New Rules

[Disco]

Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.

I would argue that the ruck nomination rule achieves SFA and as such, is useless.

 

[larabee]

Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.

The exclusion zone.
Applied haphazardly, differnent umpires have different ideas of how far 10 metres is, and a 50 metre penalty for an act that has absolutely zero impact on anyone is too severe.

This new rule will be the same.

 

[Disco]

The exclusion zone.
Applied haphazardly, differnent umpires have different ideas of how far 10 metres is, and a 50 metre penalty for an act that has absolutely zero impact on anyone is too severe.

This new rule will be the same.

This new rule is all about scoring.
But we know how their past foray into that worked.........lowest year of scoring since the 60’s.

 

[No left foot]

Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.

Touch a player with your studs in a marking contest, free kick. JR happy about that one.

Forceful contact below the knees, hardly ever paid correctly.

Suspension for accidental head clash that occurs during a legal hip and shoulder.

 

[eZyT]

Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.

the sub rule (and maybe 19th man?) was tough on individual players (fringe, serial subs who got 20 mins of footy in a month)?

some rules have been a total debacle at lower grade footy (e.g ive seen interpretations of DOB decide several 'important' games, impacting on juniors enjoyment)

its not a rule, but Selwood ducking degrades the game IMO.

Any rule that has a high degree of subjectivity (mind reading in the case of DOB), is consistently frustrating to the viewer

But Id probably nominate DOB as the shittest rule change. if it was simply an OB rule, it would take some getting used to and change the game, but still be better than DOB

 

[Quickdraw]

I'm not against rule changes, but I have a real problem with bringing in new or modified rules where they have not been tested/trialed and analysed at say VFL, SANFL, WAFL level etc.

The rules should not change just because some bloke in *smile* Castle has a bright idea that will supposedly fix a perceived problem.

 

[eZyT]

1. I think the sub rule was a good way to even the game in the event of injuries and I'd like to see it back in that format.


2. When you look at it through that lens the rule is very consistently applied and well understood by the players.

1. Agree the rule was fine, but pointed out it was very hard on the sub player. I think a concussion sub is a great idea, but tweek it to protect the sub player??

2. disagree its consistently applied but dont blame the umps, I blame the rule maker. barristers use 'intent' as a euphemism for Maseratis and beach houses.

plus, its important to understand I was commenting from a grassroots level as well. A lot of people (in AFL house) forget that these rules get applied to kids.

I havnt got words that capture the true absurdity of watching a 13 year old kid in her first game of AFL, getting planted in a back pocket, and getting pinned for DOB by a 12 yo umpire, after she dropped her first ever kick from above her head and just caught a boot stud.

the same will happen with the no movement mark rule. They feed kids red frogs at 1/4 time these days. imagine trying to get them to stand still on the mark?

 

[Razorgang2]

This statement is based on 2018 wages

So the clown gets paid twice the salary of the PM. OMFG.

 

[Disco]

How else can you only have the two intended players contest the ruck without being impeded?

Does it need to be "intended"?
Just let any 2 players contest the ruck - no need to nominate. If a 3rd goes up, free kick paid against that team.....simples.

 

[eZyT]

So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?

1. if a free isnt awarded for holding the man, or
2. blocking, and
3. the ruckman doesn't squash or barge over the mid, then
4. they are a mid down at the stoppage?

 

[Baloo]

So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?

I'd have an exclusion zone of 5m around the umpire where only the two players contesting are allowed in the 5m exclusion zone. If a team has two players in there, free kick

 

[Baloo]

Would that be less complicated than having two guys put their hands up to say they are rucking?

Might open up play a bit as a side effect. But I have no issue with the ruckmen nominating

 

[Disco]

So how do you stop the opposition engaging the player with a midfielder to prevent them running at the ball and claiming they didn't know they were the ruckman?

What did we do before the nomination rule came in?
Was the game less for it?
I don’t think so.

 

[Disco]

But anyone could go up then so it wasn't an issue.

I can't see anyway you can have a no-third man up rule and not nominate ruckman. It can't work unless everyone knows who is who.

Going back to anything goes is a different argument but personally I'd rather see the ruckman allowed to compete without being jumped on by midfielders.

I can’t remember. Did the AFL introduce the nomination rule because they thought your point about midfielders impeding ruckman was an issue?
Any holding or blocking should incur a free kick, much like it should against taggers.
We never allow front on contact in a marking contest but turn a blind eye to it at stoppages, but I digress.
I honestly can’t remember it being that much of an issue of 3rd man up that warranted a rule change.

 

[gutfull]

Bloody disgrace if your asking me , would think past few years the % of times players played on would already be 90+% of the time , so why implement a rule that will totally *smile* the game ?.

 

[yandb]

I believe the issue was players who were running in to be third man up were being blocked by their opponent not realising they were contesting the ruck as well.

So it was hard on the other players getting pinged for blocking while believing that they were just minding an opponent.

 

[Quickdraw]

So if you're standing the mark and the ump yells "STAND!" you can't move otherwise it's 50m penalty (despite the instinctiveness of wanting to impede an opponent that's playing on).

In fact, how many times have we previously seen the poor bugger on the mark looking to the ump, waiting for him to call "play on" because the opponent has run off and the ump has been slow to spot it and call it? Happens multiple times per game.

So what will the ump in control be watching? Whether the player on the mark moves laterally? Or whether the player with the ball has moved off his line? I'm sure they won't be able to do both.

In Round 1 the Maggots will be watching us like hawks, ready to whack our blokes that move laterally when on the mark.
Round 1 2018 the Scum kicked five in the first, almost all from 50m frees.

Here we go again.

 

[tigertim]

So if you're standing the mark and the ump yells "STAND!" you can't move otherwise it's 50m penalty (despite the instinctiveness of wanting to impede an opponent that's playing on).

In fact, how many times have we previously seen the poor bugger on the mark looking to the ump, waiting for him to call "play on" because the opponent has run off and the ump has been slow to spot it and call it? Happens multiple times per game.

So what will the ump in control be watching? Whether the player on the mark moves laterally? Or whether the player with the ball has moved off his line? I'm sure they won't be able to do both.

In Round 1 the Maggots will be watching us like hawks, ready to whack our blokes that move laterally when on the mark.
Round 1 2018 the Scum kicked five in the first, almost all from 50m frees.

Here we go again.

Yep, assume the position. Amiright @The Big Richo ?

 

[craig]

These clowns are just taking the *smile* now seriously.

They are @#$%@%@ the game seriously LEAVE THE F#$%$#%&#%& GAME ALONE you PEENARSES.

 

[Quickdraw]

Rule has clearly been introduced to end our supremacy. The AFL is sick of all these big crowds and associated revenue coming into the game and want to stamp it out once and for all.

Well played TBR!

I'm all for increasing scoring, which is what this (and many other rule changes) are meant to achieve. I just hate rules being introduced because some nob thinks "this'll fix it".

What happened to the trial of if you kick backwards in D50 it's play on? Wasn't that tested in VFL/SANFL/WAFL? Or am I imagining that?
I can't recall seeing that in any game.

All I can say is where is the evidence that this will fix the "problem"?