Is the mooted 20m rule a response to Hawthorn?

[Freo2012]

The umpires are fine until they actually reach AFL level.

Then the continual "interpretation" of rules leaves them with no bloody hope whatsoever.

This "interpretation" business is ruining the game. Rules are bloody rules. You don't "interpret" them. You enforce them consistently as they are meant to be enforced.

Most of the playing rules are fairly clear, not too ambiguous - yet the umpires don't enforce according to the rules, they "adjust" the rules to suit the AFL puppet masters pulling the strings; the "interpretation" which is utter BS on anyones logical reasoning - different strings pulled on different weeks depending on who is playing who and how they want to massage the image of the game. The puppet masters at AFL house are not proactive managers, they are purely seat warmers reacting to situations - one way and then the other, always over-reacting and then trying to play catch up and having to reverse their continual senseless decision making. About time AFL had a clean out and we got some proper managers that actually work to protect the game and ensure it has real "integrity", not the manipulated PR spin BS they constantly throw at us.

Take a look at all the off-field rules the AFL introduce - not one rule is clear cut and has do's and don't's and the minimum and max penalties. Every single rule has wording that enables the puppet masters to get the outcome of any situation the way they want at the time with their sole aim of reducing PR downside at the time, rather than actually protecting and strengthening the game long term. Often it is better to take a hard hit now to protect the image longterm, but they could never do that, the current moment is all that matters to them, unfortunately it always makes the eventual outcome much worse. Coverups never strengthen, they always diminish, but the AFL can't see that, to them they "can do no wrong". AFL is not a code of rules, it is a dictators decree that can be changed and re-interpreted by the puppet masters at their whim, and that IS a big problem with the game, and will show its downside in the future when we get to the manipulation tipping point. By then it will be too late and AFL will be seen as a laughable joke (australias version of the WWE) with no easy fix to return respectability - it will be seen by all for what it is - purely a marketing money machine that uses a game as its PR linchpin to manipulate results, and thus make more money.

Sorry for the rant, but I am sure many of us think this way, with many more thinking this way each year - gradually making a mockery of OUR game - the tipping point will come.

In short: enforce the rules as they are written and stop manipulating the game - then you might see more people back to the game enjoying what they will more likely believe is a legitimate "game".

 

[LosBeatles]

I wish they would make technology where the ball lights up and flashes once a pass crosses 20 metres. It would take the guesswork out of the umpiring and look cool as hell

Like the way the bails light up in the big bash. It should be pretty easy to do with satellite or gps map whatever over the ground

 

[mike123]

Reducing interchanges won't help the rolling maul players will only get fitter.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

How about umpires be instructed to penalise players that take on an opponent and do not dispose LEGALLY within a second, none of this 360 turn that goes unpenalised. There are some teams that have mastered this tactic of trying to create the loose man by taking on the tackler and then throwing it out. Many times it actually causes congestion when the ball drops and then everyone jumps around it and then holds it against their opponent wanting a free kick for it.

How ridiculous is that. But no, let's change the the legal length of a mark because it somehow is creating congestion at present. Let's first pay the free kicks that should be paid

 

[ImCheatingToWin]

Was it against the Bombers? I remember the act well, just not the other team involved.
Mind you, I think it was Guerra who kicked a point from about 30 out for Geelong, that may have had some influence.

Pretty sure it was Mark Williams

 

[hcd199]

A number of posters in this thread suggesting that a change to 20m would be good because we'd then get them actually enforcing the 15m rule - firstly, there's no good reason why should we cave to poor umpiring standards, and secondly, given the new rule would, it seems, be enforced incorrectly, it wouldn't take long for complaints to arise that they were paying marks for kicks that were too short. The issue - to the extent that one exists, which it does, but it certainly, at this stage, isn't causing significant damage to the sport or anything - is with umpires being inconsistent in their determination of distance travelled.

 

[Xtreme]

AFL will be unrecognizable in its current state by 2030.

It's already becoming netball, soon the transition will be complete.

 

[iameviljez]

I wish they would make technology where the ball lights up and flashes once a pass crosses 20 metres. It would take the guesswork out of the umpiring and look cool as hell

Like the way the bails light up in the big bash. It should be pretty easy to do with satellite or gps map whatever over the ground

Oh my God that would be AMAZING. Excellent idea!

It would also light up and make a pinball machine noise when something amazing happens, like Bryce Gibbs wins the hard footy or Jack Riewoldt gives the handpass

 

[mick06]

We need to create a ball that changes colour from foot to hand depending on how far it travels. Simple.

Should have read other responses first.

 

[LordLucifer]

Do we need to extend the minimum distance from 15m to 20m or is it a case of the umpires being more diligent in administering the current 15m rule?

Yes, increase the minimum distance for a legitimate kick to 25m.

And at the same time, reduce the 50m penalty down to 25m.

 

[40porpoise]

I love the short kick and mark time wasting style. My fantasy team thrives on it

 

[Pessimistic]

Make them kick longer ? Would this make them more likely to kick sideways or backwards ?

 

[yaco55]

The rule has nothing to do with Hawthorn. The Hawks usually kick the ball forward,unlike some other teams.

