Opinion AFL rules discussion

[Ported]

High contact - Where a player ducks into a tackle and is the cause of high contact the umpire will call play on. If he is then tackled he will have to dispose of the ball properly to not be penalised.

Call me crazy, but isn't this already the rule?

 

[edgie]

Call me crazy, but isn't this already the rule?

Not quite, at present the players can initiate high contact on themselves by charging with the top of the head. Umps usually call it when its shoulder or neck contact as ducking, but whenever they use their head umps are currently obliged to give them a free to keep up appearances for the AFL head protection policy

 

[Dobie G]

The new rules will be policed vigorously for the first few rounds then it will be back to old inconsistencies.

Think any incorrect ball disposal was always awarded a free against?

 

[tamba]

Up here (Cairns) head duckers are very protected and a large proportion of players milk the rule. You can actually see them duck when in a limited space.

To me it is totally not in the spirit of the rule, but when in Rome ------

Why not penalize the deliberate and consistent (on the day) charging into pack duckers as they are trying to get a free themselves. The Umpires need to be consistent and view the ducking on case by case not just as a blanket overall. It is so frustrating watching the different interpretations of the rules.

 

[FishingRick04]

Simple duck and charge no free, you have taken the risk by initiating the duck.

Same goes for shrugging the shoulders or dropping knee's.

All those acts are initiatng contact.

 

[Peck]

Simple duck and charge no free, you have taken the risk by initiating the duck.

Same goes for shrugging the shoulders or dropping knee's.

All those acts are initiatng contact.

I really hope this is actually to stop what Selwood does, rather than what Tom Logan and Matt Thomas have done, which would be completely against the spirit of the game.

 

[Dobie G]

Bartlett on the new rule changes

• Players are responsible for any head contact- the Lindsay Thomas exemption no longer applies
• Players who initiate head contact, say, by burrowing into a pack head first, must dispose of the ball correctly
• Marking contests, contact is allowed as long as there's no unduly pushing, bumping or holding-another potential grey area for the umps.

 

[Winestoppable]

So much of the same confusion will continue in 2014.

 

[Dobie G]

The new cap rule of 120 interchanges allows for 133 effective interchanges.

Source

In addition to the 120 interchanges, players can be swapped at quarter-time breaks (nine extra interchanges) and substitutions do not count in the tally.
Even if the cap is reached, up to three injured players can be replaced in the dying minutes to ensure clubs do not play with fewer than 18.
Only if those injured players go back on the ground will a penalty of a free kick and 50m penalty be enforced.
So effectively the cap is 133 interchanges, higher than the AFL average last season of 129.5.
AFL football operations manager Mark Evans says he expects clubs to adjust quickly to the changes.
The 120 cap is set in stone for two seasons, but in the interests of player management will be 130 in the NAB Challenge, with six bench players as well as two substitutes.
"If a club gets to the end of its rotations and there is an injury, they can still take a player off the ground and replace him, but if they do that, the player they take off isn't permitted to come back on to the ground,'' Evans said.
"As they hit their cap, our officials at the boundary line will be fully informing the clubs they have hit their maximum rotations and will probably have alerted them to it along the way. I would rather them over-communicate than under-communicate.

More

 

[Power Raid]

The new cap rule of 120 interchanges allows for 133 effective interchanges.

Source


More

lol

120 = 133

quantum physics comes to the AFL!

 

[chimmez]

What happens in the event of a blood rule? It would be disastrous if a team had reached the cap, and a star player like Boak had to leave the field, and was unable to return without giving away a 50m penalty.

 

[Powerstufff]

I think the AFL have crossed an important divide here. Once something has become too complex for the fan sitting at the ground to understand what is going on it should be ruled out.
We understand the sub rule, even though just going back to 20 players and unlimited substitutions would have been simpler. But now I'm going to be sitting at a close game and inevitably a 50m will be given for a substitution breach that I cannot possibly understand. And furthermore inevitably an incorrect penalty will cost a team a match. For what?
I sound like a dinosaur here but for most of the history of Aussie Rules games slowed down as players tired, why is it so important that that not happen now? And where injuries mounted teams did get to the stage where they had <18 on the ground, again big deal.

