a regular player having multiple guys that can pin-point 50 kicks.

[The Coon Dog]

Kickerinnerer, after I reread that I thought of Derek & Clive.....I'm still laughing now.

[alwaysadog]

What do you think about the AFL and their rules committee, tinkering and changing the game? Has this effected the game over the years? IF you are happy with rule changes, should we have more?

Personally, I can't stand the AFL constantly changing the rules, experimenting in the preseason with no kicking backwards, minimum length of a kick etc. Why do we want to constantly change the greatest game in the world? I really can't see the point and it only confuses players, umpires and supporters.

IMHO it has farce like qualities. They introduce a new rule and are gung ho about it for a few weeks and then they discover it has negative and unplanned consequences (collateral damage) or it's just there to keep the game in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Having spawned a huge and for the most part, not very bright army of football journos they now have to keep them busy and keep them happy by allowing them to regularly mount and exercise their hobby horses.

All part of the attempt to keep football admin at the lowest common denominator. The odd worthwhile change happens but more by luck than good management.

Now if you want to really get me going try talking about the stupid and endlessly redundant language that the rules of the game and most other edicts are couched in. It's the best example yet of why failed lawyers should never be let loose on the English language.

[Dry Rot]

At any particular point in time I'd agree with everyone here.

But over time, have they generally been good for the game?

Or does everyone prefer the game played as I've seen from a grainy old video from the sixties?

What significant rule changes have been made over the last 40 years?

[bulldogtragic]

Centre square was a good idea limiting the players at the centre bounce.

[BulldogBelle]

In some ways it has been good seeing some new Rules being introduced by the AFL, but as rules have been introduced you will always hear of some players not fully understanding the rule changes etc, perhaps if they want to keep introducing these rules more explanation should be give to the players and coaches.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I really, really like the rule that lets a defender kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags. It makes it harder for the defending team to set up a zone defence and ZDs are a major blight on the modern form of the game. I hate seeing players run to mind space and really like the fact that with the quick kick in pretty much the only option is to go man on man.

I really, really hate the rule that lets a defender kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags.

Let's say you're around the centre square somewhere. You leave your man and run 30 metres to lay a shephard so your teammate can have a shot. He misses. The opposition kick it in straight away and your bludging opponent - who hasn't bothered to chase you - is now 50 metres clear on the wing.

[Dry Rot]

IIRC the rationale for rule changes is to speed the game up. But has it been the rule changes or innovative coaching that has really sped the game up?

[alwaysadog]

IIRC the rationale for rule changes is to speed the game up. But has it been the rule changes or innovative coaching that has really sped the game up?

The new marking rule won't affect the speed of the game. The game evolves on its own, coaches constantly seek ways to get an edge. The reason the game has changed from the way it used to be are vastly improved tactics, conditioning and skills.

In the past rule changes only occurred when there appeared to be something of a bottleneck, not as an annual media event. So there would be attempts to overcome it. Now we interfere with the natural evolution of the game and it is often not well based.

Attempts to speed up the game through the rules do so artificially and actually change the nature of the game and limit the capacity to innovate.

The idea of a standing Rules Committee is an admission of failure, something is wrong and needs fixing, and for their part the Committee must be responsive to the need.

Soccer has far fewer rules, which by the way are very simply written, but is far more technical than AFL, and changes to it's rules are few and far between.

[bornadog]

I really, really hate the rule that lets a defender kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags.

Let's say you're around the centre square somewhere. You leave your man and run 30 metres to lay a shephard so your teammate can have a shot. He misses. The opposition kick it in straight away and your bludging opponent - who hasn't bothered to chase you - is now 50 metres clear on the wing.


I agree, in fact that rule didn't help us at all. In 2005 we kicked the most goals from carrying the ball all the way down from the kick in. In 2006 , I don't believe we were the highest goal kickers in that dept?

[Twodogs]

I really, really hate the rule that lets a defender kick the ball in after a behind without waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flags.

Let's say you're around the centre square somewhere. You leave your man and run 30 metres to lay a shephard so your teammate can have a shot. He misses. The opposition kick it in straight away and your bludging opponent - who hasn't bothered to chase you - is now 50 metres clear on the wing.



So you dont have teammates who can cover for you? Do we have to stand around waiting for the umpire. What if the umpire waves his flag and you still havent found where your opponent has run off too?

[GVGjr]

I think they get a lot of the rules right but it seems some rules are changed just for the sake of it. I like the idea of trialling the rules in the pre-season comp.

[bornadog]

BUMP


What do you think about the AFL and their rules committee, tinkering and changing the game? Has this effected the game over the years? IF you are happy with rule changes, should we have more?

Personally, I can't stand the AFL constantly changing the rules, experimenting in the preseason with no kicking backwards, minimum length of a kick etc. Why do we want to constantly change the greatest game in the world? I really can't see the point and it only confuses players, umpires and supporters.

Nothing has changed my mind. All the talk in the media this week is how to get rid of congestion. All the stupid ideas being discussed such as Zones will just change the game for good. IF Zones are brought in I will seriously consider not watching another game.

My Solution: Turn the clock back

* unlimited interchange
* two on the bench.
* No prior opportunity
* allow 3rd man up
* allow accidental chopping of arms - players aren't robots
* get rid of sliding in rule and protect players by not allowing feet first

Pay the free kicks for the basics of the game, ie incorrect disposal, holding the ball, holding the man behind play


PS: Rules to protect players safety is different, and I have no objection to it.

[Sedat]

There are some very simple remedies that will significantly alleviate the horrible congestion that has existed since Paul Roos single-handedly farked up the game in the mid 00's:

1. Umps to call ball-up as soon as the ball is in dispute and not moving out. They hover around forever waiting for the ball to come out, meanwhile 15 additional players converge. Call ball-up straight away so that there are only 3-4 players in the vicinity. Also throw the ball up immediately - none of this rubbish about telling players to move away from behind the ump and spending 5 seconds getting ready to bounce the ball, and none of this crap about nominating a specific ruckman which wastes even more time.

2. Get rid of prior opp - the single most exploited rule in the comp. Good players will get rid of it legally instead of deliberately hatching it in a tackle and waiting for a secondary stoppage. People are missing the point about prior opp and rewarding the ball winner - if the ball winner is doing nothing to try and dispose of it legally and simply waiting for another stoppage, they don't deserve any protection whatsoever. Reward proactive players who win the ball and want to do something with it, and also incentivise players to chase and tackle legally to win it back.

3. Get rid of boundary throw-ins. Another issue that wastes time while the boundary umpire spends 5 seconds preparing to throw it back in - this waiting creates additional packs of players converging. By giving a free to the team who touches it last it also promotes much more corridor ball movement.

4. Increase bench to 6 players and reduce rotations to 40 a game (10 per qtr). No interchanges to take place except during stop-plays (eg: only when goal is kicked, or stretcher is out). Increasing fatigue on the players will increase separation out on the field and create more space.

5. At a centre square ball-up, no other player is allowed in the square until the ball has exited the square. It's 4 v 4 until the ball is out of the square - this will promote positional play so that both teams have ample cover both winning the clearance or losing the clearance. Also stops that awful congestion after a secondary stoppage in the middle.

I don't need $1 million a year to fix the game. And there is no need for a 'competition committee' to be created just to give egomaniacs like Dangerfield yet another media vehicle to promote their personal brand.

[Greystache]

Reduce interchange to 20. No interchange unless a stop in play (goal or stretcher) 2 on the bench.

Coaches exploiting interchange has been very damaging to the look and quality of games in the past 15 years.

[Sedat]

Reduce interchange to 20. No interchange unless a stop in play (goal or stretcher) 2 on the bench.

Coaches exploiting interchange has been very damaging to the look and quality of games in the past 15 years.
I went with 40 but I could easily live with 20. Interchange has been totally hijacked by the coaches as a tactic to control the pace of the game.

[hujsh]

3. Get rid of boundary throw-ins. Another issue that wastes time while the boundary umpire spends 5 seconds preparing to throw it back in - this waiting creates additional packs of players converging. By giving a free to the team who touches it last it also promotes much more corridor ball movement.



Please god no.

[Cyberdoggie]

The new marking rule won't affect the speed of the game. The game evolves on its own, coaches constantly seek ways to get an edge. The reason the game has changed from the way it used to be are vastly improved tactics, conditioning and skills.

In the past rule changes only occurred when there appeared to be something of a bottleneck, not as an annual media event. So there would be attempts to overcome it. Now we interfere with the natural evolution of the game and it is often not well based.

Attempts to speed up the game through the rules do so artificially and actually change the nature of the game and limit the capacity to innovate.

The idea of a standing Rules Committee is an admission of failure, something is wrong and needs fixing, and for their part the Committee must be responsive to the need.

Soccer has far fewer rules, which by the way are very simply written, but is far more technical than AFL, and changes to it's rules are few and far between.


The problem is they are taking the wrong approach at rule changing. Instead of making 1 important rule change (remove interchange to basically positional changes only ie 20-40) they are making a lot of other changes which are making no impact at all and causing more confusion.

If a rule doesn't make it easier to make a decision and has little impact then it shouldn't be implemented.


I don't agree on soccer though, that game needs a lot of rule changes to make it watchable for me.
The whole sport is a farce because it hasn't changed at all.
Penalties, lack of decision reviews on game deciding decisions, acting, unsportsmanlike behaviour getting rewarded, time wasting, lack of scoring, overtime, penalty shootouts, corruption, and money means everything just to name a few.

[jeemak]

The issue with purposefully fatiguing players is that coaches are inherently defencively minded, and will just park the bus. The result will be slower transitions forward - or kick to kick between opposing defencive structures. Any process to purposefully fatigue players will just result in the type of athlete drafted evolving towards those most suited to exploit the rules of the day.

The game isn't a positional one anymore, and won't be ever again until rules are changed to mandate players to be in a certain area of the ground at all times. I don't want that.

Time taken to call a bounce to actually bounce it, and to throw the ball in needs to be shortened. I actually quite like Sedat's call to stop players entering the square at a stoppage until the square is cleared.

[Sedat]

Please god no.
Happy to have a counter view but can I ask why?

Before we change fundamentals of the game (such as with zones), we should look at ways to eliminate needless delays in the game that promote congestion - IMO boundary throw-ins are one such delay that could be removed to speed up the game and promote open play.

[jeemak]

Happy to have a counter view but can I ask why?

Before we change fundamentals of the game (such as with zones), we should look at ways to eliminate needless delays in the game that promote congestion - IMO boundary throw-ins are one such delay that could be removed to speed up the game and promote open play.

There's too high a reward for something that can occur by good luck, or otherwise. Possession should only be granted to a team if they have earned it.

[bornadog]

Please god no.

Agree. If you watch the women's game you will soon see how awful this is, plus changes the game completely.

[Sedat]

There's too high a reward for something that can occur by good luck, or otherwise. Possession should only be granted to a team if they have earned it.
Fair call, although the significant tightening of deliberate OOB has almost conditioned us to the natural extension of this being no throw-ins. If boundary throw-ins are to continue, can we please ensure they are executed much quicker? Why wait for two ruckmen to get to the contest and allow additional numbers to get there and clog it up?

[bornadog]

I went with 40 but I could easily live with 20. Interchange has been totally hijacked by the coaches as a tactic to control the pace of the game.

I can't see how this will stop congestion completely. There will still be congestion, maybe for three quarters, and then the coach will apply plan b for the last quarter. Human beings are getting faster and can run longer distances and may not not to be rested much.

Recruiting will also change and we will go back to recruitment of long distance running athletes.

Sorry, limiting interchange doesn't work.

[Happy Days]

I think it can't be understated the effect that the AFL's half-baked expansion had on the calibre of play being seen at the moment. The style of football played by the dominant sides (Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong) immediately before the crippling list inequalities took hold was pretty breathtaking and at a higher skill level top-to-bottom than pretty much anything seen preivously.

By taking away access to top end talent from 16 clubs and limiting access to just 2 teams, creating a glut of talent that was both over- and under-exposed to AFL that has been about 75% ruined, and the game has been robbed of their contributions. (Without doing a hard fact-check) there's never been more flame-outs from the top end of the draft since the draft mattered than between 2010-2013.

The flip-side of this is that other teams have had to look to "alternate methods" for success. The side that Richmond won a flag with last year was STACKED with players lacking in AFL-level skills, but stoked by a total team-wide commitment to pressure acts and tackling. And a lot of clubs have taken this and followed suit; there's an unprecedented amount of footballers playing in forward pockets who are more dangerous around goals without the ball in their hands.

The AFL has made some changes to rules that are counter-intuative to a mantra of open-ended footy (banning 3rd man up being the most egregious example), but I really believe a dilution of the talent pool is largely to blame for what is really a product low on talent. Hopefully it can balance itself out over the next few years.

[hujsh]

Fair call, although the significant tightening of deliberate OOB has almost conditioned us to the natural extension of this being no throw-ins. If boundary throw-ins are to continue, can we please ensure they are executed much quicker? Why wait for two ruckmen to get to the contest and allow additional numbers to get there and clog it up?
I'm more than happy with that as the compromise. I'd rather keep aspects of the game like the throw in and allow for neutral contests like that to occur instead of making it more like basketball or soccer where it's a binary 'one team has possession and other doesn't'.

