Proposed Rule Changes......warranted or complete BS?

[barry]

Remove home town biased umpiring.
Have an independent review the video. If biased is found, suspend the ump.
Right now there is no disincentive for bias umpiring. In fact there is reward as the local fans don't criticism them.

[AnnieH]

They can create a new rule that will stop grubby green expose his studs.

[Nico]

Funny how I haven't heard anything about the rolling maul in the finals or the standard of footy in the finals. Our game was rubbish and the GWS v Pies was an average game at best. It clearly suits the agendas of the footy journos to keep the the kettle boiling during the season. This 18 metre goal rectangle looks quite ridiculous. So all the bulldust that went on, to the point where a committee was set up to look at basic changes to the game has come to what?

[neilfws]

The Age reckons the commission wants to abolish hands-in-the-back, penalising only for a push.

I always thought the point of the rule was that an umpire can't judge the force from a distance, so the simplest solution was to penalise any contact.

And that's the issue with these rule changes right there. The reasoning behind many of them seems to be poorly-communicated at best and non-existent at worst.

[mcs]

The Age reckons the commission wants to abolish hands-in-the-back, penalising only for a push.

I always thought the point of the rule was that an umpire can't judge the force from a distance, so the simplest solution was to penalise any contact.

And that's the issue with these rule changes right there. The reasoning behind many of them seems to be poorly-communicated at best and non-existent at worst.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/hands-in-the-back-rule-to-be-abolished-by-afl-commission-20180917-p504c1.html

Everything old is truly new again. I didn't mind the old rule, but yet again its a case of putting grey into an area that, in the broader scheme of things, is surely not what is needed.

[liz]

The hands in the back rule, which was originally brought in under the leadership of former AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick in 2006, has been a large area of frustration for footy fans and players, in particular forwards.

Has it? I reckon that it's a rule players adapted to quite quickly. I doubt there are more than a couple of HIB (non-pushing) frees paid each week. Maybe fewer. On the other hand, the competition does have a problem with players (from all clubs) accentuating contact and making no effort to stand their ground, in an attempt to get a free kick.

[Meg]

From that Age article:

“Incorrect disposal, deliberate out of bounds, the protected area 50m penalty, contact below the knees and contact in ruck contests are the other five areas that the committee want changed for 2019.”

[stevoswan]

From that Age article:

“Incorrect disposal, deliberate out of bounds, the protected area 50m penalty, contact below the knees and contact in ruck contests are the other five areas that the committee want changed for 2019.”

They are aspects of the game that definitely need looking at.....but can the league be trusted to actually improve outcomes in these areas. I won't be holding my breath......

[barry]

Contact below the knees is a contentious one, but absolutely required to prevent serious injury.

Also, the pay the "hands in the back " consistently, but most people think it's "push in the back", and say where was the push?. So it's a terminology problem.

[stevoswan]

Contact below the knees is a contentious one, but absolutely required to prevent serious injury.

Also, the pay the "hands in the back " consistently, but most people think it's "push in the back", and say where was the push?. So it's a terminology problem.

Contact below the knees also suffers from a terminology problem....it should be 'sliding in knees or feet first' so players who bravely go in head first and are first to the ball are protected from this stupid rule and protected from head injury. The Hawks nearly stole the match from the more deserving Demons on the weekend, due to two shocking interpretations of this rule and in one case, Brayshaw was almost concussed but was penalised. Sheer madness! This wouldn't have happened if the rule was restricted to 'going in feet/knees first'. Any rule which rewards a player for being second to the ball or someone who just feigns being tripped or someone who potentially injures the player who is first to the ball.....is a stupid rule. The rule is not achieving what it was brought in for and one's brain is far more important than one's leg!

[liz]

Contact below the knees also suffers from a terminology problem....it should be 'sliding in knees or feet first' so players who bravely go in head first and are first to the ball are protected from this stupid rule and protected from head injury. The Hawks nearly stole the match from the more deserving Demons on the weekend, due to two shocking interpretations of this rule and in one case, Brayshaw was almost concussed but was penalised. Sheer madness! This wouldn't have happened if the rule was restricted to 'going in feet/knees first'. Any rule which rewards a player for being second to the ball or someone who just feigns being tripped or someone who potentially injures the player who is first to the ball.....is a stupid rule. The rule is not achieving what it was brought in for and one's brain is far more important than one's leg!

You and I have disagreed about this before and continue to so. It isn't, and never was, a "sliding rule". A rule against that - and not just a free kick rule, but a reportable offence rule - has been in the game far longer than the current "contact below the knees rule". Adam Goodes got himself suspended twice by sliding - once very reasonably because he went in feet first, the second time a tad unluckily because two players went to ground and slid towards a loose ball, knee first, and he arrived a split second later.

The two incidents against the Demons were correct under the rule and it's a rule I continue to be in favour of. In both cases the Demons player chose to go to ground. The below-the-knees- contact occurred because they chose to go to ground. I admit that Gunston probably contributed to the contact to his legs but in the overwhelming majority of these frees, the player whose legs are taken out has no chance to stop, change direction or otherwise mitigate potentially serious injury to themselves.

Exhibit A in the case for this rule is Daniel Hannebery, who might be a five time All-Australian by now had Easton Wood not clattered into his knees in the 2016 GF.

[chammond]

Contact below the knees also suffers from a terminology problem....

This is a rule introduced for the specific purpose of reducing specific injuries, and it seems to be working. And it is an easy to understand rule - don't dive in and make contact below the knees - clear for umpires, players and fans (but not commentators, apparently). Why would you change a rule like that?

Diving on the ball in a congested situation is generally frowned on in Australian Football. It is dangerous, and usually results in an interruption to the flow of the game. It's not brave, it's stupid, and counter-productive. All the players know that. No excuses.

[barry]

This is a rule introduced for the specific purpose of reducing specific injuries, and it seems to be working. And it is an easy to understand rule - don't dive in and make contact below the knees - clear for umpires, players and fans (but not commentators, apparently). Why would you change a rule like that?

Diving on the ball in a congested situation is generally frowned on in Australian Football. It is dangerous, and usually results in an interruption to the flow of the game. It's not brave, it's stupid, and counter-productive. All the players know that. No excuses.

Well said.

[Mel_C]

The problem with removing the Hands in the Back rule is that I fear that players are now going to accentuate contact and dive forward even more than they do now...examples Rance and Ben Brown.

[liz]

The problem with removing the Hands in the Back rule is that I fear that players are now going to accentuate contact and dive forward even more than they do now...examples Rance and Ben Brown.

Completely agree. And on the other hand, some players will actually get away with pushes. Are we not all crying out for the grey areas of interpretation to be removed? Yet they want to reintroduce one that just doesn't need to be reintroduced. Players have adapted very well to the no hands in the back rule.