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

[MattW]

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.

I agree with all of that. It's odd. The only explanation I can come up with is they want to disincentivise blocking/holding. I remember around the time of the Clarkson coffee, there was suggestion that the hands in the back rule (with the chopping of the arms rule) had made it really difficult for defenders and blocking had evolved to compensate.

[Matty10]

It really seems farcical sometimes.

The AFL brings in a rule only to then change it back after twelve years. No real reason offered for either decision. What a waste of time and effort in educating the players and public.

The application of the rules is our biggest problem. All throughout the season there were games where rules were applied in a way that was different from everything else in the year. It is totally bizarre.

The ridiculous suggestion that has been prominent in the media in the last few years is that everyone needs to watch the Friday night match to see the direction for the weekend. It is a complete farce.

In our last game against Hawthorn any contact to the back of a player when disposing of the ball was deemed a free kick (for a push in the back). It hadn’t been applied that way all year, but was somehow deemed necessary in just our game. The rule was essentially forgotten the next week. Any reasonable person might ask why, but there never seems to be any serious attention paid or investigation into the cause.

[Matty10]

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

Case study: contact below the knees.

The chat about the two free kicks given against Melbourne players last weekend for contact below the knees is driving me mad. They were both free kicks according to the rules and should be.

The commentary around this application of the rule is designed to see it repealed. Everyone keeps referencing the Rohan injury and saying it was a feet first issue and that these injuries don’t occur from other contact. Why is no one referencing the Hannebery injury in the 2016 GF? It is totally bizarre.

Both incidents from last week were the result of players on their feet throwing themselves head first toward the ball while going to the ground. For a number of reasons this should be discouraged:

1. The AFL wants to decrease congestion. Players jumping on the ball will add to the likelihood of the ball not being cleared. It is a desperate act by someone not in the best position to obtain possession.

2. If the AFL wants to decrease the potential for head injuries, they should not be encouraging them by awarding free kicks for head high contact when caused by someone throwing their head into a contest. Brayshaw is wearing a helmet for crying out loud!

3. The risk of a lower leg or knee injury is real and this rule, when applied, helps prevent them. The 2016 GF is the best example.

Tonight’s commentary around this issue by Mark Robinson on AFL 360 was utterly bizarre. He suggested that in the Gunstan Lewis contest, Gunstan was not even going for the ball. Whateley was equally moronic in his suggestion that Burgoyne’s aim was to get the free kick in colliding with Brayshaw. They are both self-serving interpretations that belie the reality of each situation. Both Hawks players kept their feet, turned their bodies to protect themselves and went for the ball. Robinson even made the suggestion that Gunstan was not even reaching for the ball - a quick look at the replay reveals that he actually had both hands on the ball when contact was made.

It is this sort of ill-informed commentary that creates noise for change when it is completely unnecessary and perhaps even undesirable.

[Meg]

Great post Matty10, I agree with you on all points on the contact-below-the-knees rule.

Re the supposedly anti-congestion changes being floated, I dislike them all.

The one area that I would like to see improved, but doesn’t seem to be in the current discussion, is the pile-up of players when a player is tackled to the ground and every player in the vicinity (both foe and friend) jumps on top. And then several of them hold down a player with one hand and wave the other hand ambitiously at the umpire (why do they do that??).

And then the poor sod at the bottom of the pack is supposed to get a handball away! Most times it ends up with a ball up, sometimes a holding-the-ball free is paid depending on prior opportunity. The tactic certainly adds up to a congested & ugly maul.

I don’t understand why more than one player is permitted to ‘tackle’ in those circumstances. Seems to me that several of the pack on top are technically ‘in the back’ anyway.

[stevoswan]

Re: the 'contact below the knees' rule.......I should have added going in side ways like Wood did to Hannebury should be penalised as well but front on as in the two incidents in the Hawks/Melb game......NO. I still struggle to understand people's mental block on this one.....

You say "it is a desperate act"......well yeah!......or maybe we don't want to see desperate acts in a contact sport?

You claim this rule lessens the chance of head injury......but seem to fail to realise what two people running full on at the ball and each other, with their heads 'out and proud' and choosing not "to go to ground", will more often than not result in. Get ready for a head clash epidemic.

In the history of football up until Gary Rohans freak injury, it was never a problem and it hasn't been since and I highly doubt that kneejerk rule change has had anything to do with it.......it's a typical AFL over reaction to a 'one off' freak accident.......tweak it by all means, it can't remain in it's current form.

[Matty10]

It would seem that a failing to realise something is a subjective viewpoint.

Both Gunstan and Burgoyne turn their bodies, which is what players are taught to do in order to protect themselves. If two players arrive at the ball at the same time it is not desirous for them to run head-first into each other - that would almost certainly result in head clashes. Who is suggesting that? Nor should one be penalised for turning their body when their opponent does not, unless they are clearly second to the ball and could opt to tackle instead. That is rewarding someone for opting to receive high contact, which the AFL should continue to avoid.

