The NAB cup rules - Innovative or just stupid

[southerncross]

I didn't enjoy last nights game and it wasn't just the score board or our meek display that curbed my enjoyment of the night.

What I want to question is the rules that have been put in place. The main rules that I think are wrong are.

> 4 Field umpires did not raise the standard one bit in fact I think the umpiring was in general terms poor.
> The boundary umpires throwing the ball in from 10mtrs adds nothing to the game at all and just keeps things bunched more.
> Play on being called when the ball hits one of the posts and bounces back into play is just silly in my opinion and very unfair to the defenders.
> The 20mtrs rule for kicking really confused things last night and really works against a team like ours. (This is something that we need to deal with though)


I can live with the super goal although I would not want to see it in the H&A season. I like the idea of being able to play the rookies during the NAB and I still haven't worked out if I like the play on rule if the ball is kicked backwards in the defensive half.

So what does everyone think? Good rules, innovative or is the NAB really just the time to try some new things?

[Twodogs]

One thing-Has an umpire other than a field umpire made a decision on general play yet?


That one where Jordy got pinged for overstepping was a guess by a field umpire at least 20 metres from the play. Surely the goal umpire is in a better possie to adjudicate on a decision like that?

[bornadog]

I absolulely can't stand any changes to rules, it doesnot give AFL one bit of credability, it confuses players and does nothing for the spectical. Australian rules was started over 120 years ago and we keep tinkering with what I believe is the greatest game in the world. Soccer, which is boring as hell have not changed the rules for over 100 years, because they feel they don't need to. I don't understand why we need to. The preason competition is really a suped up practise match but we have to confuse things and experiment. Yes, I agree let rookies play as its a practise match, but thats it.

The biggest problem with tinkering with the rules is that they can't even get basic rules right let alone introducing new ones. Example - The push in the back interpretation, agree you can't put your hands in the back of any one, not a new rule, now enforced, but why can a player sit on top of another player and hold their jumper up calling for holding the ball? Surely this is a push in the back. Rule tinkering what a joke. Preseason changes, can't stand it.

[bulldogtragic]

One thing-Has an umpire other than a field umpire made a decision on general play yet?


That one where Jordy got pinged for overstepping was a guess by a field umpire at least 20 metres from the play. Surely the goal umpire is in a better possie to adjudicate on a decision like that?
One decision by a boundary umpire. But was over ruled the field umpire (fearing his credibility), but then another field umpire over ruled him to agree with the boundary. Too many chiefs......

Overall, my memo to the AFL is LEAVE THE F***ING GAME ALONE.

It survived over 100 years without their stupid overhaul of stupid rule changes and doesn't need to stuff up what we all know is great with gimics. The focus should be the level of play of the teams, not how many umpires there are, what they do or rules changes they can interpret. ****s me to tears the fact they keep over stepping their role. The AFL are the games administrators, there to ensure survival of the league, not there to ruin the game from the inside.

I could keep going on but i wont.

[BulldogBelle]

> 4 Field umpires did not raise the standard one bit in fact I think the umpiring was in general terms poor.

They were terrible out there, there is way too many of them now, I totally hate the idea of so many field umpires.

[Dry Rot]

They were terrible out there, there is way too many of them now, I totally hate the idea of so many field umpires.

Maybe the AFL would eventually prefer 4 players/side and 22 field, boundary and goal umpires.

[BulldogBelle]

Maybe the AFL would eventually prefer 4 players/side and 22 field, boundary and goal umpires.

Perhaps, you never know what is on the AFL's agenda from day to day. I can just see it, "2008 NAB Cup", we are now trialling 10 field umpires and 4 goal umpires and we will make sure they report players for swearing at each other, as we must stamp out agrresiveness". :rolleyes:

[southerncross]

The new push in the back rule has been given a thumb's down by basically everyone, except for a small minority and the AFL has said tough luck to everyone opposed.

Andrew Dimitriou has even said 'Live with it' according to the Herald Sun.
This is a confusing rule and defiant stand by someone charged with running the AFL but not listening to the clubs, coaches and the spectators is just silly.

The umpires have enough trouble with interpretations of the rules already and I see no sense in making it harder for them?

I hope common sense prevails here.

[bornadog]

The new push in the back rule has been given a thumb's down by basically everyone, except for a small minority and the AFL has said tough luck to everyone opposed.

Andrew Dimitriou has even said 'Live with it' according to the Herald Sun.
This is a confusing rule and defiant stand by someone charged with running the AFL but not listening to the clubs, coaches and the spectators is just silly.

The umpires have enough trouble with interpretations of the rules already and I see no sense in making it harder for them?

I hope common sense prevails here.

Its going to be interesting how it goes in the season proper and whether we get consistency by the umpires.

[westdog54]

One thing-Has an umpire other than a field umpire made a decision on general play yet?


That one where Jordy got pinged for overstepping was a guess by a field umpire at least 20 metres from the play. Surely the goal umpire is in a better possie to adjudicate on a decision like that?

I was under the impression that it was only field umpires who were able to pay free kicks on Friday night. Putting the power in the hands of boundary/goal umpires was just trialled in the Melbourne v Hawthorn match.