 

[Power Raid]

I think the AFL have crossed an important divide here. Once something has become too complex for the fan sitting at the ground to understand what is going on it should be ruled out.
We understand the sub rule, even though just going back to 20 players and unlimited substitutions would have been simpler. But now I'm going to be sitting at a close game and inevitably a 50m will be given for a substitution breach that I cannot possibly understand. And furthermore inevitably an incorrect penalty will cost a team a match. For what?
I sound like a dinosaur here but for most of the history of Aussie Rules games slowed down as players tired, why is it so important that that not happen now? And where injuries mounted teams did get to the stage where they had <18 on the ground, again big deal.

KISS is a good philosophy

 

[Andre]

I sound like a dinosaur here but for most of the history of Aussie Rules games slowed down as players tired, why is it so important that that not happen now? And where injuries mounted teams did get to the stage where they had <18 on the ground, again big deal.

That's the point I thought. Slow it down by reducing the number of interchanges. The theory is players are on the ground longer, therefore as the game goes on they'll be tired / slower and therefore not colliding at such speeds and less injuries. And that teams won't be able to run a forward press for four quarters so teams will be forced to go back to more traditional (dinosaur?) type structures.

Of course every AFL rule changes hits the rule of unintended consequences. For every expected outcome 3 unexpected outcomes also occur.

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

It should be 22 plus a sub. Then they can cap rotations. No way do we want to have to squeeze only 20 players into our team

 

[Macca19]

No team will breach the interchange cap.

 

[longdonkey]

And our 'bathtubs' over the 1971-1997 timeline were regularly drained of their quality fish in the (net) direction of the bigger, richer Vic. pools.

Tredrea's dad came over from Vic, but firstly Gary was more a fringe player in Vic and secondly even when here at Port did not play enough games to qualify Wazza as a F/S pick. The flow of fringe Vic players in the SA direction did not make up for the flow of quality SA players in the other direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's about to happen is the second round of shaftings for father/son selections. I played footy with 3 guys who went on to play AFL football (before Crows and Port joined the AFL). All 3 went to interstate clubs and still live interstate. So now they're getting close to 50yo and their sons are about to come draft age and you have the sons of ex SA guns that are now father/son to non SA clubs. None of them would have played 200 games in SA because they got drafted. Billy Stretch is the first of many.

 

[Portology]

What's about to happen is the second round of shaftings for father/son selections. I played footy with 3 guys who went on to play AFL football (before Crows and Port joined the AFL). All 3 went to interstate clubs and still live interstate. So now they're getting close to 50yo and their sons are about to come draft age and you have the sons of ex SA guns that are now father/son to non SA clubs. None of them would have played 200 games in SA because they got drafted. Billy Stretch is the first of many.

Who gets shafted, how**?? The model means to give all clubs roughly the same # of fathers in a pool. Always going to be anomalies in any model, but discussion of alternatives always bogs down either in your slightly old school "SA" chip-on-the-shoulder reaction or the slightly insular "I just want Port dads and nuffin' else" path.

The usual alternative mooted is to trade the pool of 200-gamers from across half the SANFL clubs for a (possibly) smaller pool from Port-only 100 gamers. Nets a lot more Port champs in the pool, makes Brett 'legal' after the fact, we could've got Brad for #16 (at the cost of Lobbe in a draft where we failed every other pick). It recognises your point, which is that kids post 1990 went much more freely and earlier to the clubs that drafted them, unlike say Mead who stayed, but ... none of that has anything to do with Billy Stretch , who has nothing to do with Port AFAICT.

Maybe some like the idea of trading "numbers" for potential "quality" of the pool, but I'd spend my time and energy getting our drafting and trading and player development as good as it can be, rather than fighting for a rule change that may give us a slight leg up come draft day, for a few years. Over time our FS 'pool' of dads was always going to shift to our AFL players, regardless of 'origin' and that's the pool we need to optimise. There are far worse things left over from the events of 1990 than the AFL's F/S rule as it applies to us.

** I know the original rules (and the AFL's early fiddling with them) had significant implications for West Lakes (2x Cornes, Gibbs)

 

[longdonkey]

Who gets shafted, how**?? The model means to give all clubs roughly the same # of fathers in a pool. Always going to be anomalies in any model, but discussion of alternatives always bogs down either in your slightly old school "SA" chip-on-the-shoulder reaction or the slightly insular "I just want Port dads and nuffin' else" path.

The usual alternative mooted is to trade the pool of 200-gamers from across half the SANFL clubs for a (possibly) smaller pool from Port-only 100 gamers. Nets a lot more Port champs in the pool, makes Brett 'legal' after the fact, we could've got Brad for #16 (at the cost of Lobbe in a draft where we failed every other pick). It recognises your point, which is that kids post 1990 went much more freely and earlier to the clubs that drafted them, unlike say Mead who stayed, but ... none of that has anything to do with Billy Stretch , who has nothing to do with Port AFAICT.