[mjp]

I don't know why everyone is so worried about zones. The 18's have been doing it for years and it is fine. The complaints that come through are that 'young forwards take ages to get ready for senior footy because they aren't used to having to outmark 10 players...'. Well, aren't more one-v-one contests what we want?

People who complain about the rule (3 and 2) don't understand how it works. It is easy to coach, easy to umpire and easy to comply with as a player. And before anyone mentions netball, the rule applies to a players STARTING POINT, not where they end up.

As an aside, after 2-weeks everyone loved the product because scoring was at a 20-year high. After 6 weeks, everyone hates it because scoring is down. What did everyone think was going to happen? Teams losing in shoot-outs always means they are going to lock things down/slow things down in order to get the 4points...Pre-season everyone wants to move the ball. Once the year starts, it is all "Holy Hell...stop them scoring". Sorry, but I really feel like I have heard this song before. The good teams are good to watch. The bad teams are unwatchable. And it has ALWAYS been that way.

[bornadog]

I think it can't be understated the effect that the AFL's half-baked expansion had on the calibre of play being seen at the moment. The style of football played by the dominant sides (Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong) immediately before the crippling list inequalities took hold was pretty breathtaking and at a higher skill level top-to-bottom than pretty much anything seen preivously.

By taking away access to top end talent from 16 clubs and limiting access to just 2 teams, creating a glut of talent that was both over- and under-exposed to AFL that has been about 75% ruined, and the game has been robbed of their contributions. (Without doing a hard fact-check) there's never been more flame-outs from the top end of the draft since the draft mattered than between 2010-2013.

The flip-side of this is that other teams have had to look to "alternate methods" for success. The side that Richmond won a flag with last year was STACKED with players lacking in AFL-level skills, but stoked by a total team-wide commitment to pressure acts and tackling. And a lot of clubs have taken this and followed suit; there's an unprecedented amount of footballers playing in forward pockets who are more dangerous around goals without the ball in their hands.

The AFL has made some changes to rules that are counter-intuative to a mantra of open-ended footy (banning 3rd man up being the most egregious example), but I really believe a dilution of the talent pool is largely to blame for what is really a product low on talent. Hopefully it can balance itself out over the next few years.

Completely agree with you, however, maybe the way the drafting is set up, we aren't identifying this talent?

Interestingly, Grant Thomas tweeted he could find another 200 players out there that could play AFL.

[bornadog]

The good teams are good to watch. The bad teams are unwatchable. And it has ALWAYS been that way.

And that is why we have to stop this tinkering with the game as it only creates further problems.

[Twodogs]

I don't know why everyone is so worried about zones. The 18's have been doing it for years and it is fine. The complaints that come through are that 'young forwards take ages to get ready for senior footy because they aren't used to having to outmark 10 players...'. Well, aren't more one-v-one contests what we want?

People who complain about the rule (3 and 2) don't understand how it works. It is easy to coach, easy to umpire and easy to comply with as a player. And before anyone mentions netball, the rule applies to a players STARTING POINT, not where they end up.

As an aside, after 2-weeks everyone loved the product because scoring was at a 20-year high. After 6 weeks, everyone hates it because scoring is down. What did everyone think was going to happen? Teams losing in shoot-outs always means they are going to lock things down/slow things down in order to get the 4points...Pre-season everyone wants to move the ball. Once the year starts, it is all "Holy Hell...stop them scoring". Sorry, but I really feel like I have heard this song before. The good teams are good to watch. The bad teams are unwatchable. And it has ALWAYS been that way.

So the sky didn't fall in when zones were introduced? When they first bought it in did teams infringe very often? Did it take them a while to adjust their instincts to follow the ball everywhere. I didn't even know there were zones in the 18s until earlier this year when some one pointed it out here. I don't even know if it came in at the start of the season or introduced after.

I am nominally against zones but it's not a hard and fast No with a capital n. As you say there is a difference between players starting in zones and not being allowed out and just staring there. In a way we already have a zone with only 4 players in the middle when the ball is bounced.

[Bulldog4life]

Get rid of the dinky kicks. A minimum of 30 metres for a mark will open up play.

[jeemak]

Get rid of the dinky kicks. A minimum of 30 metres for a mark will open up play.

Or, it will just result in the congestion moving a little further away from the kicker.

Actually, is there a correlation between congestion and the minimum kick distance increasing?

[Twodogs]

Or, it will just result in the congestion moving a little further away from the kicker.

Actually, is there a correlation between congestion and the minimum kick distance increasing?


You mean when they went to 15 metres? How long has that been the distance? It's seems like ages now.

[boydogs]

Pay the free kicks for the basics of the game, ie incorrect disposal, holding the ball, holding the man behind play

I've been really happy with the number of dropping the ball frees being paid. The commentators have been objecting, that there was no prior opportunity or the ball was knocked out in the tackle, but it has always been that if you are tackled you have to dispose of it properly or at least attempt to if the ball is pinned

[MrMahatma]

Happy to have a counter view but can I ask why?

Before we change fundamentals of the game (such as with zones), we should look at ways to eliminate needless delays in the game that promote congestion - IMO boundary throw-ins are one such delay that could be removed to speed up the game and promote open play.

I'd call throw ins a fundamental of the game.

[Sedat]

I'd call throw ins a fundamental of the game.
The Champion Data guys had a very interesting discussion on this yesterday on SEN. On the full OOB only came in after the 1968 season - before that you could kick it OOB 20 rows back and it would be a throw-in. Scoring up to 1968 was approx low 80's per team per match, very similar to this season. From 1969 onwards, scoring rose significantly until the peak of 1982 when it was around 113 per team per match and remained healthy until the early 00's and the advent of the ultra defensive, congestion heavy, stoppage laden game plans that Roos finds such a turn-on.

Their assertion is that the boundary line is the arch enemy of higher scoring, and that any rules incentivising corridor play would help alleviate congestion and promote more open play, with higher scoring a natural by-product of that.

The centre square was also something only introduced in the early-70's and also massively helped clear congestion that had built up in the game at the time. Both of those rule changes were considered revolutionary but have immeasurably helped the game. For mine it's not a stretch to simply take these rules to the next logical level - free kick against last player to touch the ball OOB (deliberate OOB is so tough now it's heading this way in any event) and nobody except 4 v 4 allowed in the centre square until the ball has been cleared.

I don't watch the footy to see a boundary umpire take 5-10 seconds to set himself and then throw it back into play to a mass of players, and I certainly don't watch footy to see 25 players within a 20m radius of the ball as tackle after tackle keeps the ball locked in for multiple stoppages while there are acres of green space all over the rest of the ground.

I respect that some nuclear options like zoning and removing 2 players are also options that could be effective, but I think there are other options available that retain the core elements of the game and alleviate the modern day problems with mass congestion around the ball.

[Mofra]

5. At a centre square ball-up, no other player is allowed in the square until the ball has exited the square. It's 4 v 4 until the ball is out of the square - this will promote positional play so that both teams have ample cover both winning the clearance or losing the clearance. Also stops that awful congestion after a secondary stoppage in the middle.
This should be an easy one to implement and has been suggested by a few people in recent weeks over discussions about the game.

I'm against radical changes to the game as time often helps sort issues out but this isn't a major change. The only issue I would be concerned about is if a coach brings all 14 non-square players to the edge of the square whenever the ball is bounced.

[Topdog]

there are just a lot of low skilled footballers in the game and the coaches have so much pressure on them to win that they cannot do anything to coach for the future.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Happy to have a counter view but can I ask why?

Before we change fundamentals of the game (such as with zones), we should look at ways to eliminate needless delays in the game that promote congestion - IMO boundary throw-ins are one such delay that could be removed to speed up the game and promote open play.

I've been wanting the boundary throw-in gone for 3-4 years now. But not on last touch. Because spoils in defensive 50 will lead to shots at goal for the other team. Too harsh a penalty IMO. So i'd probably look at last touch from a kick or handball.

[Sedat]

I'm against radical changes to the game as time often helps sort issues out but this isn't a major change. The only issue I would be concerned about is if a coach brings all 14 non-square players to the edge of the square whenever the ball is bounced.
So am I because I think there are options available that are not nuclear. But I am open-minded enough to consider the nuclear options if the game cannot unstrangle itself through other means - however I'm very confident it can if interpretations of existing rules and natural evolution of existing rules are modified as already suggested.

[Sedat]

I've been wanting the boundary throw-in gone for 3-4 years now. But not on last touch. Because spoils in defensive 50 will lead to shots at goal for the other team. Too harsh a penalty IMO. So i'd probably look at last touch from a kick or handball.
Not against that at all - last kick or handball is a fair compromise. Maybe instead of throwing it in after a spoil it can be thrown up 10m from the boundary from where the ball crossed the line?

[Mofra]

there are just a lot of low skilled footballers in the game and the coaches have so much pressure on them to win that they cannot do anything to coach for the future.
That may not be the players fault - mentioned on another thread that Paul Roos still thinks players are part-time, and the amount of time players spend with ball in had is much less than even a few years ago (it's all running/fitness work).

We started a revolution with "handball club" and North Melbourne are doing well with a crap lost by removing some restrictions on skill work and all restrictions on goal kicking practice.

The first coaches that allow players to spend as much time with ball in hand as possible will probably get a jump on the rest of the competition just as we did over pre-season 2016.

[bornadog]

Couldn't agree with Buckley more - This is the only thing we need to do and see what happens. This is taking the rules back to pre 1996 when congestion wasn't an issue.

REMOVE PRIOR OPPORTUNITY TO LIMIT CONGESTION: BUCKLEY (https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/05/02/remove-prior-opportunity-to-limit-congestion-buckley/)


Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley says umpires must reward the tacklers more often, which in turn would help reduce the amount of congestion in the game.


As debate rages about what can be done to free up the game, Buckley said radical rule changes such as zones aren’t the answer. Instead, making a simple tweak to the tackler/ball handler situation will help be the panacea.


“I like the fact the game can evolve on its own but there is one rule that I’ve been keen on for quite a while and that is to eliminate prior opportunity,” Buckley told SEN’s Whateley.


“If teams want to handball in a short space, they get numbers into that congestion and they want to handball and take the tacklers on.

“If you possess the ball, but you do not kick or handball it, then it’s a free kick against. I think that is something that will change it all together.


“If you put two or three quick handballs together inside or you have a handball to a player that was hot, and he was tackled, regardless of prior opportunity or anything, if he had the ball, was tackled and didn’t handball or kick it, that’s a free kick.”


Buckley also added the evolution of tactics always happens and he is frustrated by the constant discussion surrounding the state of the game.

[jeemak]

The issue with that is it doesn't account for the evolution of tackling ability across the competition, nor the fact that handballing is used to find an option that can use the ball properly so as not to kick the ball to opposition players sitting one kick outside of the play.

I'm actually surprised that a senior coach thinks so narrowly on the topic.

I get that on my second point the issue wouldn't exist to the extent it does if teams didn't crowd their opposition's forward 50m, but at the same time if a team didn't do that they'd immediately hand control of numbers to the attacking team and be highly exposed to being scored against.

The natural evolution away from positional play can't be stopped. Incentives to encourage a more attacking style of territorial play should be looked at. For instance, a team that scores over 100 points in a game, win or lose, could be awarded an additional half or single premiership point, a team that scores over 115 points in a game could be awarded a full premiership point or more. No rules have to change to achieve this type of outcome, though the reward for playing a more offensive style might be worth it - especially during the middle two quarters of a season as teams are grinding through.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The issue with that is it doesn't account for the evolution of tackling ability across the competition, nor the fact that handballing is used to find an option that can use the ball properly so as not to kick the ball to opposition players sitting one kick outside of the play.

I'm actually surprised that a senior coach thinks so narrowly on the topic.

I get that on my second point the issue wouldn't exist to the extent it does if teams didn't crowd their opposition's forward 50m, but at the same time if a team didn't do that they'd immediately hand control of numbers to the attacking team and be highly exposed to being scored against.

The natural evolution away from positional play can't be stopped. Incentives to encourage a more attacking style of territorial play should be looked at. For instance, a team that scores over 100 points in a game, win or lose, could be awarded an additional half or single premiership point, a team that scores over 115 points in a game could be awarded a full premiership point or more. No rules have to change to achieve this type of outcome, though the reward for playing a more offensive style might be worth it - especially during the middle two quarters of a season as teams are grinding through.

This would be a bit unfair to teams playing a game in the wet though wouldn't it?

Getting rid of prior opportunity won't solve the problem. I agree it's surprising Buckley thinks this would solve the problem. It would lead to lots of tunnel ball and soccer to get the ball out of congestion as players avoid taking possession. This latter point is not something we want to see in our game. Tackling is one of the best aspects of our game and removing prior opportunity would lead to players avoiding taking possession. I can't see it alleviating congestion.

I'm more for speeding up play with less stoppages and less interchanges to encourage more play through the corridor.

