New AFL Rules and Interpretations for 2016 Season

[Bloods05]

You know what?, I had a whole thing typed out, but close to the end I decided that this is a sex, religion, politics type thing, so there is no point in perpetuating the argument.
You're 100% right.

- - - Updated - - -



Nope.
Things change too fast, and need to be reeled in.

Now I know why I disagree with you.

[Bloods05]

The only one of the rule changes that affects this perception of which you speak is the one about slam tackles, which is a welcome rule change. Any effective rule change that helps protect the head should be lauded. This is nothing to do with a "nanny state", an overused catch-all expression that says little and really grinds my gears, but rather an important and responsible rule change by the AFL to ensure risks of concussion are minimised where possible.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the rule changes that bear upon head-high contact, but there have been many others that are not so easily justified, and above all I object to the apparent compulsion on the part of the AFL to change something every year.

How refreshing to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"! It's ironic how it's become a Right-wing catchphrase, given that it was coined by Noam Chomsky as a way of describing the cosy relationship between governments and large corporations.

[CureTheSane]

I also agree wholeheartedly with the rule changes that bear upon head-high contact, but there have been many others that are not so easily justified, and above all I object to the apparent compulsion on the part of the AFL to change something every year.

How refreshing to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"! It's ironic how it's become a Right-wing catchphrase, given that it was coined by Noam Chomsky as a way of describing the cosy relationship between governments and large corporations.

You're right.
Hold on... that term backs up what most here are accusing the AFL of.
Over sanitising the game by way of interpreting what society deems as being appropriate.
Rule tweaks etc

I simply used the term as a reference to society as a whole, and a reason why the AFL make those changes.

Happy for someone to come out and explain why the rule tweaks are supposedly bad.
I accept the society we live in and acknowledge that the AFL is adhering to certain safety expectations.

That covers some of the rule changes.
The rest are to provide a more exciting game, and I am happy with that.

- - - Updated - - -

... annoyed by the indiscriminate use of the term "nanny state"!....

You are implying that I run around shouting "nanny state" from the rooftops.
Weird.
It was used in a context...

[Mel_C]

Can anyone who watched the first Swans NAB match (live or tv) tell me if there were any 50 metre penalties given for breach of the new 10-metre protection zone? I gather there were a couple (more?) free kicks for deliberate out-of-bounds. Was there any noticeable overall impact on the game that you think was attributable to these new rules? I appreciate it's a bit hard to judge based on one game but still ........

I recall only one 50 metre penalty for the protection zone breach but it looked like the Port player was within 5 metres which would have been the old rule.

The deliberate out of bounds rule I found confusing...
- Port was penalised when I thought it was the tackle that forced him to kick it in that direction.
- a swans player punched the ball towards the boundary line through a group of players and was penalised.
- Then the umpires became confused when a Port player was coming out of our forward line and he shanked the kick and it went straight over the boundary line. The umpire paid it deliberate but then the other umpire overruled and said it was a shank kick so it ended up being a throw in.

[Meg]

I recall only one 50 metre penalty for the protection zone breach but it looked like the Port player was within 5 metres which would have been the old rule.

The deliberate out of bounds rule I found confusing...
- Port was penalised when I thought it was the tackle that forced him to kick it in that direction.
- a swans player punched the ball towards the boundary line through a group of players and was penalised.
- Then the umpires became confused when a Port player was coming out of our forward line and he shanked the kick and it went straight over the boundary line. The umpire paid it deliberate but then the other umpire overruled and said it was a shank kick so it ended up being a throw in.

Thanks Mel. Those out-of-bounds decisions that you describe are what make me nervous - they seem to me to be very subjective.

[Beerman]

With regard to Rule #4, I feel this may impact on Hawthorn more than most as they guard the corridor and use men behind the ball to create pressure by pushing the envelope. If the opposition have the room to hit targets either by playing on quickly or having more space when in possession, the Hawks will have to be more circumspect with their off the ball running especially with fewer rotations.

I agree. In fact, Hawthorn players regularly infringe on the 5m and are never penalised for it. Hopefully by extending the area, opposition teams will at least get 5m to play on in.

[Bloods05]

You are implying that I run around shouting "nanny state" from the rooftops.
Weird.
It was used in a context...

No I'm not. To quote the immortal Homer Simpson: "Hmmm, confused, would we?"

[CureTheSane]

No I'm not. To quote the immortal Homer Simpson: "Hmmm, confused, would we?"

To quote the fictional cartoon character Stewie Griffin: "Don't hate me for speaking my mind, hate yourself for knowing it's true"

Your turn

[Ludwig]

I think the deliberate out of bounds rule will hurt Hawthorn and help the Swans because any time Hawthorn fail to hit a target it must be deliberate, while for the Swans the ball usually goes out of bounds when trying to hit a target, ergo, not really deliberate. I think the umpires know that. What I'm worried about is if Dane Rampe hits a target, the umpires might still call a deliberate attempt to kick out of bounds and only a due to a miskick did he manage to find another player. But this happens so rarely, I'm not too concerned.

[Meg]

Ludwig, I laughed - and then I nearly cried. Just too close to the bone!

[Mug Punter]

Is there any reason why we can't just get rid of the third man up at the ruck completely and make the ruck a genuine contest between two big boofy men?

[Meg]

Is there any reason why we can't just get rid of the third man up at the ruck completely and make the ruck a genuine contest between two big boofy men?

I tend to share your view on that - the umpires themselves seem to have some difficulty interpreting the legality of third man up situations. From reports it seems the AFL did consider a change to this along with the other changes that have been introduced but ended up saying that nothing would be changed for this season while they continued to "monitor the tactic".

[Mug Punter]

I tend to share your view on that - the umpires themselves seem to have some difficulty interpreting the legality of third man up situations. From reports it seems the AFL did consider a change to this along with the other changes that have been introduced but ended up saying that nothing would be changed for this season while they continued to "monitor the tactic".

Not sure how much more they need to monitor to see the ruck contest is just a sideshow now, maybe Mike can find time to have a look into it once he has all his stadium ducks in a row....

[CureTheSane]

Yeah, the 3rd man up doesn't really do it for me. Seems an area which can be sneakily taken advantage of.

[Bloods05]

To quote the fictional cartoon character Stewie Griffin: "Don't hate me for speaking my mind, hate yourself for knowing it's true"

Your turn

How did I know you'd be a fan of Family Guy? Uncanny!