Maybe some like the idea of trading "numbers" for potential "quality" of the pool, but I'd spend my time and energy getting our drafting and trading and player development as good as it can be, rather than fighting for a rule change that may give us a slight leg up come draft day, for a few years. Over time our FS 'pool' of dads was always going to shift to our AFL players, regardless of 'origin' and that's the pool we need to optimise. There are far worse things left over from the events of 1990 than the AFL's F/S rule as it applies to us.

** I know the original rules (and the AFL's early fiddling with them) had significant implications for West Lakes (2x Cornes, Gibbs)

I'm not talking about us (Port) because we haven't been affected yet, but it could affect us down the track. So far we've seen 2 players Viney and Stretch both playing in SA with SA born fathers go to Melbourne father/son.
I think the new bidding rule has equalised it a lot but I can see the day when some kid won't get picked for a state under aged team because of the thought that he will go father/son to another state or something stupid like that.
Will be interesting to see if any of our Victorian players, when they have kids, whether any will nominate Port as father/son.
Personally, I think the whole rule is garbage and is in place to help the Melbourne based clubs and I can see the rule being stopped when all the clubs have the same access. Same way as free agency will be scrapped if it doesn't help the big Melbourne clubs already the rules are being tinkered with to stop Sydney (and I'm not making any comment on whether it's right or not).

 

[Portology]

I'm not talking about us (Port) because we haven't been affected yet, but it could affect us down the track. So far we've seen 2 players Viney and Stretch both playing in SA with SA born fathers go to Melbourne father/son.

Stretch grew up supporting his dad's club. Viney, born, raised, played for Vic Metro. Dad played for Sturt for 3? years, worked for the Crows for 2, it seems the Crows "bought" him in in part to pitch the club to his son and subvert F/S. How cringeworthy is that? The guy hasn't lived here for 20 years FFS. Tells you more about the Crows than about Melbourne. None of these cases proves anything else except that some South Australians still carry an incredibly debilitating insecurity with them about Victoria. Most kids in SA don't grow up primarily supporting SANFL teams anymore. None of that has anything to do with how we treat our players, the memories we leave them with, nor how attractive a destination this club is to prospective players in the future. All of that is in our control at Port. So why this persistent insecurity/chip-on-shoulder? I just don't get it.

I think the new bidding rule has equalised it a lot but I can see the day when some kid won't get picked for a state under aged team because of the thought that he will go father/son to another state or something stupid like that.

If underage selectors were that bloody parochial they ought to be sacked instantly and hopefully sued by any player discriminated against on that basis for loss of earnings if nothing else (if say after not getting an under-age team selection they then didn't get an invite to a combine and then are not drafted as a result of the deliberate policy of 'hiding' them). What is this, 19-bloody-75??

Will be interesting to see if any of our Victorian players, when they have kids, whether any will nominate Port as father/son.

An 18 year old Vic kid comes here spends 2 years in SANFL then at least 5-6 years getting to 100 AFL games. Can't believe you think they're still the same 18 year old kid at 25-26, and will leave with so much negative feeling about their club that they'll discourage their kid from being picked up, that when they skip town they magically revert to their childhood Vic team once they inhale the Vic atmosphere just out of Bordertown. You'd have to be fairly insecure about South Australia to think that, but it is sort of my point.

Personally, I think the whole rule is garbage and is in place to help the Melbourne based clubs and I can see the rule being stopped when all the clubs have the same access.

err... F/S exists because of the "Melbourne" club and the emotion of the Ron Barassi (Jr) case. When Geelong got a leg up, the most celebrated case of F/S helping a club, they were a financial basket case and football wise had been heading down the ladder for a few years. When the Bears got J Brown via the Fitzroy inheritance they weren't exactly a big Vic club, but 10 years later Marc Murphy declines their F/S offer and heads to the biggest Victorian basket case (of the time)... stuff happens, not all about the big Vic clubs, taking care to make it fit in coherently with the era of the draft, by adding the bidding process, means this rule is not going away.

Same way as free agency will be scrapped if it doesn't help the big Melbourne clubs already the rules are being tinkered with to stop Sydney (and I'm not making any comment on whether it's right or not).