For mine, i don't need high scoring. Strong, tough and fierce play with minimal stoppages is what i like to see. Just look at our grand final. Yes there is bias, but there are plenty of neutral supporters who were saying it was one of the best games of all time. And the score was 89-67.

[bornadog]

The issue with that is it doesn't account for the evolution of tackling ability across the competition, nor the fact that handballing is used to find an option that can use the ball properly so as not to kick the ball to opposition players sitting one kick outside of the play.

I'm actually surprised that a senior coach thinks so narrowly on the topic.

I get that on my second point the issue wouldn't exist to the extent it does if teams didn't crowd their opposition's forward 50m, but at the same time if a team didn't do that they'd immediately hand control of numbers to the attacking team and be highly exposed to being scored against.

The natural evolution away from positional play can't be stopped. Incentives to encourage a more attacking style of territorial play should be looked at. For instance, a team that scores over 100 points in a game, win or lose, could be awarded an additional half or single premiership point, a team that scores over 115 points in a game could be awarded a full premiership point or more. No rules have to change to achieve this type of outcome, though the reward for playing a more offensive style might be worth it - especially during the middle two quarters of a season as teams are grinding through.


This would be a bit unfair to teams playing a game in the wet though wouldn't it?

Getting rid of prior opportunity won't solve the problem. I agree it's surprising Buckley thinks this would solve the problem. It would lead to lots of tunnel ball and soccer to get the ball out of congestion as players avoid taking possession. This latter point is not something we want to see in our game. Tackling is one of the best aspects of our game and removing prior opportunity would lead to players avoiding taking possession. I can't see it alleviating congestion.

I'm more for speeding up play with less stoppages and less interchanges to encourage more play through the corridor.

For mine, i don't need high scoring. Strong, tough and fierce play with minimal stoppages is what i like to see. Just look at our grand final. Yes there is bias, but there are plenty of neutral supporters who were saying it was one of the best games of all time. And the score was 89-67.



2. Get rid of prior opp - the single most exploited rule in the comp. Good players will get rid of it legally instead of deliberately hatching it in a tackle and waiting for a secondary stoppage. People are missing the point about prior opp and rewarding the ball winner - if the ball winner is doing nothing to try and dispose of it legally and simply waiting for another stoppage, they don't deserve any protection whatsoever. Reward proactive players who win the ball and want to do something with it, and also incentivise players to chase and tackle legally to win it back.

I agree with Buckley and Sedat. How many times do you see a player taking possession of the ball, but knows he will be tackled, holds the ball against his chest because he wants to create a stoppage and claims no prior. It happens too regularly and has created the situation where packs are formed. If the No prior was removed, the players would try and dispose the ball correctly and kick or handball outside the pack, or if they know they are about to be tackled, they will merely punch the ball away and not grab it in the first place. Players will still try and get hold of the ball, but only if they know they won't be tackled.

Go back to games before prior opportunity was introduced (pre 1996) and see how the players behaved when it was time to grab the ball. It doesn't mean we have to reward the tackler everytime, but if you commit to grab the ball, you have to make sure you are not going to be tackled.

[soupman]

If you remove prior there are going to be a lot of players in tight that will just whack the ball to a teammate or a designated area (forward/the wing etc.).

My preference has always been for them to reward the tackler by penalising incorrect disposal. Atm if you are tackled and the ball comes out unless the player clearly drops it or throws it it's play on, I would prefer that unless the player legally handballs or kicks it then it's play on.

The other idea I am ok with is prior is tightened by making it team prior. ie. At the moment prior resets everytime a new player receives the ball, I'd be happy if just the first player to take possession of the ball was awarded more time but every teammate in the chain he handballs/kicks to has forfeited their prior opportunity.

[bornadog]

If you remove prior there are going to be a lot of players in tight that will just whack the ball to a teammate or a designated area (forward/the wing etc.).

My preference has always been for them to reward the tackler by penalising incorrect disposal. Atm if you are tackled and the ball comes out unless the player clearly drops it or throws it it's play on, I would prefer that unless the player legally handballs or kicks it then it's play on.

The other idea I am ok with is prior is tightened by making it team prior. ie. At the moment prior resets everytime a new player receives the ball, I'd be happy if just the first player to take possession of the ball was awarded more time but every teammate in the chain he handballs/kicks to has forfeited their prior opportunity.

I don't mind the way you are thinking. One thing we have to make sure is we don't complicate the rules for the umpires. I don't know how umpires remember all the rules.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

If you remove prior there are going to be a lot of players in tight that will just whack the ball to a teammate or a designated area (forward/the wing etc.).

My preference has always been for them to reward the tackler by penalising incorrect disposal. Atm if you are tackled and the ball comes out unless the player clearly drops it or throws it it's play on, I would prefer that unless the player legally handballs or kicks it then it's play on.

The other idea I am ok with is prior is tightened by making it team prior. ie. At the moment prior resets everytime a new player receives the ball, I'd be happy if just the first player to take possession of the ball was awarded more time but every teammate in the chain he handballs/kicks to has forfeited their prior opportunity.

Yeah i'm ok with this and think it would work. Getting rid of the "hospital handpass" essentially. It's not right for the game or even player safety that you can handball it to another player when you know they are about to get tackled. That is certainly team prior.

[Twodogs]

I don't mind the way you are thinking. One thing we have to make sure is we don't complicate the rules for the umpires. I don't know how umpires remember all the rules.


Because they love rules and applying them to others. You couldn't invent enough rules for the average umpire to forget, they love them.

[soupman]

Yeah i'm ok with this and think it would work. Getting rid of the "hospital handpass" essentially. It's not right for the game or even player safety that you can handball it to them when you know they are about to get tackled.

The worst bit is the player who receives the hospital handpass not only gets crunched but penalised with a free against. Can see teammates cringing when Dahlhaus or Jong get the ball near them.

[Sedat]

There is a skill in decision-making that prior opportunity has completely diluted. It gives players an out to just sit there and take the tackle, knowing there is a neutral stoppage as a result. If players cannot execute a skill such as decision-making, they do not deserve to be able to dictate a neutral stop-play by their inaction.

[bornadog]

There is a skill in decision-making that prior opportunity has completely diluted. It gives players an out to just sit there and take the tackle, knowing there is a neutral stoppage as a result. If players cannot execute a skill such as decision-making, they do not deserve to be able to dictate a neutral stop-play by their inaction.

I think they are coached to create a stoppage. Many teams are very good at winning the ball from a stoppage, as we were in 2016.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

There is a skill in decision-making that prior opportunity has completely diluted. It gives players an out to just sit there and take the tackle, knowing there is a neutral stoppage as a result. If players cannot execute a skill such as decision-making, they do not deserve to be able to dictate a neutral stop-play by their inaction.

The rule could certainly be tightened and more strictly enforced but in my mind (and this is just finger in the air sort of stuff) a lot of stoppages occur because the player with the ball is tackled as soon as they gain possession. And they certainly have no way of letting the ball go. So i feel getting rid of prior opportunity wouldn't exactly lead to that many less stoppages. I'm actually going to make a point of looking for this over the next few rounds to see how many stoppages could actually be avoided by tightening the rule.

[hujsh]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

[Twodogs]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.


I wish they'd waited a couple of years before they changed the third man up rule.

[jeemak]

This would be a bit unfair to teams playing a game in the wet though wouldn't it?

Getting rid of prior opportunity won't solve the problem. I agree it's surprising Buckley thinks this would solve the problem. It would lead to lots of tunnel ball and soccer to get the ball out of congestion as players avoid taking possession. This latter point is not something we want to see in our game. Tackling is one of the best aspects of our game and removing prior opportunity would lead to players avoiding taking possession. I can't see it alleviating congestion.

I'm more for speeding up play with less stoppages and less interchanges to encourage more play through the corridor.

For mine, i don't need high scoring. Strong, tough and fierce play with minimal stoppages is what i like to see. Just look at our grand final. Yes there is bias, but there are plenty of neutral supporters who were saying it was one of the best games of all time. And the score was 89-67.

There's plenty of inequities in the draw, this would just be another one.

I think the purpose of the model would be to take the grind out of the season, and remove the congested and drab games that don't seem to have as much appeal.

Your point on games like the 2016 GF is well made, the beauty of the system I'm proposing is that teams will learn throughout the year to play a less congested brand of football, but will toughen up during finals - hopefully giving us the best of both worlds.

Mostly what I'm saying is we can't penalise our way out of this mess, coaches, who are currently incentivised to be defencive, will remain defencive until we give them a reason not to be.

[Ozza]

I wish they'd waited a couple of years before they changed the third man up rule.

Yep, agree with this.

I would support the roll back of the 3rd man up rule.
I would likely support some sort of minimal zoning TAC cup style.

Otherwise, I’m in the ‘stay the same’ camp. I think the 80 rotations & 4 on the bench is about right.

[jeemak]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

It wasn't lost on me..........

[bulldogsthru&thru]

There's plenty of inequities in the draw, this would just be another one.

I think the purpose of the model would be to take the grind out of the season, and remove the congested and drab games that don't seem to have as much appeal.

Your point on games like the 2016 GF is well made, the beauty of the system I'm proposing is that teams will learn throughout the year to play a less congested brand of football, but will toughen up during finals - hopefully giving us the best of both worlds.

Mostly what I'm saying is we can't penalise our way out of this mess, coaches, who are currently incentivised to be defencive, will remain defencive until we give them a reason not to be.

Another option could be to do away with percentage is a tiebreaker and replace it with whoever has the highest points for.

[jeemak]

Another option could be to do away with percentage is a tiebreaker and replace it with whoever has the highest points for.

Yes, that could work as well. Anything that genuinely incentivises a coach to change away from being defencively minded is the way to go. Sure, change the bits and pieces we think have gone too far and waste time unnessecarily, but doing what we have done with the game previously, i.e. messing with the rules to fix it and in the process (to some) making it worse, probably is the last thing we should be doing.

[craigsahibee]

There are some very simple remedies that will significantly alleviate the horrible congestion that has existed since Paul Roos single-handedly farked up the game in the mid 00's:

1. Umps to call ball-up as soon as the ball is in dispute and not moving out. They hover around forever waiting for the ball to come out, meanwhile 15 additional players converge. Call ball-up straight away so that there are only 3-4 players in the vicinity. Also throw the ball up immediately - none of this rubbish about telling players to move away from behind the ump and spending 5 seconds getting ready to bounce the ball, and none of this crap about nominating a specific ruckman which wastes even more time.



How about penalise the 3rd man in on a tackle? How often do you see a player come in and wrap both the ball carrier (generally a player on the same team) and the tackler up, in order to cause a stoppage. If it's one on one, it comes down to strength and ability to either stick the tackle or dispose of the footy correctly.

[bornadog]

Does anyone find it ironic that a thread complaining about the AFL changing the rules has become a discussion about what rules should be changed?

Perhaps there should be a more formal process for rule changing? Something that takes 3-4 years so there aren't any knee jerk reactions and the changes can trialed before being implemented.

Yeah, my idea is roll back the rules that created the situation, ie no prior, allow 3rd man up. I know that is changing, but as I said roll it back.

With 3rd man up it has created two problems:
1. 3rd man helped clear the ball from the congestion
2. The umpire could throw up the ball straight away, now they wait to see who is nominating for the ruck, and meanwhile the pack gathers.

Every rule has other consequences because the AFL don't think it out, all knee jerk reactions.

[Remi Moses]

The disposing of the third man up rule was knee jerk rubbish . Cleared the congestion , but alas the worry was the role of the ruck !
They’re not worried about other positions going the way of the dodo bird

[AndrewP6]

Not a rule change, but I'd love to see umpires be much less theatrical when calling a HTB.( I'm looking at you, Razor - though he's not the only one) Just blow the whistle and make the call, let us all get on with it.

I hate, hate, hate score reviews. They want umpires to be better regarded, let them do the job they're supposed to be there for - that, or make every score a review and don't have goal umpires at all.

[Topdog]

If you remove prior opportunity you will get people not going for the ball and just waiting to tackle someone. It needs to be improved, not removed

[bornadog]

If you remove prior opportunity you will get people not going for the ball and just waiting to tackle someone. It needs to be improved, not removed

Can't agree with that. Players will always go for the ball.

Here is a game where there was no official prior:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Y6UEQPao

[hujsh]

Can't agree with that. Players will always go for the ball.

Here is a game where there was no official prior:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Y6UEQPao

That's all well an good but that game has changed. Just because the game can be played that way without prior opportunity doesn't mean that removing prior will see that type of play become more prevalent

[Twodogs]

Can't agree with that. Players will always go for the ball.

Here is a game where there was no official prior:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Y6UEQPao

I can remember lots of discussion about pretty much the same thing back in the 90s (and '80s and 70s) "the games not the same as it used to be" "if we just do this the game would be perfect" and on and on. I don't think we will ever get the brilliant perfect product that everybody remembers the game being when they first fell in love with it.

Like MJP says there are always going to be great games and crap games and that's how it's always been. We alter a rule coaches react and nullify it or exploit it.

