Message for Darce and idiot KB

[Sockeye Salmon]

There are two reasons players rush a point.

1. Nothing else they can do.

Defenders can no longer defend. They can't knock the ball out of bounds, they can't dive on it. When they're going for a mark they can't touch the arms when they spoil or place their hands anywhere near their opponents back (whether they push or not).


2. The reward is worth it.

By giving away a point you not only get the ball but you get it immediately, before your teammates are manned up. The reward is not only possesion, but quite possibly possesion up the other end.


Giving them the ball back after their teammates have been manned up will go some way towards reducing the advantage gained by rushing the point in the first place.

Removing the stupid hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules will stop forward from continually being gifted goals they didn't deserve. If defenders can actually defend instead of being witches hats for forwards, coaches won't have to resort so much towards flooding to stop goals.

Apologies for quoting my own post but I didn't want to hijack the other thread.

Now that Darce is on the rules committee, this is what I'd like to see them do.



1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

The problem in the first place was never the rules, it was the intepretation. It used to be that you couldn't make two movements with your hands and that worked perfectly well. Sometime in the 80's they decided that a little push was OK, then a slightly bigger push was allowed until eventually full pushes in the back were the norm. If the umpires advisors had done their job properly in the first place we wouldn't be stuck with this un-umpirable rule.

The chopping-the-arms rule is making our game like basketball in that only guys 7 ft tall will be able to play key back soon. One of the great things about our game is that it doesn't matter if you're built like Libba or Harry Madden, you could still play.


2. Scrap the quick kick-in from points (see above).


3. 2 interchange and 2 reserves.

Coaches are carrying on about wanting two reserves to bring on for injuries. What a fabulous idea! Reduce the bench to 2 interchange and 2 reserves. Coaches will have to rest players on the ground, we might end up with ruckmen and rovers resting in the forward pockets again. Fatigued players can't flood.

While we're at it, scrap the over-reaction to interchange breaches. A free kick is fine.


4. Keep 4 boundary umpires

We'll see the return of the ruck-rover. Faster play, more fatigue, less flooding.


5. Ban the backwards mark in the defensive half.

It works well in the VFL and all the time-wasting shits everyone.





OK. Do your best.

[Pembleton]

I reckon you are just about spot on with all of that. Not too sure about making it two interchange and 2 reserves, but i think it has some merit.

[Go_Dogs]

Not convinced about your interchange proposal.

I don't mind the hand in the back rule, encourages a player use their body strength rather than their hands to out-body an opponent. I know Twodogs will agree.

Agree that the chopping arms needs some revision, but not sure what can be done about it. Defenders need to be able to defend against quick leading forwards, but at the same time forwards need to be able to get their hands to the ball without 30 sets of hands dragging their arms down.

I agree with the kicking backwards, and rushed behind rule. Although, I think if it is not a rushed behind, the current rule applies.

[LostDoggy]

Dont agree with the backwards kick rule change. If you dont like backwards kicking just play man on man

[G-Mo77]

1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

I wish they would! Being a very undersized defensive player I would love a change on that rule. All these rule changes get brought down to country level and the umpires we have just aren't good enough to make the calls.

When I think about it neither are the ones at AFL level :rolleyes:

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't mind the hand in the back rule, encourages a player use their body strength rather than their hands to out-body an opponent. I know Twodogs will agree.



My main problem with the hands in the back rule is that is so infrequently applied and it seems pot luck as to which ones they call (and almost always against the defender).

I heard KB say that everyone was over-reating because there were only (on average) 3.5 frees per game for this rule. The problem is that it actually happens about 20 times a game though.

[Go_Dogs]

My main problem with the hands in the back rule is that is so infrequently applied and it seems pot luck as to which ones they call (and almost always against the defender).

Agree the interpretations need work. Professional umpiring is the go for mine, I've been sprouting it for a few years.

[LostDoggy]

How about for once they don't change the rules, these Rule committees are stuffing up the game.
Hands in the Back - Crap (Push in the back ok, but ticky touchwood soft frees are woeful)
Chopping the arms isn't great - defenders gotta be allowed to go for the ball

Please don't ban the kicking backwards mark... We especially shouldn't want this rule with our style of play... oh yeah that will mean Lake never gets a kick or mark : )

Rushed behind... leave it alone. The Joel Bowden ones the umpire should bounce but in general play leave em alone.

