Proposed Rule changes

[Steiger]

The AFL has asked its readers for their opinion on the proposed rule changes for 2007.

What are RWO reader opinions?

For those that weren't aware, the changes are:

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).


I think awarding 3 points for a rushed behind and then calling play on for kicking backwards in the defensive half tips the game in favour of the attacking team. How easy would it be for the Swans to slow play down on their half forward line from an opposition kick out and then either get the rushed behind or a goal? Too easy.

The limited interchange will be good if it's limited on a per quarter basis, not for the entire game otherwise the changes will all be in the last quarter and part of the 3rd.

Increasing the mark distance isn't necessary, the umpires need to enfore the rule more.

The high contact rule helps ensure the safety of players. Good.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Steiger
1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).

1. Difficult one to police. I can see benefits of it, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. Still undecided.

2. Good, but the umpires need to become far more consistent in determining distances.

3. Good.

4. No.

5. Very good.

[giant]

I think before you could answer these questions you would need to know what it is that the AFL thinks they will achieve. Eg, they introduced a number of changes with the express intent of "speeding the game up". With the exception of the immediate kick-in, I never got the feeling that they actually achieved this - and nor did I feel that it was an end that was necessarily worth achieving. Hence, unless I understood why they wanted these changes I'd be giving a blanket "no" to all of them.

Even the play-on for kicking backwards rule - an aspect of the game that drives me spare - I couldn't support this without more info as to me it just ends up giving an advantage to the team with numbers in front of the ball.

The one rule change I'd probably support is the head-high contact - but even there, I'd hate to see the bump disappear altogether so they would need to be very specific I think.

[is2SWaNz]

Possible rule changes

AFL considers more rule changes
Michael Gleeson
October 10, 2006



MODERN football is much like screw-top caps on wine bottles: etc



I think the rushed behind rule it bull@@@@. You can't tell if its deliberate or not for most of the time anyway.


mod edit: please post link rather than reproducing whole article.

[j s]

Re: Possible rule changes

Originally posted by is2SWaNz
possibly increasing to three (from one) the points conceded for a deliberately rushed behind.

What impact would this have had on the GF? I can recall only two blatantly deliberate behinds - one each way, Embley(?) and Kennelly - were there any more?

[Ryan Bomford]

A lot of the proposed changes appear to be associated with kicking in general play. These rule changes can be avoided and the game made a lot simpler by outlawing kicking altogether.

In which case, we wouldn't need goal posts at each end either. A net on top of a stick at each end would seem like a novel idea.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Ryan Bomford
In which case, we wouldn't need goal posts at each end either. A net on top of a stick at each end would seem like a novel idea.

Give each player a net on a stick and you're talking.

[Mike_B]

Re: Re: Possible rule changes

Originally posted by j s
What impact would this have had on the GF? I can recall only two blatantly deliberate behinds - one each way, Embley(?) and Kennelly - were there any more?

Malceski right on halftime.

[swansrock4eva]

Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Steiger

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).

My $0.02...

1 - to what effect? It's up to each coach to use his bench effectively and if he can't do that then what's he doing in the box? All limiting the bench will do is increase player fatigue and increase the chance of injury.

2 - When the umpires learn what 15m is, then we can see how effective the 15m rule is!

3. I can see some merit in this one but one of the unique aspects of our game imo is the no "offside" rule - this has the potential to create one of sorts, or at least make it so that defensive play is carried out differently. Also, how will the umpires guarantee they're in the right place to determine a switch across the backline pretty much parallel to the goals goes forward rather than backwards? Do they instead play on for only blatantly obvious backward kicks?

4. I like the concept but they'd have to change the scoring methods. And how do you determine "blatantly" obvious? It's like the DOOB - is a juggle and stumble enough to avoid the "blatant" ruling?

5. This one seems to be a kneejerk reaction of sorts to the Caracella incident - the thought of another spinal injury has them worried. The problem is that it's a contact sport and as long as it's played so that the ball goes to ground, a player's head will invariably end up over the ball and another player will invariably come in to contest and probably cop the other player high. It's a part of our game, and unless they change the way the ball is handled when it goes to ground (i.e. immediate ball up or something silly like that) they're not really going to be able to rub it out. And besides, if there is deliberate contact, it will most likely incur a free kick by the current rules anyway!