[bornadog]

That's all well an good but that game has changed. Just because the game can be played that way without prior opportunity doesn't mean that removing prior will see that type of play become more prevalent

I was just answering a post stating" Players won't go for the ball"

[hujsh]

I was just answering a post stating" Players won't go for the ball"
I know, I'm saying he may be right with the way the game has changed.

[Bulldog4life]

How about penalise the 3rd man in on a tackle? How often do you see a player come in and wrap both the ball carrier (generally a player on the same team) and the tackler up, in order to cause a stoppage. If it's one on one, it comes down to strength and ability to either stick the tackle or dispose of the footy correctly.

Agree entirely. Was going to post same till I saw your post craig.

[LostDoggy]

Reckon the umpires have read this thread. We got pinged holding the ball regardless of any prior opportunity all day yesterday - especially early.

Crap change.

[Sedat]

Reckon the umpires have read this thread. We got pinged holding the ball regardless of any prior opportunity all day yesterday - especially early.

Crap change.
The only thing that was crap was the inconsistency not pinging GC the other way.

[FrediKanoute]

I'm having real trouble with the game at the moment with 2 aspects:

1) where a guy goes in for the ball (ie makes the play) get sat on by an opposition player or two, who lock the ball in and the guy making the play gets pinged for holding the ball. Surely the effect is that you stop going in to make the play?~#

2) the concept of prior opportunity. When it was first brought in it was clear. It made some sense. Guy gets ball. Looks up assesses options, tries beats first tackler, but not second - he gets pinged. Now its random.

Yesterday was a farce!

[bornadog]

I'm having real trouble with the game at the moment with 2 aspects:

1) where a guy goes in for the ball (ie makes the play) get sat on by an opposition player or two, who lock the ball in and the guy making the play gets pinged for holding the ball. Surely the effect is that you stop going in to make the play?~#

2) the concept of prior opportunity. When it was first brought in it was clear. It made some sense. Guy gets ball. Looks up assesses options, tries beats first tackler, but not second - he gets pinged. Now its random.

Yesterday was a farce!

A great example of 1) was when English got pinged. He never ever touched the ball, he was tackled to the ground before he could grab the ball, ( near the boundary outer side 1st quarter), the GC player was lying on his back. The umpire assumed English had the ball but the person who dragged it in was the player on top. This was a clear in the back for starters.

[hujsh]

It is a bit odd that when you're tackled and legitimately try to get rid of the ball by keeping your feet and trying to force your way out of the tackle you're more likely to get pinged. If you just flop onto the deck immediately and do the thing where you smash the ball into your chest/arm or flop around like a fish it'll be a ball up.

[LostDoggy]

I'm having real trouble with the game at the moment with 2 aspects:

1) where a guy goes in for the ball (ie makes the play) get sat on by an opposition player or two, who lock the ball in and the guy making the play gets pinged for holding the ball. Surely the effect is that you stop going in to make the play?~#

2) the concept of prior opportunity. When it was first brought in it was clear. It made some sense. Guy gets ball. Looks up assesses options, tries beats first tackler, but not second - he gets pinged. Now its random.

Yesterday was a farce!

Regarding (1) If we go back to no prior opportunity rule, as some are advocating, that's what we'd get all the time. Ball player punished regardless.

[Sedat]

I'm having real trouble with the game at the moment with 2 aspects:

1) where a guy goes in for the ball (ie makes the play) get sat on by an opposition player or two, who lock the ball in and the guy making the play gets pinged for holding the ball. Surely the effect is that you stop going in to make the play?~#

2) the concept of prior opportunity. When it was first brought in it was clear. It made some sense. Guy gets ball. Looks up assesses options, tries beats first tackler, but not second - he gets pinged. Now its random.

Yesterday was a farce!
The first one needs to be called ball up immediately, like it was until the late 90's. It's not prior, it is someone getting sat on as soon as he gets the ball. The problem with prior is that the umps are bound to give inordinate time for the ball to be released, which is impossible when opposition players are actually holding it in waiting to get the free.

Call immediate ball up and throw the ball up immediately in those circumstances- get the ball in motion straight away to prevent the congestion.

[jeemak]

The first one needs to be called ball up immediately, like it was until the late 90's. It's not prior, it is someone getting sat on as soon as he gets the ball. The problem with prior is that the umps are bound to give inordinate time for the ball to be released, which is impossible when opposition players are actually holding it in waiting to get the free.

Call immediate ball up and throw the ball up immediately in those circumstances- get the ball in motion straight away to prevent the congestion.

I prefer this than immediately pinging players just for the sake of clearing congestion - which some commentators think is what should be done.

Funny that getting red hot on holding the ball in recent years has only increased congestion............how completely unlike the AFL to bring in a rule to influence the game one way, only for it to have the opposite effect.

[bornadog]

The first one needs to be called ball up immediately, like it was until the late 90's. It's not prior, it is someone getting sat on as soon as he gets the ball. The problem with prior is that the umps are bound to give inordinate time for the ball to be released, which is impossible when opposition players are actually holding it in waiting to get the free.

Call immediate ball up and throw the ball up immediately in those circumstances- get the ball in motion straight away to prevent the congestion.

and don't ask who is nominating for the ruck, just throw it up and if they don't want 3rd man, then penalise the team that has the 3rd man at the same time. The length of time to work out who the ruckman are and nomination just ads to players coming in from all over the place to forma pack

[Twodogs]

The first one needs to be called ball up immediately, like it was until the late 90's. It's not prior, it is someone getting sat on as soon as he gets the ball. The problem with prior is that the umps are bound to give inordinate time for the ball to be released, which is impossible when opposition players are actually holding it in waiting to get the free.

Call immediate ball up and throw the ball up immediately in those circumstances- get the ball in motion straight away to prevent the congestion.


Could a rule penalising the third man in work? The only reason the third man comes in is to prevent the player being tackled from getting rid of the ball so penalise him with a free to the tacklee.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

and don't ask who is nominating for the ruck, just throw it up and if they don't want 3rd man, then penalise the team that has the 3rd man at the same time. The length of time to work out who the ruckman are and nomination just ads to players coming in from all over the place to forma pack

Yeah its pretty simple. Throw the ball up straight away, if more than 1 player from a team tries to contend the ruck contest, penalise that team. The question is, what do you do if both teams send a '3rd man'?

[jeemak]

Yeah its pretty simple. Throw the ball up straight away, if more than 1 player from a team tries to contend the ruck contest, penalise that team. The question is, what do you do if both teams send a '3rd man'?

Ball it up again.

[Twodogs]

Yeah its pretty simple. Throw the ball up straight away, if more than 1 player from a team tries to contend the ruck contest, penalise that team. The question is, what do you do if both teams send a '3rd man'?


Assume the team that sent the second third man (the fourth man) in are idiots because they just cost themselves possession of the ball.


Ball it up again.

And then do that.

[craigsahibee]

and don't ask who is nominating for the ruck, just throw it up and if they don't want 3rd man, then penalise the team that has the 3rd man at the same time. The length of time to work out who the ruckman are and nomination just ads to players coming in from all over the place to forma pack

That's how it should be. No nominations. Let the players sort it out. No need to wait around and ask who in the immediate area is going to contest the ball. Keep the game moving and throw it up/in as soon as the umpires have established their position.

[hujsh]

Could a rule penalising the third man in work? The only reason the third man comes in is to prevent the player being tackled from getting rid of the ball so penalise him with a free to the tacklee.
Nope. You need to be able to lay the tackle and you don't want players unsure of if they should go for the tackle or not.

[Twodogs]

Nope. You need to be able to lay the tackle and you don't want players unsure of if they should go for the tackle or not.


But the first player in can tackle as per usual, it's just the another player can't jump into the contest and block the ball coming out. Maybe players might time it so they arrive to the contest at the same time but apart from that it's an easy rule to umpire. They have a third man rule in the NHL (for fights, not tackles but the principle would be the same.)

[hujsh]

But the first player in can tackle as per usual, it's just the another player can't jump into the contest and block the ball coming out. Maybe players might time it so they arrive to the contest at the same time but apart from that it's an easy rule to umpire. They have a third man rule in the NHL (for fights, not tackles but the principle would be the same.)
The first player might see his team mate and hold back. His team mate might also do the same thing. It'd be farcical and we'd all be complaining about it on here within 3 weeks.

[Twodogs]

The first player might see his team mate and hold back. His team mate might also do the same thing. It'd be farcical and we'd all be complaining about it on here within 3 weeks.

The first player would be tackling an opponent though. He's not going to stop doing that because hes worried that his teammate gets too close.

[LostDoggy]

I get irritated when a player is tackled and his own teammate joins in the tackling to ensure a stoppage. There should be free kicks paid for bringing the game into disrepute.

[hujsh]

The first player would be tackling an opponent though. He's not going to stop doing that because hes worried that his teammate gets too close.
Who's first though? Am I first? He looks like he's going to tackle him. Maybe I should step back then? Oh no he saw me and also stood back. There goes Franklin down the wing again.

[jeemak]

Trying to stop two players from tackling a player simultaneously isn't practical.

[jeemak]

Those 3 Brownlow Votes Trengove got versus Martin were the only votes of his career.

Last year he played Brisbane twice. First time he played forward, had 17 possessions and 3 goals, 2nd time he played 2nd ruck and had 17 possessions, 13 contested, 5 clearances (all season highs).

He likes playing them. I reckon he should play.

Wrong thread I think......

[jazzadogs]

That's how it should be. No nominations. Let the players sort it out. No need to wait around and ask who in the immediate area is going to contest the ball. Keep the game moving and throw it up/in as soon as the umpires have established their position.

So then the Roos send Goldstein and Daw to a stoppage, and Bont blocks Daw thinking that Goldstein is rucking...but Daw is the ruckman so it's a free kick against Bont? The 3rd man up rule is garbage, but they can't not nominate a ruckman if the rule is still in place.

So just get rid of the 3rd man up rule.

[Sedat]

Watched with interest both Talking Footy and On The Couch tonight highlighted the ridiculous amount of time taken to recommence play at throw-ins and ball-ups around the ground, which is causing so many congestion issues.

Hallelujah. It aint rocket science.

[Happy Days]

Watched with interest both Talking Footy and On The Couch tonight highlighted the ridiculous amount of time taken to recommence play at throw-ins and ball-ups around the ground, which is causing so many congestion issues.

Hallelujah. It aint rocket science.

I think the "nominated" ruckman is having a huge effect on this - umpires are waiting to throw the ball up not necessarily until a ruckman is nominated, but who the umpire knows the team would want to be nominating. Can lead to some long lapses when one of the big guys is out of breath 30m away from the stoppage.

[bornadog]

Watched with interest both Talking Footy and On The Couch tonight highlighted the ridiculous amount of time taken to recommence play at throw-ins and ball-ups around the ground, which is causing so many congestion issues.

Hallelujah. It aint rocket science.

I wonder where they got that idea from:


Yeah, my idea is roll back the rules that created the situation, ie no prior, allow 3rd man up. I know that is changing, but as I said roll it back.

With 3rd man up it has created two problems:
1. 3rd man helped clear the ball from the congestion
2. The umpire could throw up the ball straight away, now they wait to see who is nominating for the ruck, and meanwhile the pack gathers.

Every rule has other consequences because the AFL don't think it out, all knee jerk reactions.

Sent a few tweets to Rocket as well as Gerard on this and he read it out on SEN. Rocket talks about it on his latest Podcast.

[craigsahibee]

So then the Roos send Goldstein and Daw to a stoppage, and Bont blocks Daw thinking that Goldstein is rucking...but Daw is the ruckman so it's a free kick against Bont? The 3rd man up rule is garbage, but they can't not nominate a ruckman if the rule is still in place.

So just get rid of the 3rd man up rule.

But that's it. Blocking is part of the issue. The game is designed to let everyone have an opportunity to get the ball within the framework of the rules. In that scenario, I'd be happy for the Bont to be penalised because if it was the other way around, we would be baying for blood. Let the players play.

[jazzadogs]

But that's it. Blocking is part of the issue. The game is designed to let everyone have an opportunity to get the ball within the framework of the rules. In that scenario, I'd be happy for the Bont to be penalised because if it was the other way around, we would be baying for blood. Let the players play.

Sorry, when I say block I mean making body contact. No matter what level of footy you play, you aim to keep contact with your opponent and stop them having a clear run at the ball. That should not be penalised.

[Ghost Dog]

On the topic of rules, I don't get it how you can jumper punch a bloke, or slap someone with ' minimal force', and cop just a small fine, yet you can just brush an umpire's hand and get a week. Ridiculous rubbish idiocy. It's a footy field with adrenaline and fast reactions. Hawkins never meant any harm.

Feel free to move if not in the right thread.

[bornadog]

On the topic of rules, I don't get it how you can jumper punch a bloke, or slap someone with ' minimal force', and cop just a small fine, yet you can just brush an umpire's hand and get a week. Ridiculous rubbish idiocy. It's a footy field with adrenaline and fast reactions. Hawkins never meant any harm.

Feel free to move if not in the right thread.
You can't touch an umpire full stop

[Ghost Dog]

You can't touch an umpire full stop

Liam Picken broke an umpire's ACL. So what was his penalty?
According to your logic he should have been penalised much more heavily.
What matters is intent and there has to be some kind of common sense.

