Rules you would like to see implemented

[matty lloyd the champ]

Maybe have a 25m penalty for minor infrigements like moving on the mark or getting into the prohibited zone. The penalty is too harsh for such a minor infraction.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Pay a free kick for too high when Jack Ginnivan is taken high.

Pay 50m penalty when Jack Ginnivan gets a free kick or takes a mark and then is given additional treatment by the opposition players.

Get rid of umps bouncing the ball altogether. Just throw it up.

great post

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I've been seeing this a bit lately. A player has the ball, is tackled, they go to ground and it's holding this ball. As the player who was tackled is getting up, he leaves the ball on the ground. To me, that's a 50 metre penalty but it's not being paid.

 

[TheWeapon]

Outlaw double goals from free kicks, second free kick should be taken from the centre of the ground if dissent is after the first goal

 

[Chief]

Outlaw double goals from free kicks, second free kick should be taken from the centre of the ground if dissent is after the first goal

Wasn't there a free kick given at the centre, then MORE dissent got a 50? Maybe I had it wrong.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Maybe have a 25m penalty for minor infrigements like moving on the mark or getting into the prohibited zone. The penalty is too harsh for such a minor infraction.

A funny one for minor infringements would be a free handball instead of a free kick.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Wasn't there a free kick given at the centre, then MORE dissent got a 50? Maybe I had it wrong.

It was a single free kick where the disadvantage is greatest, so in the forward 50.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Sort out 'Insifficient Intent'.

Makes zero sense that a guy is liable for keeping the ball in when he clears 40m down the field - yet guys do not need to show any intent whatsoever to keep the ball in play when tackled, when spoiling a marking contest, or when chasing the ball toward the boundary line.

It's completely nonsensical.

Either tighten up on Insufficient Intent across the ground - or relax it for clearing kicks.

 

[marcus1232]

I want to see a complete overhaul of umpiring in general.

The only reason they have instituted the 4 umpire system is to prolong the careers of there experienced umpires because there is not enough talent coming through.

Why is that happening ? ( Main reason money )

But it needs to be fixed from grass roots up

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I want to see a complete overhaul of umpiring in general.

The only reason they have instituted the 4 umpire system is to prolong the careers of there experienced umpires because there is not enough talent coming through.

Why is that happening ? ( Main reason money )

But it needs to be fixed from grass roots up

Bring back 2 umpires.
The boundary umps can police it at centre bounce

More umpires equals less consistency

 

[marcus1232]

Also put more onus on goal umpires to actually make a decision

Its getting to a point now in why even have them other than for pageantry

 

[marcus1232]

Bring back 2 umpires.
The boundary umps can police it at centre bounce

More umpires equals less consistency

That's not fixing the issue of not enough umpires coming through the system though.

A VFL umpire makes a little bit more than an umpire who umpires Division 4 Eastern football games.

Pay them more, you might find more will hang around and wait there time out

 

[Mitchell Madness]

That's not fixing the issue of not enough umpires coming through the system though.

A VFL umpire makes a little bit more than an umpire who umpires Division 4 Eastern football games.

Pay them more, you might find more will hang around and wait there time out

Disagree.
1. Less umps equals more pay per umpire
2.More consistency equals less scrutiny
3. Less scrutiny equals more people viewing it as a pathway

 

[Billy ray]

My rule is that broadcasting companies must allow a crowd noise only option for viewers

 

[BG32]

If the ball goes out of bounds between the arcs from a kick (No one touched it after the boot) it's a free kick to the opposition team

 

[aCunningPlan]

Sort out 'Insifficient Intent'.

Makes zero sense that a guy is liable for keeping the ball in when he clears 40m down the field - yet guys do not need to show any intent whatsoever to keep the ball in play when tackled, when spoiling a marking contest, or when chasing the ball toward the boundary line.

It's completely nonsensical.

Either tighten up on Insufficient Intent across the ground - or relax it for clearing kicks.

I don't quite understand this post, if nothing else the application of insufficient intent is incredibly consistent nowadays. You can still clear kicks, just don't act like an NRL player and kick it to touch.

 

[aCunningPlan]

If the ball goes out of bounds between the arcs from a kick (No one touched it after the boot) it's a free kick to the opposition team

Would that mean allowing deliberate out of bounds for either side within 50m? Would be farcical!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

If the ball goes out of bounds between the arcs from a kick (No one touched it after the boot) it's a free kick to the opposition team

It's a crap rule in the aflw.
The ball begins rolling and the oppo floods back (100% sure it will be their ball), which obviously creates congestion

It also stops teams keeping anyone in position (why keep them in position when you get the free)

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I don't quite understand this post, if nothing else the application of insufficient intent is incredibly consistent nowadays. You can still clear kicks, just don't act like an NRL player and kick it to touch.