Sorry? Free Agency is in because the players want it and more players are from Victoria than anywhere else. So I haven't got a clue what you're on about here. There would be a major player revolution if FA got messed with and AFAIK nothing to do with Free Agency or F/S rules is being "tinkered with" to stop Sydney, their issue was about Trading Vs COLA (I don't understand the specifics of that issue so can't comment). Tom Mitchell went there, one Daniher chose to go there over Essendon, another Daniher made the opposite call... stuff happens, not all about the big Vic clubs.

 

[raptalia]

Who gets shafted, how**?? The model means to give all clubs roughly the same # of fathers in a pool. Always going to be anomalies in any model, but discussion of alternatives always bogs down either in your slightly old school "SA" chip-on-the-shoulder reaction or the slightly insular "I just want Port dads and nuffin' else" path.

There can be no doubt that the interstate clubs have been shafted by the father/son rule. The fact is that in twenty years Port and the Crows have had one father/son player and that was due to a clerical error on the part of the AFL. Look at the number of father son selections taken by the likes of Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong and Carlton in that time.

Why not eliminate those anomalies by doing away with the father/son rule altogether ? It is pure elitism based on sentiment and treats some people different from others because of their father's past. We would not stand for it in other parts of society so why allow it in the AFL? Particularly an AFL that prides itself on a normally uncompromised draft process. I know I have posted this argument before but I have had plenty of people agree with the argument.

I would not like to see Michael Wilson's sons playing for someone else but that is the way it is so be it and clubs have options for trading players who want to be somewhere else.

I am waiting for the AFL to give new meaning to the term 'grandfather clause' and allow the grandsons of past champions to play for their grandfather's club.

I note that clubs can now take players in the Rookie Draft under the father/son rule. Surely if a player is not good enough to be picked up in the National and Pre season drafts he should not get another go at an elite selection process?

 

[*PAF]

Father Son Is Good.

 

[Portology]

There can be no doubt that the interstate clubs have been shafted by the father/son rule. The fact is that in twenty years Port and the Crows have had one father/son player and that was due to a clerical error on the part of the AFL. Look at the number of father son selections taken by the likes of Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong and Carlton in that time.

Why not eliminate those anomalies by doing away with the father/son rule altogether ? It is pure elitism based on sentiment and treats some people different from others because of their father's past. We would not stand for it in other parts of society so why allow it in the AFL? Particularly an AFL that prides itself on a normally uncompromised draft process. I know I have posted this argument before but I have had plenty of people agree with the argument.

I would not like to see Michael Wilson's sons playing for someone else but that is the way it is so be it and clubs have options for trading players who want to be somewhere else.

I am waiting for the AFL to give new meaning to the term 'grandfather clause' and allow the grandsons of past champions to play for their grandfather's club.

I note that clubs can now take players in the Rookie Draft under the father/son rule. Surely if a player is not good enough to be picked up in the National and Pre season drafts he should not get another go at an elite selection process?

F/S is one of the last bits of sentiment in the game. There is some small room in our game for sentiment as there is for loyalty.

Yes a 'grandfathers' and/or 'uncles' rule would be way too complex to 'legislate' for (imagine a 'family' clause where games by uncles and grand-relatives count at 50% of games by your dad...). Even so there is a sense of 'justice' in Brad Ebert finally getting to Port, the Obst connections plus Ebert connections. You can't reduce everything to a perfect formula. There will be anomalies, that doesn't make the F/S idea intrinsically wrong.

I've no issue with a club rookie listing a F/S pick IF the club has no more picks to bid AND the player wants to go there (don't know the rules but IMO a player ought to be able to say "yes, only if you put me on the main list"). See earlier comment re anomalies...

As for "no doubt the interstate clubs have been shafted" West Coast would massively disagree. One generation into our AFL journey we've all started with slightly different initial rules that will slowly converge. Evaluate who has been 'shafted' in 20 years (one "full cycle" of father career + son career) when the rule will be simpler across the board because SANFL & WAFL (and the Swans pre-1990 VFL) elements have 'died out' and all clubs had roughly equal opportunity to generate pools of 100-gamer dads under draft+cap driven lists. IMO if some clubs are worse over the years at developing players (ie worse at producing 100-gamers in the first place) they may come out slightly worse in the long run and the same clubs will tend to be slightly 'shafted' (as you say) by FA. I believe our club is more likely to be slightly advantaged than slightly disadvantaged in the long run, so keep the bloody rule!

 

[DaTBird187]

Yes, don't get rid of it just when we might start to get some benefit.

 

[Power Raid]

I like the father son and believe it should be extended to grandfathers