[Sandrevan]

Extending the goal square to 18 m is silly - it achieves nothing.

I like the idea of starting positions but it needs to be extended. Along the lines of ... each team must have at least 3 players in the defensive half of the ground at all times. Each team must have at least 3 players in the forward half of the ground at all times.
When the Swans are in their forward 50 3 defenders and 3 opposition players must not be in the front half of the ground. Other codes have a half-way line marked across the field - why not AFL.
Also, i'd like to see fewer rotations as this will help with the congestion. The other thing i'd like to see is more consistency in applying the rules. It's too easy for the umpires to shift the momentum the way the game is currently umpired.

[stevoswan]

Here's a new rule that might come in next season and it can't be soon enough......the 'Toby' rule.

The Toby rule: AFL may outlaw use of studs - AFL.com.au

[dejavoodoo44]

Here's a new rule that might come in next season and it can't be soon enough......the 'Toby' rule.

The Toby rule: AFL may outlaw use of studs - AFL.com.au

The Toby rule? Is that where he's suspended every second game; just to save time?

[cos789]

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.

It's marking interference. It's preventing another player from attempting to mark (or spoil) the ball.

[cos789]

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

Dangerous play or it's marking interference. It's preventing another player from attempting to mark (or spoil) the ball.
It'd be paid in any decent non AFL competition. Saw a penalty paid against Subiaco 50 years ago.

[cos789]

Do you indeed think the game is in a bad state.....that it needs changing at all? If so, is the league going about it the right way?

The problem as everybody recognizes is that defensive strategies are preventing attacking football to break out.
The AFL seemingly is looking at a whole new raft of rules changes in attempt to this.
My question to the AFL is why haven't they trialled more conventional and thus more palatable changes before changing the fabric of the game.
I can list 5 changes that will be both simplify the laws, by reducing the number of laws and increase attacking football.
In order of least importance.
1. One only deliberate law with removal of reference to 'pressure'.
2. A ball kicked out is penalized and kicked back in. This has been trialled and it does work.
It will have the added bonus of removing the necessity for a 'deliberate' ajdudication.
3. A 15m box, whereby the FF can stand on the 15m box line effectively in the same position as the FF now stands.
This allows the FF to run to a marked position. It removes a lot of the kicking over the line issue.
Now, if the AFL want to increase rebound pressure as they seem to be doing then simply award a mark 15m out from goal.
4. Make a goal a ball going through the goal posts. Teams would be more inclined to have more defenders on the line.
Also has the benefit of removing the need for score reviews.
5. Starting positions like the center square only benefit at centre bouncedowns , not in general play.
Thus all bouncedowns need to mimic a centere bouncedown by having a 10m exclusion circle around the umpire.
No more nominating. Only two ruckmen contesting the bounce. The return of athletic ruckmen and the big hit-out.

We need to look more closely at the existing game before change the direction of the game introducing MORE off-sides.
We pride ourselves on having a game with no off-sides but we do have off-sides - just not in general play.
Let's not go down that path if we can possibly avoid it.

[cos789]

Well apparently the AFL want a stricter interpretation of the rules, in particular incorrect disposal. A shame they didn't worry about this in 2016 when the bulldogs were throwing the ball for the entire season!

It would always frustrate me and the fans that we as umpires were instructed to call 'play on, ball came free in the tackle' as well as 'push in the back, carried forward in the tackle' Nowadays you can forcibly tackle a player in a controlled manner and if the the ball is knocked free then the player is also penalized. They only have to zoom in on the player that miss-kicks or miss-bounces a ball through pressure or accident.

Whilst looking at hybrid games, I was comparing AFL to NRL and looking at the possibility of an overlap. One of the main differences is that Australian Football allows 'knock-ons' up untill the player takes possession of the ball, then the player must dispose of the ball legally. What if the emphasis was changed from the type of disposal to the result, that is, what if we allowed throwing and made it manditory for the ball to be caught (after travelling a minimum distance) No more worrying whether a ball was indeed punched but whether a ball was caught. A player is tackled and drops the ball would be penalized, not for dropping the ball but for an 'incomple pass'. It would certainly open up play.

[Doctor]

Here they are:-

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-11/new-rules-revealed-nine-changes-for-2019

I actually think they seem quite reasonable.

[stevoswan]

Whilst looking at hybrid games, I was comparing AFL to NRL and looking at the possibility of an overlap. One of the main differences is that Australian Football allows 'knock-ons' up untill the player takes possession of the ball, then the player must dispose of the ball legally. What if the emphasis was changed from the type of disposal to the result, that is, what if we allowed throwing and made it manditory for the ball to be caught (after travelling a minimum distance) No more worrying whether a ball was indeed punched but whether a ball was caught. A player is tackled and drops the ball would be penalized, not for dropping the ball but for an 'incomple pass'. It would certainly open up play.

Throwing? Without "changing the fabric of the game"?