[Ed_Gein]

There is nothing wrong with the game at the moment.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

I suppose this will please all the anti-flooding and keepings-off crowd.

We've already seen a high number of injuries this year because the game is speeding up, what good is it going to be if they introduce some of those new rules to speed up the game any faster?

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
1 - to what effect? It's up to each coach to use his bench effectively and if he can't do that then what's he doing in the box? All limiting the bench will do is increase player fatigue and increase the chance of injury.

The argument is that too much use of the bench is increasing the speed of the game and thus increasing injuries.

3. I can see some merit in this one but one of the unique aspects of our game imo is the no "offside" rule - this has the potential to create one of sorts, or at least make it so that defensive play is carried out differently. Also, how will the umpires guarantee they're in the right place to determine a switch across the backline pretty much parallel to the goals goes forward rather than backwards? Do they instead play on for only blatantly obvious backward kicks?

This rule worked really well in the pre-season comp.

5. This one seems to be a kneejerk reaction of sorts to the Caracella incident - the thought of another spinal injury has them worried. The problem is that it's a contact sport and as long as it's played so that the ball goes to ground, a player's head will invariably end up over the ball and another player will invariably come in to contest and probably cop the other player high. It's a part of our game, and unless they change the way the ball is handled when it goes to ground (i.e. immediate ball up or something silly like that) they're not really going to be able to rub it out. And besides, if there is deliberate contact, it will most likely incur a free kick by the current rules anyway!

It's a reaction against lots of bumps to the head (eg: Didak against Scotland). If using the shoulder they aren't always paid a free kick despite being dangerous. It's definitely something they need to cut out.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ed_Gein
There is nothing wrong with the game at the moment.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

I hate this argument. How would you like to go back to 19 men, no interchange, no centre square, no advantage rule, free kick for all out of bounds, etc...

[dimelb]

Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Steiger

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds
5. Changing the Laws of the Game to the effect that no contact could be made to a player's head while that player is over the ball (to helpprevent any injuries such as spinal injuries).

1. Forget it. We don't speed the game up except when we want to.
2. And what difference would that make? Most of the time the umps don't know ten metres from twenty.
3. Forget it. Makes no real difference and is often the springboard for going forward. Exception: Richmond's win against Adelaide this season - which was Adelaide's fault for not picking up on it sooner.
4. Perhaps. Encourages attack.
5. The one standout. A no-brainer, pun intended and hope it never happens.

[swansrock4eva]

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

[i]Originally posted by NMWBloods
The argument is that too much use of the bench is increasing the speed of the game and thus increasing injuries.

But in a physical game such as ours, fatigue can lead to more serious contact-related injuries in particular - sloppy, tired, poorly-timed bumps etc. In the end it'll change the types of injury not the occurrence itself. The occurrence of injuries has become essentially a by-product of the style of game so unless they totally revamp the whole game, the injuries will still occur one way or another.

This rule worked really well in the pre-season comp.

So did the "super goal."

It's a reaction against lots of bumps to the head (eg: Didak against Scotland). If using the shoulder they aren't always paid a free kick despite being dangerous. It's definitely something they need to cut out.

But they could cut it out NOW with the rules as they stand. There just needs to be consistency on how it's applied. Adding a new rule isn't going to change consistency among the umpires. It's a knee-jerk reaction trying to bring in a new rule to make them look pro-active about trying to prevent certain types of contact-related injuries.

[Ed_Gein]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I hate this argument. How would you like to go back to 19 men, no interchange, no centre square, no advantage rule, free kick for all out of bounds, etc...

What do you mean? The game has gotten better from that point in time, and currently i see nothing wrong with how the rules are at the moment.

Increasing the minimum distance for a mark from 15m is just going to further put a grey area in the game as umpires will probably get a lot more decisions wrong than if it were just the 15m

The kicking backwards one can be easily worked around tactically, going man on man.