New Rules

[Brodders17]

imagine trying to get them to stand still on the mark?

i worry how Nathan Broad will cope when an opponent is having a shot.

if there is a 5-10 mtr exclusion zone then I assume if a player is having a shot for goal closer than 5-10mts no one will be allowed behind the man on the mark?

 

[Brodders17]

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.

The deliberate out of bounds is always contentious but I maintain it is just because most people don't understand how it is applied and the name causes a lot of confusion in that.

The word deliberate is confusing because it isn't applied as deliberate, it can be accidental and it is still a free kick. It's an important distinction because otherwise the umpires have to be mind readers.

The umpires don't talk about 'deliberate', they talk about 'insufficient intent', ie you have to show you intended to keep the ball in play.

Next time you see a ball go out of bounds ask yourself if the player had a legitimate other option they were trying to execute. It doesn't include trying to stop it before the line so essentially they need a team mate or the goals in the area when the ball went out. Kick the ball 30 metres and it goes out with no team mate around = free kick, do the same with a team mate at the spot and it's a throw in.

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

they do, but the interpretation is different every game. it is amazing how often deliberate is paid twice for a game, against one team, then against the other soon after, but i dont think that was a bad rule change, just an example of a rule that is difficult fpor umpires to interpret, and where there is clear grey area.

 

[Quickdraw]

Are star jumps allowed? What's Kmac gonna do?

 

[Baloo]

Of all the proposed rule changes of recent years, this one seems to be the hardest to get right. The only person who sounds confident is Hocking. Even the umpires I've heard discuss the rule are clear on what is meant to happen, but aren't that sure how it will go. "We need to get used to it together" is what I heard one umpire say.

Do they take bets on the # of 50m penalties given in a game? Our Rd 1 against Blues will be a beauty, and whichever match Rayzor gets. God help us if Rayzor is doing our Rd 1 match.

 

[davidc0055]

I assume that the new rule is an attempt to even out the disparity that the player with the ball is told to play on after taking one step sideways, yet the player on the mark could move sideways without penalty. Is that the reasoning behind it?

 

[blx]

I assume that the new rule is an attempt to even out the disparity that the player with the ball is told to play on after taking one step sideways, yet the player on the mark could move sideways without penalty. Is that the reasoning behind it?

I would say it's because they want to speed the ball up around the ground.

Give the team with the ball every opportunity to move it on.

As if the game isn't already a hot potato mess.

It won't be long before the ball will be knocked on from one end to the other for a goal.

The AFL always tell us that they listen to the supporters and followers and are only too happy to acknowledge it when they see fit but every year we say LEAVE THE *smile* GAME ALONE!!! but no... Another senseless rule gets added just to confuse us even more. Even the umpires get confused.

All I can say is, FMD!

 

[Quickdraw]

The 6 - 6 - 6 rule does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from streaming out of center bounces

Bigger goal square does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. So the contest is now 10m further back? Big deal

Play on out of the goal square without kicking to yourself does nothing. This was also supposedly going to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. (but I'm ok with the look of this)

So now the guy on the mark has to make like a statue, wondering if and when the dumb maggot will call play on! The rules are getting bizarre.

I'm pretty sure that the AFL has analysed the effect of each of the rules they've recently introduced and determined that they are a bust. So rather than being open about it, they bring in a new one to "fix the problem".

I just wish they would make changes based on careful analysis of results from a season of trialling in lower leagues.
Personally I don't see the "problem" with the game but that may be because the Tigers have won three of the last four

 

[year of the tiger]

I assume that the new rule is an attempt to even out the disparity that the player with the ball is told to play on after taking one step sideways, yet the player on the mark could move sideways without penalty. Is that the reasoning behind it?

Yes and it would be way too logical to change the interpretation so the player with the ball could take that extra step or two and not get called to play on (apart from shots on goal) and leave the man on the mark alone.

 

[DavidSSS]

The 6 - 6 - 6 rule does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from streaming out of center bounces

Bigger goal square does nothing. This was supposedly to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. So the contest is now 10m further back? Big deal

Play on out of the goal square without kicking to yourself does nothing. This was also supposedly going to create lots more goals from driving the ball up to the wing. (but I'm ok with the look of this)

So now the guy on the mark has to make like a statue, wondering if and when the dumb maggot will call play on! The rules are getting bizarre.

