Proposed Rule changes

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ed_Gein
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.

People probably thought the same thing then too. New rules could make it better.

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

It's boring.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
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.

I guess the argument is that there are more injuries now and it's always been a physical game. The fatigue factor is critical when not all players are fatigued, which is what happens when there is a 4-man bench.

So did the "super goal."

Not really much of an analogy.

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.

A shoulder to the head is not necessarily a free kick, so a rule change is needed.

[swansrule100]

Re: Proposed Rule changes

1. The effect of limiting use of the interchange
dont like that, some guy stands there keeping count, then if injuries occur late do we play a man short? its something id leave along

2. The effect of increasing the distance for a mark from 15 metres
wont make much difference so many marks are taken uncontested anyway and no one is nearby, even whens its less than 15 and called play on half the time the guy can stand still and do what he wants. id leave it because it wont do much

3. The effect of calling play on for any kicking backwards in the defensive half
dont mind this one, it will encourage teams to man up to try and steal back for a goal (hopefully) but could again be like 2, the guy is called to play on but still has time.



4. Awarding three points for rushed behinds

i dont like the idea of changing any of the scoring methods in the afl to different amounts. Even just becuase its hard to compare scores to older games etc maybe not a great reason but who cares

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 am all for protecting the guys head so i support any rule in that area, but it doesnt stop it happening, someone can still smash into their head, the rule just punishes them afterwards.

Its also hard, what if a player bends when someone is comming at them?

i have no ideas on how to further protect the head, i think the games fine in that regard

I do wish they would stop buggering round though, the game is fine

[Bloody Hell]

Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Steiger

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).

1. Leave it unlimited. Allow the game to played at a faster pace....most previous rules changes revolve around the game being speeded up, not slowed down. Plus the point someone made about lazy bodies doing lazy, sloppy things).

2.Ridiculous...and make it what? 16m....The only change I'd be in favor of is if they changed this to 40+ metres....more contested marking, more pumping it long....may also stop the 'backwards kicking'

3. Have no problem with this. If a team doesn't want it to happen...'man up!'

4. Ridiculous....Keep it simple....next will be 4 points if you hit the post...0.5 points for behind post....

5. Obviously...the whole area around the ruck needs to be cleaned up. Should install the rugby rule of no playing the ball while on the ground for starters.

Also while we're here.

6. Intentional out of bounds - A rule that asks the umpires to interpret a players state of mind...they have enough trouble interpreting the rules!!!

If the ball is kicked out (or goes out from a contested marking situation including hitouts)...throw in. If the ball is handballed out or comes off hands or is juggled across the line...free - simple.

There was another one that @@@@es me off too...I can't think of it.

[Bloody Hell]

Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Bloody Hell

There was another one that @@@@es me off too...I can't think of it.

I remember....respecting the umpires. Having played Rugby Union as a youth I can't believe the way umps are treated. (Yes, I know)

I'm for the Yellow card - warning and 50m penalty

Red card - player sent off. I don't mean play 18 against 17...I mean play 21 against 22, as if the player was injured.

When a player takes a crow bar onto the field and takes out a player - who is punished/ who benifits? The team that plays next week that's who.

If a player goes down because of an incident like above (not exactly, obviously) that team is reduced to 21...This change should have been made long ago.

[Steiger]

6. Intentional out of bounds - A rule that asks the umpires to interpret a players state of mind...they have enough trouble interpreting the rules!!!

If the ball is kicked out (or goes out from a contested marking situation including hitouts)...throw in. If the ball is handballed out or comes off hands or is juggled across the line...free - simple.

I like that idea, I'd like to see it taken one step further and anytime the ball went out, not just handballs or kicks, the opposition get a free kick. It would change the amount of stoppages in a game drastically and help speed up the play.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Steiger
I like that idea, I'd like to see it taken one step further and anytime the ball went out, not just handballs or kicks, the opposition get a free kick. It would change the amount of stoppages in a game drastically and help speed up the play.

They trialled that in the pre-season one year but it didn't work.

The suggestion of throw-in for kicking it, otherwise free kick, wouldn't work either as then you could quite easily just drop it on your boot quite deliberately and dribble it over the line.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's boring.

They should make Test Match cricket faster somehow too.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
They should make Test Match cricket faster somehow too.

Missed the point...

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Missed the point...

Au contraire.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Au contraire.

Oh lah de dah!

Football and cricket are not comparable in this respect.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh lah de dah!

Football and cricket are not comparable in this respect.

I guess. Cricket is meant to be boring.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I guess. Cricket is meant to be boring.

Exactly. It's all part of the mystique!!

[Agent 86]

Re: Re: Proposed Rule changes

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
Should install the rugby rule of no playing the ball while on the ground for starters.

There was another one that @@@@es me off too...I can't think of it.

You really do belong in Ireland, eh?

[Layby]

Re: Proposed Rule changes

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

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]

This is when compensation/insurance takes over from common sense and the ability to play sport.

Nobody who actually plays AFL would want such a change included in the game (IMHO). It takes away the pillar of the big man vs small man, skill vs guts/aggression aspect of AFL. If you play a contact sport there is always a very very small chance you will recieve a freaky injury. Taking the physical aspect from the game is not the way to stop it.

Sure if you target the head your out (and for a long while) but that rule is alraedy in place. Take away the bump (and more importantly the shirt front) and you take away a major part of the contest and IMO the game.

IMO Guerra hit on Dal Santo was a classic example of this he did nothing wrong and was outed, Crazy !

Chicks hit on Mal was a classic, and nearly turned the game, that would be gone if this rule comes in by stealth.