Rules of the game

[sharp9]

When a player stands over the ball and doesn't allow the player who has been paid the free to pick it up, is blatant time wasting to allow players to flood back into defence. The other one that irks me is when the player on the mark is pushed or blocked by another player from the team that is taking the kick. Should be obstruction and 50 metres. Both of these are Hawthorn tactics.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't like any form of a shot clock. It is just a knock off from another sport. Just call time on until the player kicks it. If he handballs off it's play on. The time keepers know what they are doing.

yeah I really hate that the clock runs down. That’s a great idea...stop time when Mark/free kick is whistled An’s start when ball is kicked

[The Runner]

The sudden trend of 5-8 players on the mark in front of goal is horrible to watch.

[Velour&Ruffles]

So if you're manning the mark you have to basically stand like a statue now otherwise it's 50 metres. What is wrong with this administration?

If they want the game to flow quicker they need to start penalising players that continue holding down their opponent after a free is paid. It happens time and time again and yet nothing happens. But if you step over the mark by 1cm you are penalised 50 metres.

+1000

[bloodspirit]

The sudden trend of 5-8 players on the mark in front of goal is horrible to watch.

Can't say I've witnessed that so frequently but is typical with a critical kick after the siren. What's the issue? It makes sense because the defending team is trying lawfully to make it harder for the kicker to goal. That's what they're meant to be doing. I suppose if they outlaw it for everyone then it's an even playing field - but why make yet another rule when you don't have to and the situation doesn't arise that often?

[Meg]

Can't say I've witnessed that so frequently but is typical with a critical kick after the siren. What's the issue? It makes sense because the defending team is trying lawfully to make it harder for the kicker to goal. That's what they're meant to be doing. I suppose if they outlaw it for everyone then it's an even playing field - but why make yet another rule when you don't have to and the situation doesn't arise that often?

I agree bloodspirit. In fact it intensely annoys me if our players DON’T do this when an opponent is taking a critical set shot after the siren (when it is safe to leave other opponents unguarded).

[The Big Cat]

Simple solution to fix things is to return to the rules at midnight before interchange was brought in. 19th and 20th man. Once you’re off you’re off. If Bobby Skilton played today you wouldn’t see him resting in the forward pocket and creating havoc, you’d see him on the bench waiting to come back on. The best players should never be off.

[bennyfabulous]

Im not sure who the "Genius" is who thinks that low scoring can be fixed with these 3 piddly rule changes. But FFS time to hang em up mate! Its time for some fresh minds!

[Meg]

Article today about the three rule changes.

In my view, the best para is:

‘This steady decline in scoring is because team defence has become very good at stopping opposition scoring, with every player required to defend regardless of their role and where they are on the ground.’

Too little respect is given to the elevated defence skills of today’s elite AFL player.

I also agree that if the AFL really wants to increase scoring they should drastically cut interchange rotations - beyond the 75 limit now to be allowed (as per comment in this thread above). I note the reservation based on ‘player welfare’ but is there any evidence that there were more injuries pre the introduction of the rotation rule?

And I hate the so-called ‘nuclear option’ of zones to be trialled in the VFL/East Coast comp. That would be a drastic change to the game - and most unwelcome in my view. 6/6/6 has taken the notion far enough already.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-is-the-afl-changing-the-rules-again-20201120-p56gd2.html

[Nico]

The sudden trend of 5-8 players on the mark in front of goal is horrible to watch.

This has happened on and off for years. As long as players are behind the man on the mark it is acceptable. Can't have more than one man on the mark. Make it 5 metres behind the mark and it stops.

[sharp9]

There has always been an annoying thing for me that when taking a set shot the man on the mark doesn’t have to be on the mark...can be five or ten behind and then run up to the mark as player is kicking. I hate that.

[Thunder Shaker]

I also agree that if the AFL really wants to increase scoring they should drastically cut interchange rotations - beyond the 75 limit now to be allowed (as per comment in this thread above). I note the reservation based on ‘player welfare’ but is there any evidence that there were more injuries pre the introduction of the rotation rule?

The AFL should definitely look at reducing interchange rotations to below the mooted 75. Reducing to 75 interchange rotations won't fix the issue with congestion.

If rotations were a resource that really had to be conserved, then players would be forced to rest on the ground instead of on the bench. That would mean fewer players in the contest. The number should be really restrictive, such as 15 rotations. Then each rotation would really matter.

The start of play at each quarter could get messy, making sure the players who ended one quarter take the field at the start of the next. To fix this, don't bother. Allow clubs to switch their team lineups at the start of a quarter, but once play commences, players can only come off during play during the whole match 15 times, total.

If interchange rotations were tightened up that much, players in zones would actually be a productive measure. The players in the forward and defensive parts of the ground would be resting there. However, I don't want zones introduced. Just try capping rotations to a low level and see what that does.

[The Runner]

If you want to increase scoring, reward teams with more attractive timeslots based on their ability to score.
If you average under 80, expect the graveyard shift on a Sunday arvo. Stop providing clubs like Collingwood with the key Friday night games that provides exponentially more exposure, when they cannot score and ruin the spectacle.

[bennyfabulous]

If you want to increase scoring, reward teams with more attractive timeslots based on their ability to score.
If you average under 80, expect the graveyard shift on a Sunday arvo. Stop providing clubs like Collingwood with the key Friday night games that provides exponentially more exposure, when they cannot score and ruin the spectacle.

I agree that you need an incentive for teams to score more. But the coaches wont care about better time slots. Higher ups might (CEO, Pres), but the coaches will only care about the win. I believe to incentivise scoring and get the coaches on board, trying to score more, you need to offer a bonus premiership point for scoring 100+pts and -1 premiership point for scoring less than 60pts. That way coaches will change game style to all out attack instead of all out defense.

[mcs]

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.

[Thunder Shaker]

I agree that you need an incentive for teams to score more. But the coaches wont care about better time slots. Higher ups might (CEO, Pres), but the coaches will only care about the win. I believe to incentivise scoring and get the coaches on board, trying to score more, you need to offer a bonus premiership point for scoring 100+pts and -1 premiership point for scoring less than 60pts. That way coaches will change game style to all out attack instead of all out defense.

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.