‘That is wrong and unfair’: AFL greats slams ‘crazy’ rule change conversation

[Holden Hillbilly]

AFL greats Ross Lyon and Matthew Lloyd have slammed a potential change for spoiling the ball in season 2021 and beyond.
According to veteran AFL journalist Caroline Wilson, the AFL commission have discussed a change in the rules which would see defenders spoiling a ball out of bounds being a free kick to the opposition for a deliberate out of bounds.

It is a move designed to speed up the game with Wilson believing a number of top level commission members are in favour.

‘That is wrong and unfair’: AFL greats slams ‘crazy’ rule change conversation

‘Wrong and unfair’: AFL greats slam ‘crazy’ rule change proposal

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[BF Tiger]

Stop ruining our game.

 

[Breretonisahood]

This would be a ridiculous rule if brought in. This endless tampering with the fundamentals of the game has to stop. You get the impression the AFL doesn’t actually like Aussie Rules and is slowly but surely trying to change the game into something fundamentally different that it calls “AFL”.

 

[And_ROOS]

Would rather they roll back the rules to about 2007 and leave it. Current rules are hot garbage.

 

[Kwality]

Would rather they roll back the rules to about 2007 and leave it. Current rules are hot garbage.

Why 2007 ?

The review of the game suggested by Andrew Pridham should involve the rules.

The review should go back to the introduction of the rules committee whenever that was, to me thats 18 + 2 reserves/no interchange, no deliberate out of bounds.
NO, I'm not suggesting we go back there for 2021 or beyond, work our way through the rule changes & consider the success of the change.

Keep McLachlan out of the room.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yeah wait till the hawks no longer have the best small forward trio to bring this in

 

[hcd199]

It's pretty self-evidently idiotic, part of the same ludicrous fantasy that some of those in power have of a "free-flowing" ideal version of the sport they can somehow manifest by continually stripping away defensive options. I mean, just on the face of this suggestion it seems like it would further encourage attacking around the boundary (since you're more likely to get a free from a spoil there), which seems pretty contrary to the overall aim they tend to try to engender with these kinds of changes... not to mention that, since teams will always want to restrict their opponents, their focus with regards to every "attacking" rule change like this is quite rightly going to be nullifying the advantages the rule is supposed to confer.

With all that said, I suspect we're not going to see this one: it seems like exactly the sort of suggestion that gets publicised for the sake of reducing resistance when the actual changes they eventually implement are milder. Which is not to say they'll be any better...

 

[jabba5114]

It's pretty self-evidently idiotic, part of the same ludicrous fantasy that some of those in power have of a "free-flowing" ideal version of the sport they can somehow manifest by continually stripping away defensive options. I mean, just on the face of this suggestion it seems like it would further encourage attacking around the boundary (since you're more likely to get a free from a spoil there), which seems pretty contrary to the overall aim they tend to try to engender with these kinds of changes... not to mention that, since teams will always want to restrict their opponents, their focus with regards to every "attacking" rule change like this is quite rightly going to be nullifying the advantages the rule is supposed to confer.

With all that said, I suspect we're not going to see this one: it seems like exactly the sort of suggestion that gets publicised for the sake of reducing resistance when the actual changes they eventually implement are milder. Which is not to say they'll be any better...

So you think they won't class it as deliberate but bring in a last touch rule. Get what they want anyway.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Kwality]

So you think they won't class it as deliberate but bring in a last touch rule. Get what they want anyway.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Lets hope Pridhams call for a review puts a stop to this.

 

[falcons2]

It's pretty self-evidently idiotic, part of the same ludicrous fantasy that some of those in power have of a "free-flowing" ideal version of the sport they can somehow manifest by continually stripping away defensive options. I mean, just on the face of this suggestion it seems like it would further encourage attacking around the boundary (since you're more likely to get a free from a spoil there), which seems pretty contrary to the overall aim they tend to try to engender with these kinds of changes... not to mention that, since teams will always want to restrict their opponents, their focus with regards to every "attacking" rule change like this is quite rightly going to be nullifying the advantages the rule is supposed to confer.

With all that said, I suspect we're not going to see this one: it seems like exactly the sort of suggestion that gets publicised for the sake of reducing resistance when the actual changes they eventually implement are milder. Which is not to say they'll be any better...