[westdog54]

How about for once they don't change the rules, these Rule committees are stuffing up the game.
Hands in the Back - Crap (Push in the back ok, but ticky touchwood soft frees are woeful)
Chopping the arms isn't great - defenders gotta be allowed to go for the ballPlease don't ban the kicking backwards mark... We especially shouldn't want this rule with our style of play... oh yeah that will mean Lake never gets a kick or mark : )

Rushed behind... leave it alone. The Joel Bowden ones the umpire should bounce but in general play leave em alone.

As much as I have doubts over the chopping the arms rule, isn't this a bit of a contradiction in terms? "They've gotta be allowed to go for the ball so they should be allowed to chop the arms".

As for 'constantly changing the rules', call me cynical, but this is yet another example of media-initiated hysteria. The rules of the game have been evolving since the game's inception, and its only the need for newspapers to be sold that it gets so much attention these days.

[Sockeye Salmon]

As much as I have doubts over the chopping the arms rule, isn't this a bit of a contradiction in terms? "They've gotta be allowed to go for the ball so they should be allowed to chop the arms".

As for 'constantly changing the rules', call me cynical, but this is yet another example of media-initiated hysteria. The rules of the game have been evolving since the game's inception, and its only the need for newspapers to be sold that it gets so much attention these days.

I find that post astounding, Nick.

By any measure, there have been an enormous number of rule changes ever soince the started up the rules committee (just by having a committee means they were going to change rules whether they needed it or not just to justify their existance).

There was never a rule preventing you from hitting the arms - I was taught to do it in under 10's - and if you are shorter than your opponent it is almost impossible to spoil otherwise. One of our great games best features was that anyone could play, all you had to be was good enough. It didn't matter is you were short, tall skinny, solid.

If this rule was in place in the 70's and 80's Francis Bourke and Bruce Doull would never have been able to play key back at the end of their careers.


PS. Don't get me wrong, journos are scum and half the problems we have in the game are due to them trying to beat up a story to sell papers (and are in no small way part of the problem by pushing to get rule changes brought in in the first place eg. rushed behinds ATM) but they are not beating up the damage these rules are doing to our game, that's real.

[The Coon Dog]

PS. Don't get me wrong, journos are scum

Obviously there are exceptions. G'day Mark. ;)

[westdog54]

I find that post astounding, Nick.

By any measure, there have been an enormous number of rule changes ever soince the started up the rules committee (just by having a committee means they were going to change rules whether they needed it or not just to justify their existance).

There was never a rule preventing you from hitting the arms - I was taught to do it in under 10's - and if you are shorter than your opponent it is almost impossible to spoil otherwise. One of our great games best features was that anyone could play, all you had to be was good enough. It didn't matter is you were short, tall skinny, solid.

If this rule was in place in the 70's and 80's Francis Bourke and Bruce Doull would never have been able to play key back at the end of their careers.


PS. Don't get me wrong, journos are scum and half the problems we have in the game are due to them trying to beat up a story to sell papers (and are in no small way part of the problem by pushing to get rule changes brought in in the first place eg. rushed behinds ATM) but they are not beating up the damage these rules are doing to our game, that's real.

With respect Jim, I wasn't at any stage standing up for the rule thats in place, I've stated (probably not clearly enough) that I wasn't sold on the rule, more that I was pointing out that a defender can't possibly be "going for the ball" if they chop a player's arms. Putting aside any discussions about rules and legends of the game, that statement is a contradiction in terms.

I also stand by my comments about how much media hysteria there is. One day, you've got people screaming for a moratorium on rule changes, the next day there's 10 different possibilities as to how the issue of rushed behinds could be addressed by the rules commitee. They latch on to the sentiment of the day, flog it for all its worth, and move onto the next thing.

[LostDoggy]

Rushed behinds are a vital part of our game BUT the double rushed should be driven from the game. If from a kick out the player rushes the ball again then there should be a bounce from 15 metres out. Simple.

[Sockeye Salmon]

With respect Jim, I wasn't at any stage standing up for the rule thats in place, I've stated (probably not clearly enough) that I wasn't sold on the rule, more that I was pointing out that a defender can't possibly be "going for the ball" if they chop a player's arms. Putting aside any discussions about rules and legends of the game, that statement is a contradiction in terms.

I also stand by my comments about how much media hysteria there is. One day, you've got people screaming for a moratorium on rule changes, the next day there's 10 different possibilities as to how the issue of rushed behinds could be addressed by the rules commitee. They latch on to the sentiment of the day, flog it for all its worth, and move onto the next thing.

Serves me right for addressing seperate points in the same post without using multi-post.

