-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
New Rules
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
Hawthorn customarily has a bloke standing next to the man on the mark so that when he turns to chase, he runs into a brick wall. Especially in their backline.
I generally think this new rule is going to help Richmond, except for the traditional Round 1 reaming we'll get as the maggots get a feel for it. Then it will be hurriedly softened and life will go on.
My gripe is introducing a rule the the suits are guessing will make the game more free flow, and ultimately higher scoring. It's guesswork.
All proposed rule changes should be trialled for a season in VFL/SANFL/WAFL. Have some data. Some evidence.
My gripe is introducing a rule the the suits are guessing will make the game more free flow, and ultimately higher scoring. It's guesswork.
All proposed rule changes should be trialled for a season in VFL/SANFL/WAFL. Have some data. Some evidence.
Article in The Age today with the AFL confirming that the decision in the WCE-Freo game was correct.
Ok, so if you are standing on the mark and need to stretch your muscles a bit, do the right thing and walk in a very very small arc behind the mark to loosen up your leg, it's a 50m penalty and that is apparently the intent of the rule.
Yep, that should make the game better.
DS
Ok, so if you are standing on the mark and need to stretch your muscles a bit, do the right thing and walk in a very very small arc behind the mark to loosen up your leg, it's a 50m penalty and that is apparently the intent of the rule.
Yep, that should make the game better.
DS
Very rare for a decision to be deemed incorrect. If a 50m penalty wasn't given it would have been deemed correct as well. It's the way of the AFL
I dont think the rule will change the game, for better or worse. My objection is that is just another stupid unnecessary rule that create more opportunities for confusion and outrage.
the little insignificant rule changes slowly change little aspects of the game for no benefit. no longer can guys do cartwheels, star jumps or whatever else on the mark to try distract someone having a shot for goal. does that really matter- prob not, but i think it a small unique part of the game gone. likewise not having to at least touch the ball on your boot before leaving the goal square from a kick in- we may as well get rid of the goal square.
i dont get the angst about that. it is a player out of the play for little gain. the opposition could just stick another player next to them if it makes that much difference.
so were more than half the games were effected by a rule that has no proven benefit?
A player is awarded a free kick.
So the umpire points at a spot on the ground and advises that is the mark.
it is not a law that a team must allocate a player who must be on the mark.
Can the player choose to stand 1 or more metres back from the mark and do whatever he wants?
So the umpire points at a spot on the ground and advises that is the mark.
it is not a law that a team must allocate a player who must be on the mark.
Can the player choose to stand 1 or more metres back from the mark and do whatever he wants?
My understanding is is a player is within 5m of the mark, the umpire can call stand and that player cannot move forwards, backwards or sidewards.
When you look at the free kick counts, Pies are going to hope the Umps are 50m crazy
Thanks Baloo
5 metres would scuttle my cunning plan
It would be hilarious to watch an umpire stopping a player from running directly backwards from 5 metres away from the mark!
And if a player is following his opponent, gets within 5 metres of the mark and the umpire calls freeze!
Lots of fun in the backyard with our kids, maybe not so funny in a high grade AFL game!
Who knows.
If a team decides not to have someone on the mark, but the umpire points to a spot, no player moves to that spot, and the umpire then awards a 50m penalty, what's to stop the player stating they, and in fact every other player from their team, were not on the mark as they chose not to stand the mark and therefore they can move? Or can the umpire now decide who is on the mark and, indeed, whether a team has decided to have someone on the mark?
This gets sillier by the minute.
DS
This is what happens when badly thought out rules are implemented on the fly. What’s even sillier is this has been done to fix a non existent problem.
They'll bring in another rule to "fix" this rule. I'm tipping nominating for the man on the mark.
A bit like the stupid rule they brought in to "fix" the stupid shot clock rule - another rule brought in to solve a problem that didn't exist
I see Gill has stated that universally supporters want more scoring in games.....um.....I don't.
I want a good contest, not a constant supply of easy goal scoring..especially if gifted by penalties.
Do the people in charge of soccer recommend higher scoring?
Do they want games of say...20 to 15 goals.? Do their supporters want this? Clearly the answer is no.
I am genuinely concerned for our game. Gil and Hocking are idiots and are out of control.
AFLX was demonstrably rubbish and not accepted by the supporters but this is still the general concept the AFL is after.
I see the old response has been wheeled out that if you object to change you are simply resistant.
I have seen this many times before especially from hospital management ...forcing unpalatable change on staff who know full well the change will not lead to improvements. Invariably it does not but the bureaucracy move on up the ladder and leave carnage behind.
This new rule is stupid as are the kick out changes , holding the ball, deliberate OOB etc etc that have been introduced.
I am very concerned the game is heading towards a farce like aflx.
I want a good contest, not a constant supply of easy goal scoring..especially if gifted by penalties.
Do the people in charge of soccer recommend higher scoring?
Do they want games of say...20 to 15 goals.? Do their supporters want this? Clearly the answer is no.
I am genuinely concerned for our game. Gil and Hocking are idiots and are out of control.
AFLX was demonstrably rubbish and not accepted by the supporters but this is still the general concept the AFL is after.
I see the old response has been wheeled out that if you object to change you are simply resistant.
I have seen this many times before especially from hospital management ...forcing unpalatable change on staff who know full well the change will not lead to improvements. Invariably it does not but the bureaucracy move on up the ladder and leave carnage behind.
This new rule is stupid as are the kick out changes , holding the ball, deliberate OOB etc etc that have been introduced.
I am very concerned the game is heading towards a farce like aflx.
Last edited:
Nothing surer. A lot of the new rules they bring in are to fix the unintended consequences of earlier ones. Is there even a rules committee any more, or is just SHocking’s brain farts?
No that bit's where you are wrong petetys
In Gill's language, supporter = revenue steam. You are a revenue stream.
And you, and me, and every other member and/or avid game watcher, are revenue streams as well.
Individually, we are just small insignificant revenue streams. And we don't matter or count. We don't factor into his thinking. At all.
On the other hand the broadcast networks who actually own the game are HUGE revenue streams. They are, in Gill's atrophied mind, the only "supporters" that matter.
Universally, they want more scoring so they get more advert time per game.
Always follow the money.
