View Full Version : Stupid new rules
Paralowiepower
1 Jan 2006, 23:07
Went to the soccer tonight, and it got me thinking. Since the sport (Soccer) has had balls around the pitch, we have seen more and more two balls being on the pitch as once. I can see this being a real problem we the new points rule, with a spare football behind both goals.
Two things can happen.
1) A ball is kicked into the crowd, a point is scored, full back grabs the spare football plays on and the ball kicked into the crowd is thrown back into play from over the fence. We could have a situation with a scramble in the goal square and two footballs on the ground at the same time.
2) A point is scored, same situation, quick turnover another point is scored and no football is behind the goal for full back to play on. I know this is pretty unlikely, but I bet it happens sometime next year.
Also who stands behind the goals to collect the balls to put in a bucket. I would hate to see kids do it, as it would very dangerous. I would also hate to see a player go off at a ball person because he has fumbled or not done his job properly which has happened in soccer and even International Rules.
A can't believe a rule like this could be brought into our game of football. What right does the AFL have in changing the rules of Australian Football? Does this rule now follow to other levels of the sport? I say the Rules committee have alot to answer for to the football public.
Demetriou must go! :thumbsd:
eddiesmith
1 Jan 2006, 23:51
Never had a problem before whether it be Wizard Cup or during the MCG reconstruction
I dont agree with the AFL trying to speed up the game even further. I dont think it should be a problem. Probably a red-coat would be given the job of chasing up the balls.
Paralowiepower
2 Jan 2006, 11:27
I dont agree with the AFL trying to speed up the game even further. I dont think it should be a problem. Probably a red-coat would be given the job of chasing up the balls.
I'm sure they will, but I bet that won't stop a ball being thrown back on the ground by a supporter as a fullback is in the act of kicking, or once the play has all ready started. It could become real messy. If cheer squads were real smart they could even throw the ball back as the full back was about to kick it, to slow the play down which will be an un natural part of our game.
As I said last night at the soccer I counted and 5 or 6 times when two balls were on the pitch. One was even kicked into the crowd as the game went on with the live ball.
I would be really interested if any soccer people like Ray or JB agree with me.
Don't forget this sort of scenario:
Wilson is against Milne and Wilson manages to force the ball over the point line for a rushed behind. Can Wakelin, standing in the goalsquare unopposed, then demand the umpire throw him his ball so he doesn't have to worry about fetching the other ball only 8 metres away, and technically in Wilson's possession on the ground? Why, or why not?
Will this be a consistent ruling? Who should Milne be standing in front of? At what point can an umpire refuse to throw the second ball to a player? If multiple players request the ball, who does he give it to? Will fullbacks have to wear a second guernsey?
eddiesmith
2 Jan 2006, 16:34
Don't forget this sort of scenario:
Wilson is against Milne and Wilson manages to force the ball over the point line for a rushed behind. Can Wakelin, standing in the goalsquare unopposed, then demand the umpire throw him his ball so he doesn't have to worry about fetching the other ball only 8 metres away, and technically in Wilson's possession on the ground? Why, or why not?
Will this be a consistent ruling? Who should Milne be standing in front of? At what point can an umpire refuse to throw the second ball to a player? If multiple players request the ball, who does he give it to? Will fullbacks have to wear a second guernsey?
No because the other players have to clear the goal area before he can kick in, I am sure that rule still applies
No because the other players have to clear the goal area before he can kick in, I am sure that rule still applies
Sure, but isn't the question who ARE the other players? One gets the ball and other players have to clear out. How do we know which players are which?
dreamkillers
2 Jan 2006, 17:01
I don't remember it causing too many problems in the pre season Cup comp.......mind you that could have been to do with the cameramen.
The thing I like about the rule is the ability to play on quicker and get the ball up the ground before any sort of defensive zoning can be put in place.
I don't remember it causing too many problems in the pre season Cup comp.Those games don't mean anything, and most coaches ignore the special rules.
When a coach looks at these new rules and sees an advantage to use in the H&A, it will become apparent.