I absolutely agree about the media hysteria, only that there certainly has been plenty of rule-changing as well.

[bornadog]

Every single rule change, changes the game in some way. Coaches find another way to get around the rules, the style of play changes and supporters get upset because the game isnot the same.

As SS has pointed out, the quick return to play after a behind is now leading to another change being wanted for rushed behinds. Rushed behinds is part of our game and if changed, will change the game forever.

I don't agree with kicking backwards to be called play on, what is the point in doing it?

Hands in the back - got to ridiculous levels at one stage, it was always a matter of enforcing the rule, however, now we have stupid interpretations, like a hand resting on a shoulder which has no effect on the general play, and being called hands in the back. There is a big difference between a push in the back and hands on the back.

[craigsahibee]

Rushed behinds are a vital part of our game BUT the double rushed should be driven from the game. If from a kick out the player rushes the ball again then there should be a bounce from 15 metres out. Simple.

Good point. Intentional/un forced rushed behinds should result in a bounce down at the spot they currently use for free kicks due to breaches of the interchange rules.

All the rules committee needs to do is define "Un forced". Now there is a can of worms.

[Twodogs]

1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

The problem in the first place was never the rules, it was the intepretation. It used to be that you couldn't make two movements with your hands and that worked perfectly well. Sometime in the 80's they decided that a little push was OK, then a slightly bigger push was allowed until eventually full pushes in the back were the norm. If the umpires advisors had done their job properly in the first place we wouldn't be stuck with this un-umpirable rule.

The chopping-the-arms rule is making our game like basketball in that only guys 7 ft tall will be able to play key back soon. One of the great things about our game is that it doesn't matter if you're built like Libba or Harry Madden, you could still play.






Position yourself properly, use your body for purchase and you've got nothing to worry about unless the umpire is guessing. If the umpires guessing then it's an interpretation problem and if an umpire cant interpret something as simple as hands in the back then he should find something else to do. If you take hands in the back out then all we will have is ugly scragging contests for the ball in the forward line.



Leave the bloody rule but enforce it properly!

[Sockeye Salmon]

Position yourself properly, use your body for purchase and you've got nothing to worry about unless the umpire is guessing. If the umpires guessing then it's an interpretation problem and if an umpire cant interpret something as simple as hands in the back then he should find something else to do. If you take hands in the back out then all we will have is ugly scragging contests for the ball in the forward line.



Leave the bloody rule but enforce it properly!

It's impossible to enforce. We're asking the umpires to do something that nobody could possibly do.

Whether they can see it or not depends on their positioning, the angle the ball's coming in from, the position of the defender relative to the forward, players getting in their line of vision and about 100 other incidental things.

Trying to deal with all that and then trying to pick up tiny, inconsequential contact - that doesn't hinder the bloke going for the ball anyway - is asking the umpires to do something impossible.

It's a tough gig - let's make their job easier, not harder.

Two movements is a push, one movement isn't. They're still going to miss some, there will always be times they're blindsided, but they will pick up a double movement more consistantly because it's more obvious to see.

[LostDoggy]

Apologies for quoting my own post but I didn't want to hijack the other thread.

Now that Darce is on the rules committee, this is what I'd like to see them do.



1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

The problem in the first place was never the rules, it was the intepretation. It used to be that you couldn't make two movements with your hands and that worked perfectly well. Sometime in the 80's they decided that a little push was OK, then a slightly bigger push was allowed until eventually full pushes in the back were the norm. If the umpires advisors had done their job properly in the first place we wouldn't be stuck with this un-umpirable rule.

The chopping-the-arms rule is making our game like basketball in that only guys 7 ft tall will be able to play key back soon. One of the great things about our game is that it doesn't matter if you're built like Libba or Harry Madden, you could still play.


2. Scrap the quick kick-in from points (see above).


3. 2 interchange and 2 reserves.

Coaches are carrying on about wanting two reserves to bring on for injuries. What a fabulous idea! Reduce the bench to 2 interchange and 2 reserves. Coaches will have to rest players on the ground, we might end up with ruckmen and rovers resting in the forward pockets again. Fatigued players can't flood.

While we're at it, scrap the over-reaction to interchange breaches. A free kick is fine.


4. Keep 4 boundary umpires

We'll see the return of the ruck-rover. Faster play, more fatigue, less flooding.


5. Ban the backwards mark in the defensive half.

It works well in the VFL and all the time-wasting shits everyone.





OK. Do your best.

This is the most lucid critique of whats really wrong with the game IMO Sockeye- so congratulations...