[Twodogs]

Sorry, when I say block I mean making body contact. No matter what level of footy you play, you aim to keep contact with your opponent and stop them having a clear run at the ball. That should not be penalised.

But there's a difference to keeping a hand on your opponent so you know where he is while you're watching the ball to just standing in front of him just to block his path to the ball.


On the topic of rules, I don't get it how you can jumper punch a bloke, or slap someone with ' minimal force', and cop just a small fine, yet you can just brush an umpire's hand and get a week. Ridiculous rubbish idiocy. It's a footy field with adrenaline and fast reactions. Hawkins never meant any harm.

Feel free to move if not in the right thread.

Don't agree. You can't intentionally touch an umpire. I'm all for playing the game vigorously but between opponents, leave the umpires to umpire unmolested.

[bornadog]

Liam Picken broke the ACL of an umpire. What matters is intent and there has to be some kind of common sense.

Not rubbish at all, obviousley accidents can happen. Thems the rules

[Ghost Dog]

But there's a difference to keeping a hand on your opponent so you know where he is while you're watching the ball to just standing in front of him just to block his path to the ball.



Don't agree. You can't intentionally touch an umpire. I'm all for playing the game vigorously but between opponents, leave the umpires to umpire unmolested.

Watching the vision, It was an instant reaction and he was obviously a bit disoriented.

[Ghost Dog]

Not rubbish at all, obviousley accidents can happen. Thems the rules

On one hand you say " You can't touch an umpire full stop", in the next sentence, " obviously accidents happen". This is contradictory.
Hawkins' incident falls in the accident category or fine at best relative to so many other incidents including slaps to the head ( low-impact ) high contact, which is also supposed to be sacrosanct, or used to be.

[bornadog]

On one hand you say " You can't touch an umpire full stop", in the next sentence, " obviously accidents happen". This is contradictory.
Hawkins' incident falls in the accident category or fine at best relative to so many other incidents including slaps to the head ( low-impact ) high contact, which is also supposed to be sacrosanct, or used to be.

Accidents as in general play. Not when there is pushing and shoving happening and the umpire intervenes. Greg Williams got 9 weeks for pushing away an umpire. Hawkins lucky

[Twodogs]

Accidents as in general play. Not when there is pushing and shoving happening and the umpire intervenes. Greg Williams got 9 weeks for pushing away an umpire. Hawkins lucky


Todd Curley had his career virtually finished because a clumsy umpire (McBurnie?) backed into him. He got four weeks because he's watching the ball (as he should have) when the idiot umpire runs backwards into him. There had been no talk about touching umpires beforehand, just "you play for the Bulldogs? Good you'll do. Consider yourself an example"

[jeemak]

Todd Curley had his career virtually finished because a clumsy umpire (McBurnie?) backed into him. He got four weeks because he's watching the ball (as he should have) when the idiot umpire runs backwards into him. There had been no talk about touching umpires beforehand, just "you play for the Bulldogs? Good you'll do. Consider yourself an example"

That was one of the moments when I first noticed the AFL putting out the "good oil" in the media to soften the public prior to a shocker being announced. Perhaps being a lot younger then, it might have been happening all the time well before I noticed.

No excuses for what Hawkins did. Deserved his week. The Diesel Williams decision was absolute bullshit, a week's about right.

[Ghost Dog]

If it happened to a Bulldogs player, you guys would be livid. Hey what am I talking about? Ah yes it's a Cats player. Ok yes, he should've gotten two! :)

[ReLoad]

Todd Curley had his career virtually finished because a clumsy umpire (McBurnie?) backed into him. He got four weeks because he's watching the ball (as he should have) when the idiot umpire runs backwards into him. There had been no talk about touching umpires beforehand, just "you play for the Bulldogs? Good you'll do. Consider yourself an example"

Todd was never the same again after that, That was a total and utter blight on the AFL. So much so the week after in Adelaide we made a huge "Free Todd Curley" banner. if memory serves me right we got beat by Port? All I can remember of the game was drinking that rubbish West End and eating the most awful meat pie in the known galaxy.

[hujsh]

If it happened to a Bulldogs player, you guys would be livid. Hey what am I talking about? Ah yes it's a Cats player. Ok yes, he should've gotten two! :)
I'll admit it'd be hard to cop losing a player for that. At the same time it's a dumb thing to do

[soupman]

If it happened to a Bulldogs player, you guys would be livid.

Nope.

Any kind of intentional contact to an umpire should not be tolerated, soft as it may have been. A collision in the field of play or due to a lack of awareness from both parties maybe ok unless it's careless on behalf of the player, but a player deliberately initiating contact isn't on.

[Happy Days]

I've heard this thing about Curley before, but he got suspended in the middle of the year right? How did it end his career exactly?

He played all the games after he came back from suspension, and was only 28 when he got delisted.

[jeemak]

I've heard this thing about Curley before, but he got suspended in the middle of the year right? How did it end his career exactly?

He played all the games after he came back from suspension, and was only 28 when he got delisted.

It's said to have impacted him mentally, and he didn't seem to be the same player after the incident.

[Twodogs]

If it happened to a Bulldogs player, you guys would be livid. Hey what am I talking about? Ah yes it's a Cats player. Ok yes, he should've gotten two! :)

Nup. I would be incredibly annoyed at the player who made contact with the umpire and I reckon his teammates would be feeling pretty angry and let down that they are running out without him in the weekend due to his own stupidity. I don't think one of them will be annoyed with the umpire but I wouldn't want to be Tom Hawkins turning up at Kardinia Park this week because his coaches and teammates will be making some fairly forceful points to him.


I've heard this thing about Curley before, but he got suspended in the middle of the year right? How did it end his career exactly?

He played all the games after he came back from suspension, and was only 28 when he got delisted.

Todd Curley never took a short step on the footy field in his life up until that day. When he came back it was as if he expected that idiot umpire to get in his way every time he took a step.

[bornadog]

Todd Curley never took a short step on the footy field in his life up until that day. When he came back it was as if he expected that idiot umpire to get in his way every time he took a step.

Lost all confidence and was never the same.

[jeemak]

Gil wants less prior opportunity apparently.......

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-boss-wants-less-prior-opportunity-for-holding-the-ball-decisions-20180509-p4ze7b.html

I feel awful, I agree with the Scott brothers:

"The Geelong coach, in response to Buckley's call, said eliminating prior opportunity would worsen congestion."

But, they're right. Creating an incentive to tackle will just cause more folks to crowd the ball and prioritise tackling, and discourage players from taking clear possession.

Tackling techniques are miles ahead of where they were when the prior opportunity rule was brought in. You can't remove prior opportunity without causing other issues that might prove just as if not more distasteful than the current congestion issue, whilst worsening the current congestion issue.

[Happy Days]

It's said to have impacted him mentally, and he didn't seem to be the same player after the incident.




Todd Curley never took a short step on the footy field in his life up until that day. When he came back it was as if he expected that idiot umpire to get in his way every time he took a step.

Still - kind of weird that he wasn't kept around to try and figure it out, no?

[Twodogs]

Still - kind of weird that he wasn't kept around to try and figure it out, no?

Not really. A large part of Todd's ability was his fearless attack on the ball and once he started second guessing himself his attack in the ball was no longer so fearless. He didn't go about his game in the same way.

[LostDoggy]

The Curley incident happened early in 2001 and he did play out the end of the year before he and the club jointly agreed it was best he head back to WA and local footy the next year. He did protest the original 4 week suspension and got it reduced to 2 weeks.

[Twodogs]

The bald facts are Curley had missed one game in the previous four years and had played 115 games in six years. The idiot umpire runs into him and all off a sudden he can't play anymore?

I have read, and I don't know how much I believe this, that this started off the field. That the copper/umpire and the indigineous Todd Curley had a run in off the field, the copper/umpire came off second best and decided to continue things on the field and take his revenge. I offer that as something I read on the Internet a while ago. It does make sense as to why the umpire deliberately ran into Curley.

[westdog54]

Nope.

Any kind of intentional contact to an umpire should not be tolerated, soft as it may have been. A collision in the field of play or due to a lack of awareness from both parties maybe ok unless it's careless on behalf of the player, but a player deliberately initiating contact isn't on.

In all of my years watching sport, the only ones I've seen that tolerates any sort of contact to an official is Soccer and Major League Baseball and the carry-on that is tolerated there is absurd.

In the NFL/NBA/NHL, you make contact with an official that isn't incidental, you get an early shower. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes.

He may claim he thought he was pushing away someone else, but at the end of the day, he pushed the umpire.

He's lucky to only get a week.

[bornadog]

In all of my years watching sport, the only ones I've seen that tolerates any sort of contact to an official is Soccer and Major League Baseball and the carry-on that is tolerated there is absurd.

In the NFL/NBA/NHL, you make contact with an official that isn't incidental, you get an early shower. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes.

He may claim he thought he was pushing away someone else, but at the end of the day, he pushed the umpire.

He's lucky to only get a week.

Agree, if he was let off, then that would open up a can of worms.

[westdog54]

Last night showed just how little the football world understand the sliding rule.

How Talia could complain about his free the way he did is beyond me.

[Twodogs]

Last night showed just how little the football world understand the sliding rule.

How Talia could complain about his free the way he did is beyond me.

I can see how he could complain-he's an idiot.. It didn't stop him being stupid and wrong in his complaints.

[bornadog]

Last night showed just how little the football world understand the sliding rule.

How Talia could complain about his free the way he did is beyond me.

That rule is so wrong and was only brought in after one incident in 150 years.

[bornadog]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhf6iN2UcAE1OJx.jpg

Another reason why the rules should never be changed. The consequences of rule changes are never thought through, and the interpretation is nothing short of comical.

[macca]

The bald facts are Curley had missed one game in the previous four years and had played 115 games in six years. The idiot umpire runs into him and all off a sudden he can't play anymore?

I have read, and I don't know how much I believe this, that this started off the field. That the copper/umpire and the indigineous Todd Curley had a run in off the field, the copper/umpire came off second best and decided to continue things on the field and take his revenge. I offer that as something I read on the Internet a while ago. It does make sense as to why the umpire deliberately ran into Curley.

I hated what happened to Curley, as he was such a good solid player. Reliable, fearless, and would just do those 1% with clean disposal. Players like him was one of the reasons we were so competitive in the 96-99 era.

[bornadog]

One rule that won't be changing:

Interchange cap cuts unlikely in 2019 (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2018-08-22/interchange-cap-cuts-unlikely-in-2019)


THE AFL has all but ruled out reducing the interchange cap next season, but will continue to closely analyse data related to rotations.

It comes as League football boss Steve Hocking and his game analysis team prepare to make their final recommendations to the AFL Commission on rule changes for 2019.

A briefing of radio broadcasters – including Tim Lane, Garry Lyon, David Parkin and Kevin Bartlett – was told on Tuesday any changes for the 2019 season would be confirmed by October at the latest.

The gathering was assured there would be no surprises through the JLT Community Series or late decisions on rules for next year.

Those at the briefing were left with the strong impression starting positions – the much talked-about 6-6-6 formation – and double-length goal squares would likely be the only major changes made for next season.

However, any changes will only come into force if ratified by the AFL Commission.

The code's governing body has set a high bar for changes in the past, including most recently deciding against scrapping the bounce.

Tuesday's presentation included comprehensive analysis from Steve Hocking's recently formed game analysis team.

The interchange cap, which is expected to remain at 90 rotations next season, could be further reduced if supported by additional evidence in coming years.

The AFL has been briefing key stakeholders as part of a campaign to bring the broader community along with its plans to modernise the look of the game.

Television producers and past players are among other groups to have received briefings.

It follows significant fan feedback about congestion and defensive tactics disrupting the iconic free flowing style of Australian football.

It remains to be seen how any changes made at AFL level would flow down to grass roots competitions.

[GVGjr]

While I'd like to see it reduced it's a sensible position to leave it as it is to get the results of a larger sample size

[The Pie Man]

Not sure I’ll cop the goal square changing length as mentioned above. Starting positions don’t bother me as much (could be positive) but don’t change the existing aesthetic. They’ve got the whole ground in front of them already.

[jeemak]

Not sure I’ll cop the goal square changing length as mentioned above. Starting positions don’t bother me as much (could be positive) but don’t change the existing aesthetic. They’ve got the whole ground in front of them already.

Agreed, it’s just going to end up shifting a problem from one part of the ground to the next farthest, and once coaches are used to defending kicks from the extended square we’ll see kick outs actually going backwards to free space in the pockets.

[Rocket Science]

I'm so disaffected with the conversation I haven't bothered to dig any deeper but is the sole justification for elongated goal squares to enable kickouts to penetrate further upfield?

Gee. How visionary.

[jeemak]

I'm so disaffected with the conversation I haven't bothered to dig any deeper but is the sole justification for elongated goal squares to enable kickouts to penetrate further upfield?

Gee. How visionary.

Yes, with the idea being there's more space to defend and a higher chance of the ball breaking through the zone that's been set up.

The problem is outcomes post spot trialing over a short period of time when coaches haven't had adequate time to adjust to the change won't give a true indication of how the change will impact the game long term.