Remember that `no possession unless standing' rule that outlawed Brayden Lyle's kneeling handpass? That was a classic.
eddiesmith
2 Jan 2006, 17:05
Sure, but isn't the question who ARE the other players? One gets the ball and other players have to clear out. How do we know which players are which?
The whole point is the only way it can get held up is if team mates cant decide. Its simple whoever wants to kick it in grabs a ball and waits in the goal square, its up to your team mates to clear the goal area immediately
dreamkillers
2 Jan 2006, 17:13
Those games don't mean anything, and most coaches ignore the special rules.
Agreed but we should have seen some of these situations come up during the games even if they aren't real serious.
When a coach looks at these new rules and sees an advantage to use in the H&A, it will become apparent.
Well I can see that rule being a very good advantage for us given we prefer to play possession football and trying to avoid kicking to a contest if possible.
Remember that `no possession unless standing' rule that outlawed Brayden Lyle's kneeling handpass? That was a classic.
There have been some absolute shockers but it's a long standing footy tradition to bring in new rules to stop any advantage the Port Adelaide Football Club have on the field.........look at the numerous changes brought in during Fos's reign at our club.
The whole point is the only way it can get held up is if team mates cant decide. Its simple whoever wants to kick it in grabs a ball and waits in the goal square, its up to your team mates to clear the goal area immediatelySo if Milney decides to wrestle with Wilson for a while (meaning Wilson can't clear the area), then Wakelin can't kick away?
Won't stupid wrestling and similar physical contact then be used to allow forward lines to set up to intercept the kick in? Isn't this just an introduction of more stupid niggle for strategic advantage?
Watch Hawthorn clean up on this, Dimma is probably licking his lips at how he can get players to abuse this rule.
eddiesmith
2 Jan 2006, 17:22
So if Milney decides to wrestle with Wilson for a while (meaning Wilson can't clear the area), then Wakelin can't kick away?
Won't stupid wrestling and similar physical contact then be used to allow forward lines to set up to intercept the kick in? Isn't this just an introduction of more stupid niggle for strategic advantage?
Watch Hawthorn clean up on this, Dimma is probably licking his lips at how he can get players to abuse this rule.
That part of the rules wont change, they could have done that in the past if they wanted to, umpires still have the option that if they feel the forward is holding up play to award a 50m penalty
Prior to this, as has been pointed out by the AFL, forwards have had little reason to do this before because they had plenty of time to set up the zone. Thats why this rule is being brought in, after all.
Expect umpires to be forced into making a call on that a lot more this season. Also remember that any umpire is reluctant to pay more than a couple of 50ms in a game.
eddiesmith
2 Jan 2006, 17:37
Prior to this, as has been pointed out by the AFL, forwards have had little reason to do this before because they had plenty of time to set up the zone. Thats why this rule is being brought in, after all.
Expect umpires to be forced into making a call on that a lot more this season. Also remember that any umpire is reluctant to pay more than a couple of 50ms in a game.
I think the problem is umpires are reluctant to pay them early, pay them in the first couple of qtrs of the early games and have all umpires doing it and the players will stop very quickly
Dont forget most teams have a rule of give away 50 and take a spell
portentous
2 Jan 2006, 17:49
It's probably not too relevant BUT when we have "ball boys" in hockey we often find that they favour one side over another ie they are biased. Any chance of this happening in the AFL? I can just see what would happen if the redcoats were in charge of this at a Showdown match!!!!!
Toots Hibbert
3 Jan 2006, 23:10
There's two issues here. The first is whether the rule changes will achieve what they are intended to achieve. The second is whether one agrees with what is being aimed at. On the first point I think we will have to wait and see whether the rules can be successfully implemented. On the second point I agree with the stated aims....
The decision to allow players to bring the ball straight back into play after a behind - there will be another ball made available for immediate use if one is kicked into the crowd to speed up the process - is part of a league push to end what it believes is the stop-start nature of the current game.
With the huge increase in stoppages in recent seasons - ball-ups and boundary throw-ins - combined with the increased use of the interchange bench, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said this has resulted in players being fresher at the end of games and being able to get to more contests - thus leading to players colliding at greater speeds and more injuries.