I agree with all of your rule changes, and also agree that one of the great strengths of Aussie Rules over Rugby League in particular, is the fact that every body size used to have a place in our game- depending on skill of course.

When I first started watching the doggies seriously as a sensate adolescent in the 1970's -umpires would make a mistake every now and again... but a sense of basic fairness was still the aim, based on umpires' interpretations. If it was obvious that a player WAS unfairly put another player out of position in a marking contest it was generally accepted that 8 times out of 10 a free kick would be paid......

Then celebrity culture kicked in! Players like Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett etc. (brilliant players though they were) became untouchable AFL franchises who could basically use their superior body strength to put players out of a contest illegally. It suddenly became OK if the ball was more than five metres away to get the defender out of the contest and out of the way well before a true contest presented itself. I almost vomit when commentators comment on the craftiness of players now able to exploit the rules- it is regarded as skill! It is also called cheating....

One more point. In Soccer- the referee is God, albeit a heavily critized god. Their status in Europe is such that- a decision to send off a player can determine the result of a game.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? IMO a good thing!

AFL has been called organized chaos...because of the nature of the game it always will be- oval shaped ball, variability in conditions, unpredictability.
In this context umpiring will ALWAYS be a little hit and miss. I can live with that......so less bulls**t rules please.

[hujsh]

This is the most lucid critique of whats really wrong with the game IMO Sockeye- so congratulations...

I agree with all of your rule changes, and also agree that one of the great strengths of Aussie Rules over Rugby League in particular, is the fact that every body size used to have a place in our game- depending on skill of course.

When I first started watching the doggies seriously as a sensate adolescent in the 1970's -umpires would make a mistake every now and again... but a sense of basic fairness was still the aim, based on umpires' interpretations. If it was obvious that a player WAS unfairly put another player out of position in a marking contest it was generally accepted that 8 times out of 10 a free kick would be paid......

Then celebrity culture kicked in! Players like Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett etc. (brilliant players though they were) became untouchable AFL franchises who could basically use their superior body strength to put players out of a contest illegally. It suddenly became OK if the ball was more than five metres away to get the defender out of the contest and out of the way well before a true contest presented itself. I almost vomit when commentators comment on the craftiness of players now able to exploit the rules- it is regarded as skill! It is also called cheating....

One more point. In Soccer- the referee is God, albeit a heavily critized god. Their status in Europe is such that- a decision to send off a player can determine the result of a game.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? IMO a good thing!

AFL has been called organized chaos...because of the nature of the game it always will be- oval shaped ball, variability in conditions, unpredictability.
In this context umpiring will ALWAYS be a little hit and miss. I can live with that......so less bulls**t rules please.

IMO iy would be terrible. That much power in the hands of some of those umpires...could ruin a game.

[LostDoggy]

IMO iy would be terrible. That much power in the hands of some of those umpires...could ruin a game.

Yes you can't have power in the hands of those that are suppose to administer it:rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with that rule, just that they can't get many decision right already.

[hujsh]

Yes you can't have power in the hands of those that are suppose to administer it:rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with that rule, just that they can't get many decision right already.

That's was pretty much exactly what i said.

Thanks for that wonderful contribution

[LostDoggy]

That's was pretty much exactly what i said.

Thanks for that wonderful contribution

Thank you and no worries my good friend.

[LostDoggy]

So what to do you then?
Because the umps can't administer the rule, don't fix them to be right?

[Twodogs]

Yes you can't have power in the hands of those that are suppose to administer it:rolleyes:





I have seen an umpire use the send off rule to delibrately influence the result of a game in a VFA match. They must never, ever be given this power.

[Twodogs]

Two movements is a push, one movement isn't. They're still going to miss some, there will always be times they're blindsided, but they will pick up a double movement more consistantly because it's more obvious to see.



Doesnt that make it even harder to enforce?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Doesnt that make it even harder to enforce?

No, it's far more obvious, two distinct movements.

I think the difference would be at the moment they are calling hands-in-the-back 20% of the time, so when it does happen supporters feel ripped off because the other team has got away with it so many times (so has their team but we supporters don't remember that).

The other way might see them make mistakes 20% of the time, but at least the supporters know it's simply an umpire **** up

[LostDoggy]

I have seen an umpire use the send off rule to delibrately influence the result of a game in a VFA match. They must never, ever be given this power.

I seen more influenced by failure to apply a fair rule.

[westdog54]

No, it's far more obvious, two distinct movements.