[Rocket Science]

Yes, with the idea being there's more space to defend and a higher chance of the ball breaking through the zone that's been set up.

The problem is outcomes post spot trialing over a short period of time when coaches haven't had adequate time to adjust to the change won't give a true indication of how the change will impact the game long term.

Hahaaa.

Stuff the half-measures, why not scrap piddling kick-outs altogether and replace them with a giant footy cannon behind the goals that indiscriminately pumps rain-makers back into play after every behind.

Or a huge slingshot suspended between the goal posts!

Do it Gill.

[hujsh]

Hahaaa.

Stuff the half-measures, why not scrap piddling kick-outs altogether and replace them with a giant footy cannon behind the goals that indiscriminately pumps rain-makers back into play after every behind.

Or a huge slingshot suspended between the goal posts!

Do it Gill.

When are we getting trampolines and 15 point 'Jackie Chan in mid-air' goals?

[Twodogs]

Hahaaa.

Stuff the half-measures, why not scrap piddling kick-outs altogether and replace them with a giant footy cannon behind the goals that indiscriminately pumps rain-makers back into play after every behind.

Or a huge slingshot suspended between the goal posts!

Do it Gill.


When are we getting trampolines and 15 point 'Jackie Chan in mid-air' goals?


And a slam dunk. There must be a way we can work a slam dunk into the game. Quick, Someone form a sub-committee!

[The Pie Man]

That goal square change moved a step closer today......

[jeemak]

That goal square change moved a step closer today......

Good to see the AFL talking about what's relevant to now, i.e. the finals.............

[bornadog]

That goal square change moved a step closer today......

Biggest joke of all time, they have truly lost the plot these people.

Watch teams kick the ball backwards after a point and do many other things the AFL thought they were not going to do

[Testekill]

Why don't they just, and here's maybe a controversial request, punish players dropping the ball in tackles so there're less stoppages.

Also maybe allow players to come up in the ruck contests who can knock the ball into space.

[Sedat]

Gerard The Oracle 2.4 Whateley is telling us all what a wonderful job Steve Hocking and the competition committee is doing. Surely that is sufficient enough for us mere mortals lol.

[jeemak]

Gerard The Oracle 2.4 Whateley is telling us all what a wonderful job Steve Hocking and the competition committee is doing. Surely that is sufficient enough for us mere mortals lol.

Hocking spoke of the high quality and convincing data that's been gathered from the small amount of games the changes have been trialed within to justify a switch in rules. I would like to see this data, because, as a relatively analytical person I think I'd be set at ease if I could.

Both Robbo and 2.4 were singing the praises of the process and suggested the AFL wouldn't do anything radical to the rules unless they'd done the work and there was a solid case. Cool, just share the data so we can all look at it and can give you permission to potentially *!*!*!*! the game up, because after all, it's our game and not theirs.

[bornadog]

Hocking spoke of the high quality and convincing data that's been gathered from the small amount of games the changes have been trialed within to justify a switch in rules. I would like to see this data, because, as a relatively analytical person I think I'd be set at ease if I could.

Both Robbo and 2.4 were singing the praises of the process and suggested the AFL wouldn't do anything radical to the rules unless they'd done the work and there was a solid case. Cool, just share the data so we can all look at it and can give you permission to potentially *!*!*!*! the game up, because after all, it's our game and not theirs.

Apparently Hocking went to a half of a VFL match - that convinced him :D

The other moron pushing these changes is Blight. Heard him with Whately this morning. Can't stand his opinions about the game.

[Sedat]

Hocking spoke of the high quality and convincing data that's been gathered from the small amount of games the changes have been trialed within to justify a switch in rules. I would like to see this data, because, as a relatively analytical person I think I'd be set at ease if I could.

Both Robbo and 2.4 were singing the praises of the process and suggested the AFL wouldn't do anything radical to the rules unless they'd done the work and there was a solid case. Cool, just share the data so we can all look at it and can give you permission to potentially *!*!*!*! the game up, because after all, it's our game and not theirs.
Hocking and his media fluffers have been trotting that party line for months now with no sign of this data anywhere. Maybe it is safely tucked away in crates in Roswell.

[jeemak]

Apparently Hocking went to a half of a VFL match - that convinced him :D

The other moron pushing these changes is Blight. Heard him with Whately this morning. Can't stand his opinions about the game.

I've always said Blight doesn't put enough tobacco in with his weed. He's out of control.

[hujsh]

Hocking and his media fluffers have been trotting that party line for months now with no sign of this data anywhere. Maybe it is safely tucked away in crates in Roswell.

They left it at the reception at ASADA's offices.

[Hotdog60]

If it wasn't for the Dogs I would not be following this sport. I think every paid up member of the football community should get to do a postal vote on rule changes. That would eliminate the casual flybuy supporters and if you want a say you pay up to do so.
The game is changing too much when there was nothing wrong with the rules 40 years ago.

[bornadog]

If it wasn't for the Dogs I would not be following this sport. I think every paid up member of the football community should get to do a postal vote on rule changes. That would eliminate the casual flybuy supporters and if you want a say you pay up to do so.
The game is changing too much when there was nothing wrong with the rules 40 years ago.

WE don't need a postal vote, simple, we don't need changes.

[mjp]

6-6-6 seems like a great rule to me.

[Sedat]

6-6-6 seems like a great rule to me.
I mentioned this elsewhere but I would have liked to see the natural levers in the game being pulled before considering a structural change like 6-6-6. The natural levers need to be simplified in any event because the game in its current form is almost impossible to umpire:

Much quicker ball-ups, boundary throw-ins
No prior opp - either it is HTB/incorrect disposal or it is incorrect tackle.
Drastically reduced interchange - 10 per qtr max.

6-6-6 will certainly make the last 2 minutes of a close game exciting. No more flooding back en masse.

[craigsahibee]

These proposed rule changes are doing nothing at all to get me back through the gates.

Head Office has really lost the plot.

[Mantis]

6-6-6 seems like a great rule to me.

But what happens if the ball isn't cleared and we get repeat stoppage/s? This rule isn't in play and players will swarm around the ball and behind the ball.

Personally I have more issue with the way the ground is set up after a point (18 man defensive zones hurt my eyes) and from stoppages around the ground where the field is condensed and feel starting points in these situations would be a better idea.

[bornadog]

6-6-6 seems like a great rule to me.

for 20 seconds after a goal and start of the quarter

[Topdog]

People realise they are talking to someone who watches 6-6-6 every week when they ask these "hypotheticals" yeah?

[mjp]

But what happens if the ball isn't cleared and we get repeat stoppage/s? This rule isn't in play and players will swarm around the ball and behind the ball.

Personally I have more issue with the way the ground is set up after a point (18 man defensive zones hurt my eyes) and from stoppages around the ground where the field is condensed and feel starting points in these situations would be a better idea.

No issue with what you are saying...but if the ball IS cleared then we have equal numbers ahead of/behind the ball.

I have had my say on kick-ins and 18-player zones and I still think the 3+ 2 rule (each team must have 3 players inside forward half + 2 inside 50) for every stoppage and kick-in...once play resumes, they go where they want and reset...

It turns an 18-man zone (aka 36 man zone) into a 13 man zone (26 man zone) in the blink of an eye. Been doing this at 18's level - including the champs - for 5 years. It is simple, easy to understand (for players and spectators) and it WORKS.

The goal-square idea doesn't make much sense to me BUT I have never seen it in action so it is hard to comment.

[craigsahibee]

Talk of getting rid of the hands in the back rule now.

The more it changes the more it stays the same. Seriously, the AFL is replacing Canberra as the nation's biggest laughing stock.

[Topdog]

Talk of getting rid of the hands in the back rule now.

The more it changes the more it stays the same. Seriously, the AFL is replacing Canberra as the nation's biggest laughing stock.

They will need a leadership spill before it gets to that

[Twodogs]

Hocking spoke of the high quality and convincing data that's been gathered from the small amount of games the changes have been trialed within to justify a switch in rules. I would like to see this data, because, as a relatively analytical person I think I'd be set at ease if I could.

Both Robbo and 2.4 were singing the praises of the process and suggested the AFL wouldn't do anything radical to the rules unless they'd done the work and there was a solid case. Cool, just share the data so we can all look at it and can give you permission to potentially *!*!*!*! the game up, because after all, it's our game and not theirs.

Yep. Shocking Steve Hocking needs to stop acting like him and his mates own the game. They may have hijacked it and get to run it for now but they will find out just how angry people can get if he tries to ram his rules through without explaining, and that involves showing us this 'data' (which I don't actually believe exists)


I've always said Blight doesn't put enough tobacco in with his weed. He's out of control.

It's an Adelaide thing.

[Murphy'sLore]

So have I got this right? They are planning to make the goal square longer but not wider... so it's not a square any more, it's a long rectangle extending out from the goals?

[craigsahibee]

So have I got this right? They are planning to make the goal square longer but not wider... so it's not a square any more, it's a long rectangle extending out from the goals?

It's actually a rectangle now.

[Murphy'sLore]

The goal rectangle. That really rolls off the tongue.

[craigsahibee]

The goal rectangle. That really rolls off the tongue.

I prefer "The Goal Oblong"

[EasternWest]

I prefer "The Goal Oblong"

The Goblong.

Sounds a bit obscene though.

[bornadog]

Well if any changes are made on the number of tackles, I am just about done with this sport.

AFL wants to cut back on tackling (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-racing-to-build-new-review-centre-for-finals-20190717-p5284z.html)

The AFL is being run by morons

[Twodogs]

Well if any changes are made on the number of tackles, I am just about done with this sport.

AFL wants to cut back on tackling (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-racing-to-build-new-review-centre-for-finals-20190717-p5284z.html)

The AFL is being run by morons

What a stupid idea. Why not force players to handball after they kick so the amount of handballs and kicks are exactly the same? Or take shots at goal from the goal sqaure by turning around and kicking the ball over their head because it makes about as much sense to me.

[SonofScray]

Well if any changes are made on the number of tackles, I am just about done with this sport.

AFL wants to cut back on tackling (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-racing-to-build-new-review-centre-for-finals-20190717-p5284z.html)

The AFL is being run by morons

These blokes are all that far up each others' butts, it's not surprising that all they come up with is shit.

[Hotdog60]

Why not just call it the Australian Oval Basketball League and done with it.

The game will soon be unrecognisable from it traditional concept.

From Wiki:
In 1993, the AFL Commission assumed control of the AFL from the AFL Board of Directors (in effect, the 15 AFL clubs at that time). Subsequently, the Board of Directors voted itself out of existence, and a new Memorandum and Articles of Association were adopted for the AFL. It also assumed national governance of the sport (see Principle 2 below) when it absorbed the ANFC.

In hind sight maybe not the best move they made in making the league a dictatorship.

[bornadog]

Why not just call it the Australian Oval Basketball League and done with it.

The game will soon be unrecognisable from it traditional concept.

From Wiki:
In 1993, the AFL Commission assumed control of the AFL from the AFL Board of Directors (in effect, the 15 AFL clubs at that time). Subsequently, the Board of Directors voted itself out of existence, and a new Memorandum and Articles of Association were adopted for the AFL. It also assumed national governance of the sport (see Principle 2 below) when it absorbed the ANFC.

In hind sight maybe not the best move they made in making the league a dictatorship.

Rule changes began in earnest not long after 1993, with one of the most significant being Prior Opportunity which was tweaked in 1996 and is now a farce.

Meddling with tackling is the last straw.

[westbulldog]

The professionalism of these clowns is exemplified by the goal review system, a total farce which is costing teams games.
Hocking and co think they need to be making changes to justify their inflated salaries and their inflated sense of worth.
So what is their proposed number of tackles rule ? Perhaps if a team exceeds the number they will all be sent off ? Of course there will be another genius in the video review box to decide every time what was and what wasn't a tackle. The end result of this interfering crap = touch football and empty stands.

[bornadog]

The professionalism of these clowns is exemplified by the goal review system, a total farce which is costing teams games.
Hocking and co think they need to be making changes to justify their inflated salaries and their inflated sense of worth.
So what is their proposed number of tackles rule ? Perhaps if a team exceeds the number they will all be sent off ? Of course there will be another genius in the video review box to decide every time what was and what wasn't a tackle. The end result of this interfering crap = touch football and empty stands.

Maybe it will be like NRL and the 5 tackles rule :D:D

[Rocket Science]

I want them to proceed with this because I want to see them try to police it but also because it'd surely be death knell of these deluded vandals.

Maybe just grease the players up Rene Kink-style between quarters.

Or stretch a giant tarp over the field, turn the sprinklers on and make it a big slip-n-slide. Interchanges could be made by giant water slide. You can splash your opponent but NO tackling, 'kay?

You know that's only mildly more ridiculous than whatever they're planning for the next instalment of AFELX.

Their evangelical obsession with more goals = more $$$ is dangerous.

[Happy Days]

Is a change to the tackling rules being demanded by fans just like the fans are demanding mid-season trading?

I'm really excited to find out what else I'm demanding next.