 

[yaco55]

The only reason rolling maul exists is AFL doesn't want ball ups. The umpire should just whistle for a ball up. That is how it used to be...

Disagree. You are stopping the play if the umpire blows the whistle too early. On most occasions when there is a pack the ball finds its way out.

 

[yaco55]

How many kicks are we talking about? Hawthorn had 195 kicks and took 79 marks. The overwhelming majority of these wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. Most of their short passes would've travelled 15m to 40m. Chris Scott is probably talking about 5 to 10 kicks (max) which might've been a couple of metres short of the required 15m distance. I saw one or two which travelled 10m. Big deal. Most of the time, the player in possession has played on anyway and doesn't need to go back over his mark.

It's a pity that Alastair Clarkson didn't mention in his post match press conference how Geelong players CONSTANTLY blocked their Hawthorn opponents out of marking contests illegally. The rules state you can't block or shepherd if the ball is more than 5 metres away. The umpires simply ignored this rule. They should've been more vigilant.

Alastair Clarkson should've also mentioned in his post match press conference how Geelong players CONTINUALLY held their Hawthorn opponents off the ball. This happened all over the ground, wherever you cared to look. Geelong players have made a science of holding the man 50m-100m away from the ball to slow them down & prevent overlap or prevent them from taking up a defensive position. Once again, the umpires simply ignored the rules. They should've been more vigilant.

So we've got Chris Scott, the master manipulator of the media complaining about 5 to 10 instances where the footpass was marginally short, while nobody discusses how his team was able to illegally keep their opponents away from the contest on at least 40 to 50 occasions.

He is a piece of work. Such a salesman...

You've gotta love the way Geelong go about it. There is no better team at working their umpiring to their advantage than the Cats. No team is more adept at badgering and hectoring the umpires for more free kicks whilst getting away with pushing the envelope and bending the rules at every chance they get.

Half the time, their defenders don't even bother to watch the ball. They contests with their back to play. Yet they are so rarely penalised. How do they do it?

They are the masters...

Wow !

How to be off topic. What does Geelong's blocking have to do with the OP. Nothing !

The silliest thing is that this PROPOSED rule change has nothing to do with Hawthorn's playing style ? Hawthorn usually kick the ball forward unlike many other teams. My guess is that the proposed rule change is to stop teams chipping the ball sideways and forwards.

 

[Bard]

Simple:

60m minimum kick when coming out of defensive goal-square
50m minimum kick when in defensive 50
40m minimum kick when between 50 arcs
50m minimum kick in forward 50

....

Or just make torps mandatory for all kicks, and not worry about a minimum distance, because it will all be randomised anyway.

 

[Xtreme]

Overreaction - they changed it from 10 to 15 to 'stop' the chip chip stuff back in 2002-2003. They may as well not call a mark unless it's a big booming kick into the forward line.

 

[docko911]

Rules should be returned to mid 90s - with the exception of injury related rules.

Return interchange to 4 but add a sub for concussions and injuries only.

 

[Concussion]

Why not just have no marks in the defensive half.

 

[replicant]

The problem isn't the kick length. It's just unfair that the ball gets there so fast and on-one else gets a fair chance to mark it.

The AFL is all about fairness, like taking winners and losers away from junior grades. Well we can't have unfairness in 15m kicks. So they should just make the rule the ball must travel as far UP as it does ALONG. 15m kick is fine, as long as it goes 15m up, so everyone gets a chance the get there and mark it. More bombs, more pack marks.

After all, what the AFL needs is more subjective rule interpretations. We need to do more to bring the umpires into the game.

 

[cinderella man]

We rushed them without pressure to quickly set up play out of defence.

That is what you are no longer allowed to do.

Brent Guerra said on open mike the other week it wasn't a planned tactic going into the 08 gf.

Brent Guerra wears a possum on his head. Credibility Zero !

 

[Schauermann]

Do we need to extend the minimum distance from 15m to 20m or is it a case of the umpires being more diligent in administering the current 15m rule?

That was my first taught. Only a change in interpretation needed.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Would help if they stopped paying marks for 5m kicks.

This.

Perhaps a physics student can do some calcs for us on how hard you have to kick the ball for it to travel 15m in the air without going above waist height. Am pretty sure it is not humanely possible to do this yet week in week out we see marks played on the end of these kicks.

Perhaps the rule should be that the kick also has to go above shoulder height at some point in its travel.

 

[Pessimistic]

Wow !

How to be off topic. What does Geelong's blocking have to do with the OP. Nothing !

The silliest thing is that this PROPOSED rule change has nothing to do with Hawthorn's playing style ? Hawthorn usually kick the ball forward unlike many other teams. My guess is that the proposed rule change is to stop teams chipping the ball sideways and forwards.

Imo if theres doubt, this will make kickers more likely to kick sideways or backwards

 

[Pessimistic]

Overreaction - they changed it from 10 to 15 to 'stop' the chip chip stuff back in 2002-2003. They may as well not call a mark unless it's a big booming kick into the forward line.

Like i said, nothing new and increasing the length has failed, so they want to do the same again ?