I'm pretty sure that the AFL has analysed the effect of each of the rules they've recently introduced and determined that they are a bust. So rather than being open about it, they bring in a new one to "fix the problem".

I just wish they would make changes based on careful analysis of results from a season of trialling in lower leagues.
Personally I don't see the "problem" with the game but that may be because the Tigers have won three of the last four

It's not just in footy, when changes are made there seems to be no analysis of the impact, and the idea of reversing a change when it demonstrably does not work is completely off the agenda.

Management speak often talks of the need to silence those who are resistant to change. There's good change and bad change, change in itself is not a good thing by default.

The AFL need to be called out on all the changes they have made to the rules which have not delivered on the result they claim they were seeking. If the change doesn't work, persisting with it is idiocy.

DS

 

[tiger76]

So what are the AFL geniuses going to do when their latest rule change is stymied by teams sending a player to guard corridor space and prevent the 45 kick they’re hoping to make an easier option through hobbling the man on the mark?

Only marks inside the 50 arcs will be paid in 2022? That’ll make the game more free flowing.

Haven’t they watched the Tiges play in the last 3 years? Or is it too upsetting for them?

 

[TrialByVideo]

I watched a bit of the Port Adelaide intra-club today

Were Hartlett and Rockliff still whinging about the outta bounds on the full?

 

[CarnTheTiges]

I would say it's because they want to speed the ball up around the ground.

Give the team with the ball every opportunity to move it on.

As if the game isn't already a hot potato mess.

It won't be long before the ball will be knocked on from one end to the other for a goal.

The AFL always tell us that they listen to the supporters and followers and are only too happy to acknowledge it when they see fit but every year we say LEAVE THE *smile* GAME ALONE!!! but no... Another senseless rule gets added just to confuse us even more. Even the umpires get confused.

All I can say is, FMD!

This is because they don’t listen to the supporters, they listen to the loud voices in the media, and act on what they say, because they believe that the likes of Whateley speak for the people, they don’t.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Some footage of the new rule in action on the HS website is causing a stir. The umpire must be obligated to call 'play on' the instant the player with the ball moves off the mark.

It looms as a clusterfuck but what else would you expect with Hocking in charge. Despite actively attempting to increase scoring, it has declined by 15% in three years - unprecedented in the history of the game.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Don't move until you hear play on.

Much easier in theory than practice. Players are conditioned to stop the player with the ball. It's going to be a disaster, much worse than "protected area". Differences in implementation between umpires will decide matches.

I assumed that the introduction of such a rule would mean umpires were instructed to be red hot on calling play-on, but the focus in the highlighted example seems to be on possible transgression by the passive player.

They're making the umpires' job far too hard.

 

[DavidSSS]

This is a disadvantage to being the first game each year, the umpires will be trying to work it out during the game. Given they have trouble with 100 year old rules anything could happen.

DS

 

[Dont Argue]

Love my Tigers.
Hate what the AFL hierarchy are doing to our game.

 

[TrialByVideo]

This is a disadvantage to being the first game each year, the umpires will be trying to work it out during the game. Given they have trouble with 100 year old rules anything could happen.

DS

Christ, I hope we don't cop Razor Ray first up.... he'll have a field day.
I bet he's home right now practicing some ridiculous overly gesticulated manoeuvre to indicate that.... "yes people ..... look at me, look at me....... I'm making history here tonight !"

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Regardless, when you stop the vision, the man on the mark has clearly gone two steps sideways before the kicker moves anywhere and the umpire is three feet from the man on the mark clearly yelling for him to stand still. He gives him three steps before he blows the 50. That's just a pure player error.

Yes it's classed as a player error when it's just an instinctive move to stop the player with the ball from gaining an advantage. Defensive speed off a standing start will be a new skill. When the player with the ball telegraphs his move, It will almost be like the start of an Olympic sprint with a similarly harsh penalty for "breaking". Players standing the mark sometimes have trouble hearing the "play on" call as it is.

So this umpire allows three steps, another umpire allows one step and the third umpire doesn't allow any (to the letter of the law). It really does have disaster written all over it.

 

[Columbo]

Watch this rule get manipulated something chronic, I can see player with ball faking moves to draw a 50. Similar to a 4th down in NFL when the offence calls a hard count trying to draw the defence offside. Titch or Shai will be awesome at it.

 

[seven]

What happens if nobody stands the mark?
Have someone stand nearby to the player playing on.