[Twodogs]

Is a change to the tackling rules being demanded by fans just like the fans are demanding mid-season trading?

I'm really excited to find out what else I'm demanding next.


Massive pay rises for the underpayed ideas guys at the AFL of course. They would never ask for one themselves.

[bulldogtragic]

Can we make a list pact? If anyone wins the powerball tonight, a super league of former AFEL teams gets formed.

[hujsh]

I want them to proceed with this because I want to see them try to police it but also because it'd surely be death knell of these deluded vandals.

Maybe just grease the players up Rene Kink-style between quarters.

Or stretch a giant tarp over the field, turn the sprinklers on and make it a big slip-n-slide. Interchanges could be made by giant water slide. You can splash your opponent but NO tackling, 'kay?

You know that's only mildly more ridiculous than whatever they're planning for the next instalment of AFELX.

Their evangelical obsession with more goals = more $$$ is dangerous.

Then grease them up AFL. Like the West Coast players in the mid 2000s
https://66.media.tumblr.com/852a99c73442f5e143c34547f459806c/tumblr_oma8ivscld1vbcnq8o1_500.gif

[Rocket Science]

Is a change to the tackling rules being demanded by fans just like the fans are demanding mid-season trading?

I'm really excited to find out what else I'm demanding next.

HOW WAS bloody Whateley doing Gill & Hocking's bidding by promptly trotting out the breath-taking claim that mid-season trading has a long, rich history in the competition so, y'know, get around it.

[jeemak]

I love how the deluded twats make these types of statements:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-racing-to-build-new-review-centre-for-finals-20190717-p5284z.html

‘‘We need more time on that, to understand it [tackling]. But people should take some confidence that we are looking at the right things.’’

How much of your own bathwater can you drink you dickheads? This is exactly what we don't think is happening you self indulgent wankers.

[Hotdog60]

If think its time the presidents unite and all eighteen clubs tell them to stop meddling or they will dissolve the commission and take the league back into its own hands. If they are united they can have the power.

[Ghost Dog]

AFL always feels lacking in transparency. There's an insecurity about the way rules are changed so quickly and easily. It must be a very hard game to umpire. At the same time the stuff ups with score reviews are disheartening. I wonder how many umpires are in the rules commission?

[GVGjr]

It's a silly suggestion, it's an important part of the game. We should do everything reasonable to rid head high tackles from the game but tackling should stay

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

It's a silly suggestion, it's an important part of the game. We should do everything reasonable to rid head high tackles from the game but tackling should stay

They're well and truly dislocated from reality, if they think fans think tackle counts are on the nose to the fans.

[westdog54]

I'm really struggling to understand why tackling is such a concern. When done well it adds to the spectacle of the game.

[jeemak]

But they are so bloody stupid about how it's interpreted anyway. I mean they have backed themselves into a corner by changing the tackling rules so that the tackler isn't penalised if a tackle slips upwards above the shoulders due to an arm shrug, or a player lowering his body.

Read: if your arms are stronger than the tacklers you might get penalised, oh and by the way, everyone has to run around completely upright or you might get penalised.

This is how dumb this organisation is.

I get if a player ducks and instigates head high contact because of ducking that they shouldn't get a free kick. But, outside of that it should be the tacklers responsibility to ensure the tackle stays below the shoulders and above the knees, end of story.

And to suggest it isn't a skill they want to see become a feature...….I mean really? Have a read of the verbal ca ca that is spewing from this guy's mouth:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-racing-to-build-new-review-centre-for-finals-20190717-p5284z.html

Hocking said that tackling had become ‘‘a feature’’ of the game and that the AFL wanted to see the number of tackles reduced, although he did not specify the desired number.
‘‘I have a very strong view on that. It has become a feature of our game and all the stuff that we’re analysing is how to get a balance back in that so that it’s not a feature of the game.
‘‘I don’t think there’s a number ... but certainly we don’t want that [tackling] necessarily as a skill.’’

What kind of lunatic says this shit about something that's been an integral part of the game for decades and decades?

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the AFL is so very bloody lucky it has no rock solid competition in this country. It is being run by the worst type of clowns.

[Twodogs]

And it's Steve Hocking saying it. And Shocking used some appalling treatment over his career.

[westbulldog]

Presumably this genius Hocking would look unfavourably at the greatest tackle of the decade, the Glove on Buddy

[jeemak]

Presumably this genius Hocking would look unfavourably at the greatest tackle of the decade, the Glove on Buddy

It actually didn't happen. And it's not a skill, nor was it a feature of the game.

You'll need to go for re-education if you think it did. When you do, say hi to Winston for me.

[Twodogs]

It actually didn't happen. And it's not a skill, nor was it a feature of the game.

You'll need to go for re-education if you think it did. When you do, say hi to Winston for me.

Winston is a good bloke. I remember when we were in the underground together. Before the AFL van came and took him.

I wish I had said something...

[Sedat]

It's a silly suggestion, it's an important part of the game. We should do everything reasonable to rid head high tackles from the game but tackling should stay
I am probably Steve Hocking's biggest critic but I actually agree 100% with his claim that the tackling stat is grossly inflated in the modern game due to congestion. We all love run-down tackles from behind but how many of these are there in a game these days? Maybe 10-15? The other 130-140 tackles are deep in congestion and simply make our game look like a rugby scrum.

I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face, but prior opp is the biggest problem in the game and has caused so many other negative ripple effects. Stoppages are up massively in the last 20 years and scoring is down significantly in that time. And the source of this issue starts with prior opp. Get rid of it and games will open up significantly, players will play positional corridor footy, and tackling will naturally decrease due to space being opened up.

High tackling numbers is not the issue, it is simply the end result of congestion and stoppage numbers going through the roof.

[bornadog]

Richmond complain about studs out, and AFL have changed the rule immediately from this week.

[azabob]

Richmond complain about studs out, and AFL have changed the rule immediately from this week.

It’s a good decision.

[Topdog]

It’s a good decision.

It's the right decision but you can't change a rule in the last round of the season. It's amateur hour

[AshMac]

So...... Riewoldt is penalised twice in their forward 50, Dimma cracks the s**** and the AFL change the rule 48 hours later.

Luke Dahl is kicked in the head, there isn’t even a free kick paid and the AFL take a year to amend the rule.

[azabob]

It's the right decision but you can't change a rule in the last round of the season. It's amateur hour

Agree, continuation of amateur hour with the whole score review system also being revamped.

[bornadog]

So...... Riewoldt is penalised twice in their forward 50, Dimma cracks the s**** and the AFL change the rule 48 hours later.

Luke Dahl is kicked in the head, there isn’t even a free kick paid and the AFL take a year to amend the rule.

It really is pathetic to say the least.

[westdog54]

Richmond complain about studs out, and AFL have changed the rule immediately from this week.

They made a mistake rushing in the rule.

They compounded the mistake by changing it again on the eve of finals.

Steve Hocking is out of his depth.

[Grantysghost]

They made a mistake rushing in the rule.

They compounded the mistake by changing it again on the eve of finals.

Steve Hocking is out of his depth.

It's really quite ludicrous, what are they thinking? Silly rule, but you can't change things 9/10th's of the way through a season. What about decisions that were paid earlier do they come into question now? It just opens a massive can of worms.

[bornadog]

Riewoldt is another dickhead who sticks his foot out when going for a mark. How about bending the knee. No matter what you say kicking someone in the back is pretty painful.

When Dahlhaus was kicked in the face, Greene should have been reported and it would have stopped there instead of changing rules a year later.

This is my very point about this whole thread, the AFL don't think things through.

[hujsh]

Riewoldt is another dickhead who sticks his foot out when going for a mark. How about bending the knee. No matter what you say kicking someone in the back is pretty painful.

When Dahlhaus was kicked in the face, Greene should have been reported and it would have stopped there instead of changing rules a year later.

This is my very point about this whole thread, the AFL don't think things through.
Yeah I’m with you, knee or nothing. I see no reason you need to stick the boot in

[Bulldog Joe]

Yeah I’m with you, knee or nothing. I see no reason you need to stick the boot in

I agree with this.

Riewoldt has no business using his boot to create separation and anyone who flies with studs up is not considering a ball first approach.

The natural tendency when you jump is to raise a knee for elevation. Raising a foot limits the elevation.

Occasionally you see someone like Howe jump high and have his feet in the back, but generally he has just jumped high and the contact is incidental.

[The Pie Man]

This rule should've been brought in years ago to combat tactics akin to Jarrad Waite's marking technique - studs in the back is just not on.

Jack had his foot on the lower part of his opponent back - not as bad as Waite's previous efforts, and can live with an interpretation where that's not a free....but can live with it being a free as well.

Instead of asking for calm, the league gave into Hardwick's rant - terribly reactive crap from the governing body.

[Axe Man]

For mine an incidental boot in the back whilst taking a high mark is fine, when the leg is approaching horizontal I think a free is warranted. There is simply no need to stick your leg straight out like that. I have a scar on my back from backing back into an opponent who decided to stick their leg straight out to stop me.

[Mofra]

For mine an incidental boot in the back whilst taking a high mark is fine, when the leg is approaching horizontal I think a free is warranted. There is simply no need to stick your leg straight out like that. I have a scar on my back from backing back into an opponent who decided to stick their leg straight out to stop me.
Agree. It's not dissimilar to in the ruck where you can use an arm on an opponent, but you can't 'straight-arm' them out of the contest.

[Scorlibo]

This rule should've been brought in years ago to combat tactics akin to Jarrad Waite's marking technique - studs in the back is just not on.

Jack had his foot on the lower part of his opponent back - not as bad as Waite's previous efforts, and can live with an interpretation where that's not a free....but can live with it being a free as well.

Instead of asking for calm, the league gave into Hardwick's rant - terribly reactive crap from the governing body.

It's a shambles.

What is stopping players now from simply planting one foot and kicking the other out?

I also question how is the Toby Greene scenario going to remain a free kick? The AFL continually introduces grey areas to the rules and then wonders why the game is A) impossible to adjudicate and B) impossible for outsiders to understand.

[Happy Days]

Boots in the back are pretty cheap and a way to make up ground when you’re late to a contest. Don’t really see why they should be treated differently to a push in the back, it’s just as unrefined and lacking in skill.

[bornadog]

Well they know they made a mistake with the runner, another rule blunder by the AFL:

THE NEW AFL RULE CHANGE TO SET BE TRIALED DURING PRE-SEASON (https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/02/05/report-the-new-afl-rule-change-to-set-be-trialed-during-pre-season/)

[bornadog]

"WARNING"
I know Woofers are probably sick of me carrying on about rule changes, but if you are not interested, it is ok don't read on.

"READ ON IF YOU HATE RULE CHANGES"

There is some talk about the AFL trying to speed up the game and go back to more on the bench and make some more changes to other rules. I tell you now it will not work the way they want it to work. You can't change the game to what you want it to look like through rules, because in the end you have a product that no longer resembles football.

We have lost many things in the game, like bouncing the ball around the ground, the goal square and the kick out, third man up, use of runners (all unique to our game) and introduced some rules for no apparent reason. I am yet to hear one rule change that has enhanced the game in the last 30 years.

I just hope the AFL doesn't decide to use COVID-19 as an excuse to push things through. Already we are down to 16 minute quarters which makes no sense to me.

Be prepared, they are going to change the game again.

[SonofScray]

Agree BAD.

They need to stop trying to influence the style of play, with a view of micro managing the product. It's madness.

I don't have a problem with changes to things like time on, interchange v substitutes, list sizes and to an extent even the league structure. That's theirs to piss fart around with and shape the league as a product. So long as they are considered and mature in their decision making and don't keep going back and forth. It should have a foundation in being a fair and equitable competition.

[bornadog]

WHY POTENTIAL RULE CHANGES "MAKE NO SENSE" (https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/05/21/why-potential-rule-changes-make-no-sense/)


AFL rule changes are back on the agenda.

On Wednesday the Herald Sun revealed the AFL is welcoming ideas — including reducing 18-man teams to 16.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson’s influence and power over the AFL has become too much.
On the eve of the season, Clarkson joined Garry and Tim on SEN Breakfast and made these surprising comments.

"We probably have to consider pulling some levers in the game. One of the charters of the game was we wanted to retain 18 v 18," the Hawks coach said.

"If defences have become so sophisticated at being able to use 18 men to defend, I wonder if they could defend as well with 16? Becuase one of the things that we wnated to retain in our game was high scoring.

"In terms of the charter of the game, we don't want to be like soccer, we want to be able to score."

In that same week back in March, former Fremantle and St Kilda coach and one of the smartest minds in the game, Ross Lyon, echoed Clarkson’s comments.

Speaking to The Age before round one, Lyon admitted he would "go to 16 players because everything works on a string. If you take out two moving pieces, it's going to be harder for some of those defensive mechanisms to stay intact. They'd break down a hell of a lot quicker."

"The easiest way would be to take the wingers off, so you know, just play with 16," added Lyon, who has moved back to Melbourne from Perth.

I was staggered at the time by both Lyon and in particular Clarkson’s comments. I’m even more surprised the AFL would entertain messing with the game and its fabric so drastically.