I think the difference would be at the moment they are calling hands-in-the-back 20% of the time, so when it does happen supporters feel ripped off because the other team has got away with it so many times (so has their team but we supporters don't remember that).

The other way might see them make mistakes 20% of the time, but at least the supporters know it's simply an umpire **** up

One of the non-decisions that was widely talked about last year was Mark McVeigh taking a hanger, but in the process putting his hands on his opponent's back/shoulder. Now, taking the interpretation as it was intended by the AFL, i.e. any and all contact by a hand to the back was a free kick, it was argued that this should also have been a free.

When the question was put to AA by the Morning Glory boys, the response was "It was contact to the shoulder, not the back".

So why wasn't a free kick for high contact paid then?

Its been rulemaking on the run from the beginning

[Twodogs]

No, it's far more obvious, two distinct movements.

I think the difference would be at the moment they are calling hands-in-the-back 20% of the time, so when it does happen supporters feel ripped off because the other team has got away with it so many times (so has their team but we supporters don't remember that).

The other way might see them make mistakes 20% of the time, but at least the supporters know it's simply an umpire **** up



But what about the player who flings himself forward the moment he feels contact, or even worse when he thinks contact has been made and plays it up? Thats as bad as diving in soccer and is becoming just as big a problem.



Umpires=simple beings who need simplicity, therefore any contact must be penalised.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'm also firmly of the belief that one of the main criteria for the rules committee is to make sure that there are plenty of goals kicked so the broadcasters can get a suitable number of ads in, just to make sure they can squeeze extra $$$$$ out of them every 5 years.

[mjp]

1. Scrap the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules.

Chopping the arms? Agree with all of my heart. Hands in the back? I don't really care about this - if they paid it consistently I think it would be fine...unfortunately the umpires only seem interested when it involves a marking contest, a full-back and a full-forward.




2. Scrap the quick kick-in from points (see above).
Nope. Keep it. I hate the whole 'wait for the peanut with the flags to wave them' thing that I had to put up with as a player...move the ball.



3. 2 interchange and 2 reserves.
4 interchange is fine.



4. Keep 4 boundary umpires
Agree. I also think this will have a massive impact on ruckman in the next 12-months and they will be FORCED to start playing behind the ball.



5. Ban the backwards mark in the defensive half.

Agree. Great rule. It is easy to say 'Just man-up', but players will be more incented to do exactly that knowing that their opponent MUST play on...hence it will lead to more kicks to contested situations...

[Go_Dogs]

2. Scrap the quick kick-in from points (see above).


Nope. Keep it. I hate the whole 'wait for the peanut with the flags to wave them' thing that I had to put up with as a player...move the ball.

This suggestion was only for a rushed behind though wasn't it? IMO, better than anything the AFL have put forward so far to 'fix the rushed behind problem', which they seems hell bent on doing.

[Sockeye Salmon]

This suggestion was only for a rushed behind though wasn't it? IMO, better than anything the AFL have put forward so far to 'fix the rushed behind problem', which they seems hell bent on doing.

I'd be happy with only making them wait for rushed behinds but it would still mean that umpires still had to decide which was and wasn't rushed.

[Desipura]

Lets experiment with making the backman kick the ball 50 metres from the kick in when the ball has been rushed through.
Only problem being on a very windy day it may be a difficult thing to achieve

[Twodogs]

Nope. Nothing that gives teams a chance to set up zones should be tolerated.


Zone defences, and to a lesser extent, set plays will kill our game unless we come down on them hard.

[Desipura]

But it is ok to have 11 rushed behinds in a game?

[bornadog]

But it is ok to have 11 rushed behinds in a game?

so what, not the end of the world.

[ledge]

I would take 11 rushed behinds if it won us a premiership! Unlike when they outlawed the flickpass which did us over in 61.

[Twodogs]

But it is ok to have 11 rushed behinds in a game?




So long as they can restart play without waiting for the gol umpire whats the problem?


Rushed behinds are a tactical problem and it will be the coaches who sort it out-not the rule makers.

[Sockeye Salmon]

So long as they can restart play without waiting for the gol umpire whats the problem?


Rushed behinds are a tactical problem and it will be the coaches who sort it out-not the rule makers.

Re-starting play without having to wait for the goal umpire is the reason it's so attractive to rush behinds.

They changed a rule which created another problem. Put the first rule back the way it was and the 2nd problem will go away.

[Desipura]

I would take 11 rushed behinds if it won us a premiership! Unlike when they outlawed the flickpass which did us over in 61.