"What this (the rule changes) will mean is the ball is in play longer so the ability of players to get to more and more contests will be reduced by the fact the ball will be in play for greater periods," he said.
"The core objective is to arrest the slide to a more stop-start game and the ascetics of the game are important also to maintain the appeal of the game."
Anderson said the chance for players to kick the ball in quicker - an average of nine seconds under the new rule as trialled in the pre-season competition compared to 16 seconds under the old rule - would mean less chance for opposition teams to set-up their defensive zones.
This practice has led to the much derided short kick-in to a nearby teammate, thus eliminating one opportunity for fans to see players fly for pack marks.
"The aesthetic of the kick-in at the moment with the set-up of zones and a very common kick to a static player in the back pocket has not been seen as a positive development for the game," Anderson said.
Anderson denied the rule change would make the game too quick and deny the players valuable rest time saying the high number of stoppages in the current game was giving players too much rest already.
http://afl.com.au/?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=238348
I disagree with anything Anderson says in principle.
He makes it easier by talking total crap most of the time.
I disagree with anything Anderson says in principle.
He makes it easier by talking total crap most of the time.
You could say that for our esteemed AFL Chief Disastermou as well.
Fresh players = more injuries. I'd agree with that part of it. It'd just be simpler if the AFL admitted the four man bench was too large and made it a 3 + 3 bench or even 2 + 4 bench. By that I mean 2 or 3 bench players that can be rotated as per normal. The others are injury replacements. They come on and the player they replace can't play again (and if a club is found to have faked an injury to do a sub. they cop a fine). Either that or limit the number of rotations. How does having 20 midfield rotations a quarter make the game a better spectacle ?
Anderson is simply wrong. Most the injuries in football are soft-tissue injuries and are caused by the wear and tear of running - they are not caused by the clash of bodies at all. The changes to rules and interpretations will see less stoppages and hence more running. More running will mean more injuries.
The AFL is obsessed with keeping the game flowing - at any cost. The biggest problem that I have is the new interpretation of deliberate out of bounds. I have never agreed with any deliberate out of bounds rule at all - and now it is going to become even more ridiculous. It defies the natural and traditional spirit of the game - that a player should be allowed the safety of the boundary line in order to deprive the opposition of a goal. Often players are in situations where they really have no choice anyway.
These rule changes are bad, and I don't expect them to be very well accepted - not when we start seeing more injuries.
Anderson is simply wrong. Most the injuries in football are soft-tissue injuries and are caused by the wear and tear of running - they are not caused by the clash of bodies at all. The changes to rules and interpretations will see less stoppages and hence more running. More running will mean more injuries.
The AFL is obsessed with keeping the game flowing - at any cost. The biggest problem that I have is the new interpretation of deliberate out of bounds. I have never agreed with any deliberate out of bounds rule at all - and now it is going to become even more ridiculous. It defies the natural and traditional spirit of the game - that a player should be allowed the safety of the boundary line in order to deprive the opposition of a goal. Often players are in situations where they really have no choice anyway.
These rule changes are bad, and I don't expect them to be very well accepted - not when we start seeing more injuries.
Agree totally on the out of bounds thing. It was originally introduced because the clock kept ticking with the ball over the boundary, and teams could just keep bashing it over at the end of the game (much like the chipping we see these days). However, they changed the timing rules (a much more sensible solution), thereby making the deliberate rule redundant, you only waste 3-4 seconds bashing the ball back out, and you have to be careful not to do it on the full. The fact it is enforced horrendously doesn't help it either.
I doubt removing it would have any effect except for removing the pointless 'acting' of players to fool the umpires. They would still keep the ball in play unless they had no choice, much like now.
Sometimes I think no-one on the AFL appreciates football as a sport, rather than as a spectacle they want to make money from. Personally I don't care if chicks or 8 year olds enjoy a tight and pressured defensive contest where goals are at a premium. It is a sport, not some kind of choreographed athletic spectacular.
portentous
5 Jan 2006, 07:49
You mean the "Darren Mead" rule? Just another indicator of how desperate the AFL is to stop the might of Port Adelaide. :)