Rules of the game

[Thunder Shaker]

I just don't get any feeling these changes are going to make any significant impact, bar to frustrate fans more and keep pushing the AFL towards its 'zones nirvana'. Stop frigging fiddling already.

I'm not a fan of the zones ideas either. It's Australian football, not cross country netball.

The path to go down is penalising time wasting, not making players stand in particular positions. They've been doing that since the 1970s when the centre square was introduced, and it hasn't worked very well.

[stevoswan]

No. That would be far too much of a gimmick.

The rules changes that I would consider instead:

* Cap interchanges during a quarter at 15 for the whole match. If extra time is played (finals), an additional 3 are allowed for the rest of the game regardless of the number of extra time periods.
* Last touch out of bounds is a free against the player in all circumstances. This is already the case for a kick out on the full (always), a kick out from a behind that goes out without being touched (always), a ruck tap that goes out without being touched (always) and knocking it out intentionally (at the umpires' discretion). Get rid of these special cases and just make it last touch. A throw in may still be possible but it may be uncommon, such as two opposing players both touching it. (Many sports have a similar last-touch rule. It has been tried in Australian football and works well.)
* If a free kick is paid and the opponents are in contact with the player receiving the free, the opponents have maybe three seconds from the whistle to release the player receiving the free. If they're still touching the player after 3 seconds, a 50 metre penalty is paid.
* A kick from outside the defensive 50 cannot earn a mark inside the defensive 50 for the defending side. That is play on. (Soccer introduced a similar rule some years ago.) This is to encourage the players to move the ball forward.
* Only four players from each side are permitted in the centre square from the time the ball is bounced in the centre until the ball is cleared from the centre square. (Gaelic football has a similar rule.) This would make the centre square more relevant.

All these rules except the last would not change the nature of the game significantly, but may encourage more free-flowing play.

I agree with all these rule suggestions and would be happy to see them implemented, except the 'last touch' rule.....I just can't see how it's in the spirit of the game.

[Thunder Shaker]

I agree with all these rule suggestions and would be happy to see them implemented, except the 'last touch' rule.....I just can't see how it's in the spirit of the game.

A last-touch rule would be better than the farcical deliberate out of bounds rule. Rules that are based on an umpire's opinion and not what happened are always problematic.

How would you fix the deliberate out of bounds rule?

[Meg]

A last-touch rule would be better than the farcical deliberate out of bounds rule. Rules that are based on an umpire's opinion and not what happened are always problematic.

How would you fix the deliberate out of bounds rule?

Actually there is no deliberate out of bounds rule.

The wording is:

18.9.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.9.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play;

Still the umpire’s opinion but not as contentious as ‘deliberate’.

[RogueSwan]

A last-touch rule would be better than the farcical deliberate out of bounds rule. ...

And if the ball hits the goal post but still goes in it's a goal. I can picture the howls of outrage but it would make the game simpler to officiate.

One thing I wish they would crack down on is incorrect disposal. This year players could do pretty much anything vaguely looking like a handball and get away with it.

[bloodspirit]

And if the ball hits the goal post but still goes in it's a goal. I can picture the howls of outrage but it would make the game simpler to officiate.

One thing I wish they would crack down on is incorrect disposal. This year players could do pretty much anything vaguely looking like a handball and get away with it.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the goal change.

The incorrect disposal is a blight but it's not easy to fix. The thing is it's like defenders pretending to fumble the ball over the line in that there's this element of simulation to take it into a grey zone where it is probably not going to penalised. My take on it is that, a lot of the time, players pretend to have the ball knocked out of their hands, rather than actually "disposing" of it incorrectly. It amounts to the same thing but they know it's harder for the umpire to whistle a free kick because the umpire has to decide it wasn't an accident beyond their control but something they did deliberately. One reason footy is hard to officiate, especially at AFL level, is because players push every rule to its limits to gain whatever advantage they can, AND they are coached to do this. The coaches are also looking for any possible advantage and they know all the other clubs and coaches are going to do it, and if they can be the first then so much the better.

[Thunder Shaker]

And if the ball hits the goal post but still goes in it's a goal. I can picture the howls of outrage but it would make the game simpler to officiate.

One thing I wish they would crack down on is incorrect disposal. This year players could do pretty much anything vaguely looking like a handball and get away with it.

That goal rule would be well worth considering. I have previously given this some consideration and this is what I found.

It would only change about 25% of scores involving a goal post. The ball can hit the goal post and bounce back into play, or the ball can hit the goal post and go through on either side. If it bounces back into play, that would still be counted as a behind. If it hits the post and goes through on the behind side, that's still a behind. Only in the quadrant where it hits the goal post and goes through the goals would that count as a goal.

[Thunder Shaker]

Actually there is no deliberate out of bounds rule.

The wording is:

18.9.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.9.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:

(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play;

Still the umpire’s opinion but not as contentious as ‘deliberate’.

While the wording of the rule is a little different to what I said, I still think this rule is contentious and is in need of review.

[dimelb]

If it hits the post and goes through on the behind side, that's still a behind. Only in the quadrant where it hits the goal post and goes through the goals would that count as a goal.

I thought that if the ball hits the goal post on going through it would be ruled as a behind, same as a kick hitting the post before going through. Have I got this wrong?

[bloodspirit]

I thought that if the ball hits the goal post on going through it would be ruled as a behind, same as a kick hitting the post before going through. Have I got this wrong?

That's the rule as it currently stands. The proposal is that it be changed so that if the footy touches the post but goes through it henceforth be counted as a goal.

[dimelb]

That's the rule as it currently stands. The proposal is that it be changed so that if the footy touches the post but goes through it henceforth be counted as a goal.

Ah, thanks for that. For what it's worth, I'd approve!

[stevoswan]

A last-touch rule would be better than the farcical deliberate out of bounds rule. Rules that are based on an umpire's opinion and not what happened are always problematic.

How would you fix the deliberate out of bounds rule?

Get umpires who understand the game.....but seriously, I just think that any game, including of course finals and the big one, could be decided by a goal to a last touch decision within kicking distance of the goals.....and that would be very sad.

[Thunder Shaker]

Get umpires who understand the game.....but seriously, I just think that any game, including of course finals and the big one, could be decided by a goal to a last touch decision within kicking distance of the goals.....and that would be very sad.

That would not be as sad as a game decided by a "deliberate" out of bounds inside forward 50. I find that particular rule to be quite unsatisfactory.

[bloodspirit]

That would not be as sad as a game decided by a "deliberate" out of bounds inside forward 50. I find that particular rule to be quite unsatisfactory.

I'm with you, Thunder Shaker. The last touch rule would also see the ball stay in play more and might speed and even open the game up too.

[stevoswan]

That would not be as sad as a game decided by a "deliberate" out of bounds inside forward 50. I find that particular rule to be quite unsatisfactory.

I don't like the way the deliberate oob rule is adjudicated.....this is the problem with that rule, not the rule itself. I agree that it would ruin a GF if what you say happened but explain to me why a team should be penalised for simply being the last to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds and how this is in the spirit of the game.