Well said hcd. The mindset in AFL clubs is to use the boundary as a security mechanism. It used to be the realm of the defender -'the boundary line is your best friend' and so on. Now it is an attacking strategy. Get the stoppage and aim to control the set play.
Take this away by getting the ball into play quickly. The boundary just gets the ball and throws it in. Too bad if the rucks aren't in place. Currently they jiggle about on the spot, get the ok from the field umpire that the rucks have nominated and are in place, throw in it at a certain height and distance in - on it goes.
Just throw it in. Teams aren't set or ready so the set play is lost, strategy squashed.
But like all practices this requires a rule, if the ruck hits the ball forward and it goes out un touched - free against.

 

[Kwality]

Well said hcd. The mindset in AFL clubs is to use the boundary as a security mechanism. It used to be the realm of the defender -'the boundary line is your best friend' and so on. Now it is an attacking strategy. Get the stoppage and aim to control the set play.
Take this away by getting the ball into play quickly. The boundary just gets the ball and throws it in. Too bad if the rucks aren't in place. Currently they jiggle about on the spot, get the ok from the field umpire that the rucks have nominated and are in place, throw in it at a certain height and distance in - on it goes.
Just throw it in. Teams aren't set or ready so the set play is lost, strategy squashed.
But like all practices this requires a rule, if the ruck hits the ball forward and it goes out un touched - free against.

Why does the current arrangement need to change, what is the problem needing fixing?
What will be result of these changes?

The game was once known as 'cross country basketball' - is that the aim?

 

[falcons2]

Why does the current arrangement need to change, what is the problem needing fixing?
What will be result of these changes?

The game was once known as 'cross country basketball' - is that the aim?

I think the AFL are concerned with the amount of boundary stoppages. Actually near the goals they can be quite exciting. The boring stuff is between the 50m arcs. The trouble is changing rules doesn't change the mindset of boundary as a control mechanism. That's why I suggest change to effect the control mechanism. (get to ball in play)
If the spoil becomes a free kick I'm telling my team - long and high to the pocket every time. 50 forward entries should lead to 50 shots at goal. I don't think that would be a good result for the game.

 

[BronCrow]

It is a stupid idea.

If the AFL really want to speed the game up, look at what happens in the SANFL with the last touch rule.

 

[HairyO]

What the actual *.

 

[JT_the_Man]

Genuinely think this idea may be the single stupidest thing I’ve seen in my entire life.

 

[Generalissimo]

A couple of years ago Tom Lonergan got done for that against West Coast on a night when the umps decided everything was deliberately out of bounds. Everyone thought it was stupid. It's still a stupid idea.

 

[Wallaby]

They'll do a survey among 'fans' in Sydney cafes, the Gold Coast strip and they'll poll a few overseas watchers of AFL.com and report back that 'The fans like it when there are a lot of goals kicked, because the funny men make the silly signal with their fingers'.

Meanwhile, members and supporters who have followed the games for years will be told (again) that they need to move into and embrace 'the modern era'.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

And you will all keep handing over your money to these idiots by turning up and tuning in. They know we are sheep.
You want the sport fixed then stop attending and supporting this new sport called AFL.
Such a shame the great sport of Australian Football was allowed to die by us.

 

[Topkent]

Stop ruining our game.

Games been ruined for ******* years, every year it gets a little bit worse

 

[afl genius]

This would mean teams would kick closer to the boundary line though in theory as the defender can't spoil that side of the contest making it very easy for the attacking team to either get the ball straight back or the forward marks. Maybe examine why teams want to always kick down the line rather than corridor and look at that in stead or if the ball goes out just throw it in start away rather than wait 15 seconds. Absolute madness

 

[kickazz]

If I my use the most eloquent of footy phrases:

"Yeah nah"

 

[kickazz]

This would mean teams would kick closer to the boundary line though in theory as the defender can't spoil that side of the contest making it very easy for the attacking team to either get the ball straight back or the forward marks. Maybe examine why teams want to always kick down the line rather than corridor and look at that in stead or if the ball goes out just throw it in start away rather than wait 15 seconds. Absolute madness

It is amazing (actually it's not) how easily us punters can see that next step ahead when it comes to proposed rules. The AFL always fail to think even one step ahead like this.

They would make terrible chess players.

 

[sdfc]

Surely this is an off season any media is good media story from the AFL. Did someone press send a few weeks early?

 

[Rob]

I can understand why Ellis-Yolmen got a game - he's a big body that gets a lot of the ball in the clinches. The problem is that he's just so s**t. Has no composure and turns it over at will.

 

[Makka]

They should stop f***ing around with the rules and maybe spend the time on getting the umpires up to scratch. This suggested rule change is as stupid as moving a patch of the MCG turf up to the GABBA! Who the actual f*** is running this sh*t show??