So why did we create this thread talking about changing the rules then? You are stating the obvious in regards to your comments re: premiership.

[Desipura]

So long as they can restart play without waiting for the gol umpire whats the problem?


Rushed behinds are a tactical problem and it will be the coaches who sort it out-not the rule makers.
I do not believe you should be rewarded with a "kick in" for giving away a point. It is a unfair advantage that clubs (including ours) have been able to score a large number of goals from.

[mjp]

That is a bit simplistic bad - lots of rule changes have been positive (centre square, out-on-the-full etc). And to suggest flooding is not a problem...well, I am not sure I agree. But it is so completely pervasive in the game that no-one mentions it now.

[Sockeye Salmon]

That is a bit simplistic bad - lots of rule changes have been positive (centre square, out-on-the-full etc). And to suggest flooding is not a problem...well, I am not sure I agree. But it is so completely pervasive in the game that no-one mentions it now.

Centre square was brought in in 1972 and out on the full was brought in in 1968!

One new rule a decade is about right!


I actually agree that flooding is a problem, I just think that making a defenders job harder is exactly the wrong thing to do about fixing it.

The only way is to tire the players - keep the ball in play and don't let them rest as much.

[mjp]

I want two changes - backward kicking = no mark and no freekick for chopping the arms. One is a new rule, one is reverting to the old rule...

And yes, I know the examples were from years ago but could have used other more recent examples that I think have helped (the 'KB' bouncing the ball rule, increase in kicking distance, ruckman taking clean possession, dragging the ball in) instead.

Oh - and anyone who reckons ruckman should be able to grab the ball from a boundary throw-in and not be penalised has either never played or was a ruckman...single best rule change ever (except that they shouldn't have waited til I retired to institute it!).

[westdog54]

I'm rather curious as to how the rule changes he's mentioned could be construed as bad. Anyone who believes they are is more than welcome to enlighten me.

[bornadog]

I'm rather curious as to how the rule changes he's mentioned could be construed as bad. Anyone who believes they are is more than welcome to enlighten me.

Sorry, meant to say good or bad for the game in the eyes of supporters, not bad as in a bad rule.

A rule is a rule (not bad or good) and no matter what you say, every rule is going to change the game forever and whether that is good or bad for the game, is debatable.

[westdog54]

Sorry, meant to say good or bad for the game in the eyes of supporters, not bad as in a bad rule.

A rule is a rule (not bad or good) and no matter what you say, every rule is going to change the game forever and whether that is good or bad for the game, is debatable.

Again I ask, how can the rules Mike mentioned be viewed as bad for the game? Why is change so negatively viewed when in many cases it improves the game?

[bornadog]

Again I ask, how can the rules Mike mentioned be viewed as bad for the game? Why is change so negatively viewed when in many cases it improves the game?

Improves the game in your eyes.

Ok, for example, the rushed behinds have increased due to players being able to bring the ball in quicker after a behind is recorded.

What is the point in not being able to pass backwards and claiming a mark. I don't get the reason for wanting to change.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Improves the game in your eyes.

Ok, for example, the rushed behinds have increased due to players being able to bring the ball in quicker after a behind is recorded.

What is the point in not being able to pass backwards and claiming a mark. I don't get the reason for wanting to change.

So teams can't waste time holding the ball up. The most boring and annoying aspect to our game, IMO a much bigger issue than rushed behinds.

[mjp]

Improves the game in your eyes.

Ok, for example, the rushed behinds have increased due to players being able to bring the ball in quicker after a behind is recorded.

What is the point in not being able to pass backwards and claiming a mark. I don't get the reason for wanting to change.

It will stop the time wasting kick backwards...and it will also (to me) reduce flooding...players will be more incented to 'hedge their bets' and not push forward too far and stay a bit closer to those defenders behind the ball - the chance of a turnover is that much greater if the kick and mark must be perfect.

How many times do we see a 'not quite perfect' backwards kick be collected by a player in 50m of space....if that 50m became 20m, all of a sudden he has to rush - and if he has to rush, more chance of an error = more chance of a turnover.

It is one rule that works well in the VFL.

[bornadog]

So teams can't waste time holding the ball up. The most boring and annoying aspect to our game, IMO a much bigger issue than rushed behinds.

so what.

Everytime that something looks boring, we should change the rules. The game is continually evolving and we don't need more rules in the most overgoverned, over policed game in the world. Next we will have four goal umpires, four boundary umpires, four field umpires, a third umpire for dodgy decisions etc etc.

Sorry, I can't take anymore rule changes.