FWIW I think the idea of allowing boundary and field umpires to pay free kicks has a lot of merit. IMO the league went the wrong way when simply adding more umpires to the game. Ours is the only major team sport in the world I can think of that has what I believe to be 'redundant officials'. Soccer, both codes of rugby, gridiron, tennis, cricket, all have officials watching the game and making decisions from all angles. Boundary and goal umpires see angles and views on the play that field umpires are far too often blindsided from. There were two prime examples of this on Friday night, both in the second quarter. The first was when one of our guys (can't remember who) was held without the ball after disposing of it, and was then held off the ball while chasing. The boundary umpire had a clear view of it but was powerless to adjudicate on it. The other was Cam Wight being pinged for a throw on the goalline, when no camera angle showed a clear infringement either way, and the umpire was completely blindsided to the disposal. The goal umpire, on the other hand, was no more than 3 metres from the incident, and could've ruled on it if there was an incorrect disposal. Surely being able to pick out free kicks that are clearly there but are missed by the field umpires can't be a bad thing, or am I alone on this one. It works in so many other sports I see no reason why it couldn't work in our beloved game. Twodogs is spot on, if the goal umpire isn't the best person to rule on whether the kicker's foot has left the square then I don't know who is.

As for the play on off the post rule, my only problem with it is this: If a ball hits the post and then goes through the goals, IMO that should be a goal because the ball has not touched another player and is still in play until it crosses the line. That's what makes it a rubbish rule for me. And the new pushing interpretation is all well and good as long as it is ENFORCED. The umpires seem completely unwilling to do that toughnut Adrian Anderson's dirty work.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I can't stand the whole concept of changing the rules. It cheapens the pre-season competition and gives it even more of a Mickey Mouse feel about it.

No wonder none of the clubs take it seriously.

[LostDoggy]

I can't stand the whole concept of changing the rules. It cheapens the pre-season competition and gives it even more of a Mickey Mouse feel about it.

No wonder none of the clubs take it seriously.

While the AFL use this format to muck around with the fundamentals of the game in such an irresponsible manner it's doubtful any team will try and do any more than just play the youngsters.

[Topdog]

FWIW I think the idea of allowing boundary and field umpires to pay free kicks has a lot of merit. IMO the league went the wrong way when simply adding more umpires to the game. Ours is the only major team sport in the world I can think of that has what I believe to be 'redundant officials'. Soccer, both codes of rugby, gridiron, tennis, cricket, all have officials watching the game and making decisions from all angles. Boundary and goal umpires see angles and views on the play that field umpires are far too often blindsided from. There were two prime examples of this on Friday night, both in the second quarter. The first was when one of our guys (can't remember who) was held without the ball after disposing of it, and was then held off the ball while chasing. The boundary umpire had a clear view of it but was powerless to adjudicate on it. The other was Cam Wight being pinged for a throw on the goalline, when no camera angle showed a clear infringement either way, and the umpire was completely blindsided to the disposal. The goal umpire, on the other hand, was no more than 3 metres from the incident, and could've ruled on it if there was an incorrect disposal. Surely being able to pick out free kicks that are clearly there but are missed by the field umpires can't be a bad thing, or am I alone on this one. It works in so many other sports I see no reason why it couldn't work in our beloved game. Twodogs is spot on, if the goal umpire isn't the best person to rule on whether the kicker's foot has left the square then I don't know who is.



Just as an extension of this. I find it hilarious that a goal umpire/boundary umpire can report people yet play will continue if the field umpire hasnt seen it. It's completely ridiculous.

[Topdog]

The thing with these NAB cup rules is realistically its a great chance to try a new rule that you are thinking of implementing. So really it should be at most 1 different rule that you trial for the NAB cup, see if it works and then decide if it is going to be put into the H&A season.

However these morons at the AFL feel that you should try 6 different rules/things at once. You CANNOT tell if 1 rule is working because it is being affected by the other 5 rules!

1 a year would be fine with me (for the NAB) but FFS just leave the game alone. The fact that the ppl on the commitee didn't even listen to Buckley just shows how little they care what people think.

[Dry Rot]

Can anyone list some GOOD new rules now implemented which were trialled in past NAB/name whatever pre-season comps?

[bornadog]

Last year in the season proper, against Melbourne at the MCG, a doggies player kicked backwards to another player ( in the backline), who marked it and the umpire yelled play on play on. Just goes to show you how confusing the whole thing is.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Last year in the season proper, against Melbourne at the MCG, a doggies player kicked backwards to another player ( in the backline), who marked it and the umpire yelled play on play on. Just goes to show you how confusing the whole thing is.

That was Matthew Boyd. The umpire actually called "not 15" but the kick had travelled about 35 metres!

[westdog54]

Can anyone list some GOOD new rules now implemented which were trialled in past NAB/name whatever pre-season comps?

As I said before, allowing boundary and goal umpires to pay free kicks has merit, but I'm also a closet fan of the 'nine-pointer'. I love watching goals on the run from 55-60 or more metres. But we stuffed it up badly when we played Brisbane, went for them at all costs when in reality it wasn't the best option.

[alwaysadog]

Am I the only one who thinks that the inability to pay a mark in defence for a kick backwards has reintroduced opportunities for the flood, something that was becomming obsolete as tactics moved past it. Brizzie have been dropping players back and just waiting for a turn over, rather than making the play.

IMO Geelong had much the better of the game Friday night but the rules forced them to keep going forward into a flooded offence. They kept getting picked off then Brizzie scored goals on the rebound.

This is one stupid rule that does not let a team hold possession while it probes for space or look for a weakness in the opposition, instead it forces the ball to be played forward at all costs.

If introduced in home and away games it will also bring back the lumbering ox like overbulked up KPP who has neither great skills nor much mobility. Who said dinosaurs are dead? The AFL is reviving them. What next?

[Sockeye Salmon]

IMHO, the most significant contributing factors to flooding have been the rule changes such as deliberate OOB, hitting the arms in marking contests and the hans-on-the-back rules.

The rules committee, in their haste to quicken the game and make it easier for forwards, have rendered defenders impotent. The only option coaches have left is to flood the D50 so the oppositions forwards have nowhere to lead.

Give the defenders a chance to show off defensive skills and we might see coaches with good defenders back them in and go more attacking.