It's not consistent.

You can kick a ball 50m and it incidentally goes OoB and you're penalised for not making enough effort to keep the ball in play.

30 seconds later you can literally walk the ball over the boundary line whilst under virtually zero pressure, with the obvious intent of taking the ball OoB, let alone making even an ounce of effort to keep the ball in play - and there's no penalty.

Do you have to make sufficient intent to keep the ball in play or not?

What is the intent of the rule? Isn't it to keep the ball in play? If so, why isn't it being paid consistently?

To make things worse, this bizarre and nonsensical adjudication of the rule literally says to a player 'if you actually attempt a clearing kick to move the ball forward and it happens to roll OoB 50 metres away - you'll get pinged. But if you just hold onto the ball and force either a stoppage, or walk it over the line, you'll be fine.'

As usual it's just yet another moronic AFL brain fart that ends up being counter productive to what its actual intention is.

 

[TheOptimum18]

It's not consistent.

You can kick a ball 50m and it incidentally goes OoB and you're penalised for not making enough effort to keep the ball in play.

30 seconds later you can literally walk the ball over the boundary line whilst under virtually zero pressure, with the obvious intent of taking the ball OoB, let alone making even an ounce of effort to keep the ball in play - and there's no penalty.

Do you have to make sufficient intent to keep the ball in play or not?

What is the intent of the rule? Isn't it to keep the ball in play? If so, why isn't it being paid consistently?

To make things worse, this bizarre and nonsensical adjudication of the rule literally says to a player 'if you actually attempt a clearing kick to move the ball forward and it happens to roll OoB 50 metres away - you'll get pinged. But if you just hold onto the ball and force either a stoppage, or walk it over the line, you'll be fine.'

As usual it's just yet another moronic AFL brain fart that ends up being counter productive to what its actual intention is.

It's consistent in the way it is applied on gameday, it isn't consistent with the actual semantic meaning of the words "insufficient intent".

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It's consistent in the way it is applied on gameday, it isn't consistent with the actual semantic meaning of the words "insufficient intent".

It's not about the meaning of the words - it's about the intent of the rule.

The intent is to prevent the game from slowing down by the ball spending too much time OoB.

Discouraging players from actually moving the ball and clearing it from imminent stoppages with Kong kicks is completely counter productive to that.

Allowing players to deliberately take the ball OoB with no intent at all to keep it in play is also counter productive to that.

 

[Hoops]

As a replacement for insufficient intent (for kicking at least), have a rule that if the kick lands further from an imaginary line going from centre goal to centre goal from where it was kicked (A to B) and goes out of bounds untouched than it's a free. If it goes closer (B-A) than it's thrown in. It doesn't matter if a player is there or not.

This heavily favours forwards as they could kick down the line in their forward half and not be penalised (unless out on the full of course) but the current rules do anyway, yet missing shots going out of bounds from outside the pockets would probably be a free the other way.

 

[LordLucifer]

As a replacement for insufficient intent (for kicking at least), have a rule that if the kick lands further (A to B) from an imaginary line going from centre goal to centre goal from where it was kicked and goes out of bounds untouched than it's a free. If it goes closer (B-A) than it's thrown in. It doesn't matter if a player is there or not.
View attachment 1968216
This heavily favours forwards as they could kick down the line in their forward half and not be penalised (unless out on the full of course) but the current rules do anyway, yet more missed going out of bounds from outside the pockets would probably be a free the other way.

Oh yeah, that will really work.

We already have enough issues without trying to adjudicate the distance of a kick and the trajectory of it.

How about we just piss off the whole deliberate out of bounds thing and be done with it ??

It's poorly administered at the best of times, confusing at worst. Better still, the cynics could argue that the way these decisions are handed out willy-nilly is purely down to match-fixing.

 

[Billy ray]

yeh let teams use the boundary line, clock stops afterall
remove any decisions that are 'grey' and require the umpire to read minds and intent - cos that cannot be done

 

[aCunningPlan]

Oh yeah, that will really work.

We already have enough issues without trying to adjudicate the distance of a kick and the trajectory of it.

How about we just piss off the whole deliberate out of bounds thing and be done with it ??

It's poorly administered at the best of times, confusing at worst. Better still, the cynics could argue that the way these decisions are handed out willy-nilly is purely down to match-fixing.

Genuinely one of the worst suggestions I've seen on this board.