What a ridiculous overreaction that move would be.

The thought of AFL becoming a 16-a-side game with no wingmen doesn’t make sense and there are a host of subtle and minor tweaks that we should look at before making this giant leap.

Slashing the length of quarters to 16 and a half minutes plus time-on is extreme enough and also makes no sense considering the compromised season fixture will look largely normal with standard break between games for each team.

I’m yet to understand why this is a good change as we look to return to a largely normal looking season, minus the crowds.

The game was in great shape, players are stronger, faster, more explosive, better all-round athletes and fiercer tacklers than in any previous era.

The AFL and world sport in general have been dealt its most challenging blow, but that doesn’t mean we need scrap all that was good before this disease hit.

And we certainly don’t need the game’s best coach telling us otherwise. Has Clarkson’s influence at AFL House become unhealthy?

I have a two-step solution that would increase scoring, limit congestion and increase one-on-one contests.

Slash interchange rotations. I’d like to see a limit of 40. 10 per quarter only. It’s obvious, fatigue the players so they are physically incapable of applying the frantic pressure and defensive systems we see in the current game. Skills will improve due to the lack of pressure; congestion will ease and scoring will increase.

Implement last possession out of bounds free-kick. It’s been a raging success at SANFL level and something the AFL has been briefed by the SANFL on and is already considering.

[jeemak]

Someone who doesn't want to change the rules writes an article suggesting rule changes.

Amazing.

[GVGjr]

I'm certainly not against rule changes or amendments and believe changes like the automatic play on after a point is scored, limiting 4 players in the middle after a goal, separating the ruckman after a goal, limiting the IC changes plus a few others have been positives for the game but Cornes touches on the same concerns I have.

The never waste a crisis approach the AFL is taking to shorten quarters, considering a 16 v 16 game and extending the finals series are just bullshit opportunistic moves to appease the TV companies.

They'll go too far one day and lose a lot of supporters

[bornadog]

The whole deliberate OOB is just BS and now this.


AFL greats Ross Lyon and Matthew Lloyd have slammed a potential change for spoiling the ball in season 2021 and beyond. According to veteran AFL journalist Caroline Wilson, the AFL commission have discussed a change in the rules which would see defenders spoiling a ball out of bounds being a free kick to the opposition for a deliberate out of bounds.


It is a move designed to speed up the game with Wilson believing a number of top level commission members are in favour.

AFL just can't help themselves

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The whole deliberate OOB is just BS and now this.



AFL just can't help themselves

Huh? If anything that should be the only way a throw in occurs. I get the thinking behind last touch from a kick or handball resulting in a kick to the opposition but a spoil should always be throw in. How hard do they want to make it for defenders?

Also this wouldn’t speed up the game. Defenders spoiling would occur in forward 50 so all that’s going to happen is a shot on goal. No one wants to see more goals from free kicks.

[jeemak]

Huh? If anything that should be the only way a throw in occurs. I get the thinking behind last touch from a kick or handball resulting in a kick to the opposition but a spoil should always be throw in. How hard do they want to make it for defenders?

Also this wouldn’t speed up the game. Defenders spoiling would occur in forward 50 so all that’s going to happen is a shot on goal. No one wants to see more goals from free kicks.

Well the TV networks do. And it's become increasingly clear that they're the only stakeholders who matter these days.

[Bulldog Joe]

Well the TV networks do. And it's become increasingly clear that they're the only stakeholders who matter these days.

Yes.
They want to keep the game moving with more breaks that are long enough to run ads.

[GVGjr]

The whole deliberate OOB is just BS and now this.



AFL just can't help themselves

I would have thought that with substantially less staff the team that reviews 'the rules of the game' might have been better used elsewhere for the next couple of years.

This is not a good change in fact it's a really bad suggestion

[Rocket Science]

Why stop there?

Be bold AFEL and mandate that defenders must play with their legs tied together and both arms cuffed behind their backs.

[Twodogs]

I would have thought that with substantially less staff the team that reviews 'the rules of the game' might have been better used elsewhere for the next couple of years.

This is not a good change in fact it's a really bad suggestion

From the sound of it that team is down to one member and that member has taken a severe blow to the head.

[bornadog]

Bump for Aza

[azabob]

Thanks BAD!!! That’s the one.

AFL is looking to cap interchange further.

https://coupler.foxsports.com.au/api/v1/article/amp/afl/afl-2021-rule-changes-new-rules-how-long-will-quarters-be-when-does-the-season-start-key-dates-tom-morris/news-story/d6d0c488bce8d4f92ebf343799c21bcc?__twitter_impression=true

[bornadog]

Well finally the AFL has now officially lost the plot.

Interchange cut for AFL, second-tier comp to trial new zone rule in 2021 (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-trial-new-zone-rule-in-second-tier-competition-next-season-20201118-p56ft3.html)
The AFL has cut interchange next year to 75 from 90 and will trial a rule in the new second-tier competition requiring teams to reset in zones at every boundary throw-in and kick-in as well as every centre bounce.


The league has also tweaked several other rules for the AFL competition next year, with players standing the mark to receive a 50-metre penalty for any lateral movement before "play on" is called.

Players on the mark at kick-ins will also have to move five metres futher back – giving the player kicking in more time and space to play on.


The radical trial of more zones in the second tier competition will require a minimum of three pairs of players to be in each of the two 50m arcs at boundary throw-ins and kick-ins.


The existing rule, which requires teams to break into six pairs of players in each zone for centre bounces, will remain and run in tandem with the new trial.


The move for a half-reset of player positions at the boundary throw-ins and kick-ins is a significant next step in the push to declutter the game.


The AFL said in a statement that the "officiating umpire will not recommence play until all players are in position. Where a team fails to comply at a boundary throw-in, a free kick shall be awarded to the player of the opposing team at the point of the stoppage. Where the attacking team fails to comply at a kick in, a 50-metre penalty shall be awarded to the defending team."


It is as yet unknown how long players will have to get back in position.


Ball-ups are not included under the new rule.


An email to clubs from the AFL on Wednesday advising of the rule said the game would have to wait for players to be in position before it resumed, but said details of how it will be umpired would be communicated later.

[Axe Man]

Just for you BAD

AFL announces rule changes for 2021 (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-announces-rule-trials-for-2021/news-story/ebb327be5d4d60fd1ad060cead5955f0)

The AFL will slash interchange rotations from 90 to 75 a match next year in a bid to bust open ugly congestion.

AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking announced the change on Wednesday afternoon.

The league is also looking at trialling new zone rules in its new second-tier competition as it looks to open up the game.

Teams will still be allowed four interchange players.

The league will also crack down on players standing the mark.

“If the defending player moves off the mark in any direction prior to ‘play on’ being called, a 50-metre penalty will apply,” AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking announced.

Players kicking the ball in from a behind will also be given more space.

Next year the mark will be set at 15m from the kick-in line — an increase of five metres from last year.

Looking ahead to next year, the league is still working on the length of the season and how the fixturing will work.

But quarters will return to 20 minutes plus time-on, following this year’s COVID-striken season of 18 rounds and 16-minute quarters plus time on.

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.

Collingwood forward Mason Cox took to Twitter on Wednesday afternoon to protest the changes.

“Any chance we could keep the rules the same for once?” the American posted

“It’s been hard enough learning it from scratch much less it changing every year.

“Being an umpire would be a nightmare. Every year there are more changes to AFL than any other sport in the world I feel like.”

[bornadog]

Just for you BAD

AFL announces rule changes for 2021 (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-announces-rule-trials-for-2021/news-story/ebb327be5d4d60fd1ad060cead5955f0)

The AFL will slash interchange rotations from 90 to 75 a match next year in a bid to bust open ugly congestion.

AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking announced the change on Wednesday afternoon.

The league is also looking at trialling new zone rules in its new second-tier competition as it looks to open up the game.

Teams will still be allowed four interchange players.

The league will also crack down on players standing the mark.

“If the defending player moves off the mark in any direction prior to ‘play on’ being called, a 50-metre penalty will apply,” AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking announced.

Players kicking the ball in from a behind will also be given more space.

Next year the mark will be set at 15m from the kick-in line — an increase of five metres from last year.

Looking ahead to next year, the league is still working on the length of the season and how the fixturing will work.

But quarters will return to 20 minutes plus time-on, following this year’s COVID-striken season of 18 rounds and 16-minute quarters plus time on.

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.

Collingwood forward Mason Cox took to Twitter on Wednesday afternoon to protest the changes.

“Any chance we could keep the rules the same for once?” the American posted

“It’s been hard enough learning it from scratch much less it changing every year.

“Being an umpire would be a nightmare. Every year there are more changes to AFL than any other sport in the world I feel like.”

This comes into the AFL ie the zones, I am officially out.

[Rocket Science]

A league mandating increased player fatigue is a league bereft of answers, often to questions nobody's posing but themselves.

Not to mention their endless appetite for galling pedantry. Just scrap players on the mark altogether.

[Sedat]

Sigh. There are so many existing levers that City Hall could use to reduce congestion and increase the speed of ball movement (and then increase scoring) but all they do is tinker around the edges and make the umpire's job even more difficult with increased subjective grey area adjudications like this 1m protected zone on the mark BS.

[Happy Days]

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.

[jeemak]

Apparently Steve Hocking listened to people and made considered changes..........man I hate being grin-*!*!*!*!ed by this guy.

What kind of dickhead thinks making an already complex game more technical is a way to improve it?

[G-Mo77]

This comes into the AFL ie the zones, I am officially out.

Bye. You know and I know that is what's next.

[Sedat]

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.

As an aside, hasn't Dusty come a long way since Mr Miyagi and some stray chopsticks?

[Sedat]

Apparently Steve Hocking listened to people and made considered changes..........man I hate being grin-*!*!*!*!ed by this guy.

What kind of dickhead thinks making an already complex game more technical is a way to improve it?
900k a year this clown gets paid. City Hall are so detached from reality.

[Hotdog60]

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.

[bornadog]

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

[soupman]

If you think tiring teams out is the answer thats fine but actually do it. What does reducing interchange from 90 to 75 achieve? Put it down to 40 or something where it might actually make a difference.

Also missed in the above the player on the mark is unable to be substituted, which might give us a nice break from seeing Caleb Daniel standing on it for every single set shot the opposition gets.

[Rocket Science]

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.

[soupman]

They keep trying to tighten things with rule tweaks and changes but they either don't make any real meaningful change or have unintended consequences. The more the rules try to force teams to play more attacking, instead of rewarding them for doing it, the more coaches try to mitigate risk and make the game more defensive and thus lower scoring.

If they want to "create more Dusty moments", a good start would be to enforce rules they already have. Gun mids/players are constantly held at contests without the ball. It's difficult for Bont to create a Dusty moment when he is dragging along the opposition tagger. Crack down on stuff like this and it will help immensely.

The rule changes they are employing are so minor that even if they are effective I'm not sure the cure is worth the medicine. If restricting the man on the mark opens up the game in a minor way is it not completely offset by the frustration of players being punished for moving on the mark a tad early and getting penalised 50m? The goal review system is a perfect example, even if it worked 100% of the time are people more pissed off about having to go through the goal review process than they are pissed off if the wrong call is made without it?

[jeemak]

How good is the man of the mark rule change. RS is a touch more eloquent with his views on it than I can bring myself to be. What happens if a player moves backwards and latterally.....is that to be penalised as well?

It beggars belief that this is what these guys come up with.

[whythelongface]

If the AFL seriously wanted to ‘bust open ugly congestion’ would you not just simply reduce the number of players on the field. If there was two less players per side then surely this would make much more of a difference than simply tinkering with the rules. These changes make it harder to officiate and really make little difference to the spectacle.

[jazzadogs]

It's an insane change. At AFL level, it will be frustrating and as others have said will likely result in huge penalties at important times for players doing a) something instinctive that they've done for their entire careers, and b) tiny little movements that have no bearing on the play.

I'm still playing local footy as well and as the AFL have taken control of a lot of Victorian leagues, often these rules come in to our competitions too. 6,6,6 has been frustrating but manageable. Play on from kick outs has actually been pretty good. This will be absolute crap for volunteer/inexperienced umpires.

[azabob]

How good is the man of the mark rule change. RS is a touch more eloquent with his views on it than I can bring myself to be. What happens if a player moves backwards and latterally.....is that to be penalised as well?

It beggars belief that this is what these guys come up with.

Yep. There is no rule saying you must man the mark. What happens when the team without the ball stands five meters behind the mark and protects the corridor? Is that a free kick?

[jeemak]

Yep. There is no rule saying you must man the mark. What happens when the team without the ball stands five meters behind the mark and protects the corridor? Is that a free kick?

Twelve week suspension and loss of premiership points for those weeks for putting the game into disrepute.

[Rocket Science]

How good is the man of the mark rule change. RS is a touch more eloquent with his views on it than I can bring myself to be. What happens if a player moves backwards and latterally.....is that to be penalised as well?

It beggars belief that this is what these guys come up with.

I for one am thankful they've FINALLY rectified the appalling blight of *checks notes* the bloke on the mark trying to read and react to the kicker's intentions.

Frankly it was turning me off the game.