Rule Changes

[ScottH]

Have You say.

1) Interchange Cap
2) Shortening Game
3) Boundary umps awarding frees.
4) GOAL IF BALL HITS POST AND GOES THROUGH
5) ADVANTAGE RULE
6) FREE KICK FOR DRAGGING THE BALL UNDER AN OPPONENT

[RogueSwan]

4) GOAL IF BALL HITS POST AND GOES THROUGH - I like this idea especially if it means no video ump.

[goswannie14]

Had my say, plus added that we don't need to change the rules every year.

[laughingnome]

This is what I wrote for each on the survey.

1) Interchange Cap
No. I would much rather make the 22nd, and possibly the 21st, player substitutes and reduce the rotating bench to three or two. A rotation every 30 seconds (on average) currently means a player can have a good 2 minute rest before returning to the play. Reducing the rotating bench reduces the benefit and reduces interchange numbers, while having substitutions stops teams suffering through players getting injured.


2) Shortening Game
The game is getting longer not because of what's happening on the field, but because of broadcasters wanting to squeeze in ads between goals and during breaks. 30 seconds between goals - enough to show a quick ad or replay - is more then enough. If the broadcasters want to play a scrolling ad at the bottom of the screen AND a replay after a goal, then great. Personally, I do not see a problem with the game extending for an extra few minutes, but if it must be trimmed take it off the broadcasters, not the action.


3) Boundary umps awarding frees.
No. The boundary umpires have a clear duty and I would like them to stick to it. The two non-central field umpires are doing a fine job spotting frees around a stoppage and I see no need to add another layer of eyes. Those eyes come with interpretation which may be slightly different to others, which more then anything else infuriates fans who only want consistancy in decisions. If the umpires are blindsided then so be it.


4) Goal if Ball Hits Post and Goes Through
EMPHATIC NO. And I'll tell you why:
The ball is considered out of play if it is entirely out of bounds. The current ruling with goals is consistant with this. The Behind Posts mark the limit of the boundary line - they are part of the boundary line. If the ball does not entirely go through the behind area (i.e. hits the post or doesn't cross the whole line) it cannot be awarded a behind. In the same manner the Goal Posts mark the limit of the Behind Area. If the ENTIRE ball is not in the goal area (i.e. hits the post or doesn't cross the whole line) it cannot be a goal. This rule is simple, easy to understand and consistant with boundary rules in AFL. Concern about making errors can be easily corrected by the addtition of two more goal umpires and/or a rapid video review.


5) Advantage Rule to be Determined by Players
Yes. There were some teething problems with this rule change but as a whole I like it. Provided the umpire quickly states which team has a free (e.g. by calling out player or team name) and/or allows some leniency if a player is mistaken before awarding a 50 metre penalty for time-wasting, this rule would work. I would like to see it trialled again in the NAB Cup 2011 before a final call is made on introducing it to the season proper.


6) Free Kick for Dragging the Ball Under an Opponent
No brainer. Deliberately trying to halt ball movement is against current rules (holding the ball, time-wasting, kicking the ball away). Adding this dimension to it is within the spirit of the rules and penalises players looking for a free kick. Players must be given benefit of the doubt however, as they are with the "Deliberate Out of Bounds' rule.


Would have also liked to been able to add some own comments as well. For instance I think something should be done about players who drop their knees when tackled from behind. It makes it next to impossible to not go into the back of the tackled player and the umpires seem unaware that it's going on. I would like umpires to call 'play-on' if they think a player is dropping their knees, as I think it is tantamount to staging or diving.

By all means, if you think I'm wrong about any of these call me on it. I'm not above changing my mind. I was also firmly in the camp that didn't want the Deliberate Rushed rule changed.

[Big Al]

1. No Cap - I would however have 2 extra on the bench to act as subs only.

2. Shorten Games - If we are going to extend the season with the extra teams we need to do something to prevent burn out of the players

3. Boundary Umpires - It's bad enough that we have 3 different interpretations on match days without adding to it.

4. Goal off Post - Yes I like this. Can we make this a retrospective rule say back to Essendon SCG 2008

5. Advantage Rule - No, leave it the Umps to adjudicate when an advantage is there.

6. Dragging the Ball - Need to get the whole holding the ball and diving on it interpretation right before we tackle this one. Too many times we hjave players going the ball getting penalised.

[Dunger]

1) Interchange Cap
I like the 2 interchange (capped at 20 changes per q) and 2 subs . It's something else to think about for the coaches rather than just keeping fresh legs. Puts pressure on the players to play well and not get subbed off.

2) Shortening Game
Has to happen. Time on is good but it needs to be capped. 30 minutes max is a good start, maybe even 28. If there's more games, less interchanges then shortening the game will help keep fresh legs.

3) Boundary umps awarding frees.
I think there's already too much officiating going on from the 3 field umps. Adding 2 more people to look for free kicks is a bad idea.

4) GOAL IF BALL HITS POST AND GOES THROUGH
Yes! If it bounces back into play, it should be play on as well! Getting rid of the rushed behinds made for some great defensive football. This is in the same vein will keep the defenders on their toes as well.

5) ADVANTAGE RULE
Sounds good but really the umpire has to have control.

6) FREE KICK FOR DRAGGING THE BALL UNDER AN OPPONENT
Nope.

[cruiser]

Had my say, plus added that we don't need to change the rules every year.

I agree. I get really sick of all these proposed and adopted changes every year. Leave the great game alone.

[RogueSwan]

...4) GOAL IF BALL HITS POST AND GOES THROUGH
Yes! If it bounces back into play, it should be play on as well! Getting rid of the rushed behinds made for some great defensive football. This is in the same vein will keep the defenders on their toes as well...

And a desginated goal keeper suspended by reverse bunjee cord to launch the height of the sticks.

[ShockOfHair]

It's not often anyone gets to say "I agree Tim Lane" but this is one of those rare moments because Tim has endorsed Brett Burton, who is a sports scientist as well as the head of the AFLPA.

Burton makes the radical suggestion that the league should decide the issue on what's best for the players.

Arguing for a cap on interchange rotations, Burton said players are now being forced to operate at "higher speeds, with a stop-start action, as well as encountering higher impacts more often."

His column expressed concern at the increasing rotations "affecting the welfare of players from week to week, as well as the cumulative effect on their bodies across their careers". He wondered whether the career of a player like Jonathan Brown might be curtailed because he "can't keep pace".

[alison.z]

AFL rules: what they said - AFL.com.au

Richmond coach Damien Hardwick
Interchange
"I'd prefer there'd be no cap. The rule change I'd like to bring in is the rock off at the start instead of flipping the coin. Imagine the excitement of Chris Newman v Sam Mitchell in paper, scissors, rock at the start of the game. The crowd would love it. It's a good conversation to have but my preference would be the three [interchange] and one [substitute]."

[Yuri H]

I'm with the "stop wit the changes, what? whaddya doin this alla the time for?" crowd. Especially the ridiculous "shorten the game" and "goal if it bounces off the post and in" rule. I dunno, maaaybe if the only change they contemplated was getting rid of the (just-recently-a-stupid-new-rule-itself) "hands in the back" thing ...