Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2025, Part 2

[tommy2011]

Yeah the sanfl rule is last disposal everywhere which is a brilliant rule, has been massively successful here. I have been a huge advocate. But if I'm reading it right they only want it to apply outside f50 and d50, which is a mistake.

They need to eliminate umpire interpretation not leave it there in places and not others.

It's the interpretation of the central umps that's the problem. Get them out of any decision making on boundary line matters. A good boundary ump would have a better idea if a player has done his best to keep the ball in play. The boundary can be a chaotic place. Last touch (despite its apparent success in SA) could well lead to players simply opting out of the contest. Not a good look.

 

[standupand]

Yeah the sanfl rule is last disposal everywhere which is a brilliant rule, has been massively successful here. I have been a huge advocate. But if I'm reading it right they only want it to apply outside f50 and d50, which is a mistake.

They need to eliminate umpire interpretation not leave it there in places and not others.

I'm with you 100% on this.

Between the arcs actually complicates the rule even further. It is so dumb. So typical of the half-measures that the AFL introduce.

Umpires have to adjudicate according to two separate rules then depending on whether it is i50 or not. According to one it still has to be "insufficient intent" presumably. According to the other, intent doesn't come into it and it is last possession. Then there are those where the kick was i50 but it went out between the arcs. Or vice versa.

Just bring in the SANFL rule and be done with it. It works. It's simpler. It improves the flow of the game.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

It's the interpretation of the central umps that's the problem. Get them out of any decision making on boundary line matters. A good boundary ump would have a better idea if a player has done his best to keep the ball in play. The boundary can be a chaotic place. Last touch (despite its apparent success in SA) could well lead to players simply opting out of the contest. Not a good look.

I think you're over thinking it. The rule changes the way players kick not so much the way players run.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I'm with you 100% on this.

Between the arcs actually complicates the rule even further. It is so dumb. So typical of the half-measures that the AFL introduce.

Umpires have to adjudicate according to two separate rules then depending on whether it is i50 or not. According to one it still has to be "insufficient intent" presumably. According to the other, intent doesn't come into it and it is last possession. Then there are those where the kick was i50 but it went out between the arcs. Or vice versa.

Just bring in the SANFL rule and be done with it. It works. It's simpler. It improves the flow of the game.

It's progress at least

 

[D BRIDGE]

Is this potential last touch thing for literally last touched for everything, or just clean kicks/handballs that go OOB without touching a finger?

 

[cats_09]

Is this potential last touch thing for literally last touched for everything, or just clean kicks/handballs that go OOB without touching a finger?

If they use the same rule as for the AFLW, last touch is actually last disposal

• a kick, handball or even accidental soccer that goes over the boundary line between the arcs will result in the a lasso free kick (last disposal)
• where there's been a spoil, fumble or unclear from a contest situation, it'll be thrown in

So teams are still encouraged to defend with a spoil or punch of the ball, run your ass off to get a hand to the bouncing ball etc as that will result in a throw in

But if it's a kick down the line, errant handball etc - then free kick

 

[standupand]

It's progress at least

Well maybe we differ there. To me its regress as it would mean 2 rules instead of 1, unnecessarily.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Well maybe we differ there. To me its regress as it would mean 2 rules instead of 1, unnecessarily.

I would prefer 1 rule for sure, but at least we're removing some of the interpretation.

A jury and 5 weeks of deliberation and a court of law struggles to establish motive but an umpire needs to make a call on it within a split second. That part needs to go in the bin.

 

[standupand]

I would prefer 1 rule for sure, but at least we're removing some of the interpretation.

A jury and 5 weeks of deliberation and a court of law struggles to establish motive but an umpire needs to make a call on it within a split second. That part needs to go in the bin.

I like the court analogy.

They too have one standard of proof for one area (beyond reasonable doubt) and another standard for another (on balance of probabilities).

Yet umpires and players and fans will have the even trickier task of holding two standards for oob in their head on the one field of play and apply one inside the arc and another between the arcs.

I can tell you what will happen. No umpire will be game enough to call any deliberate oob anymore when it is inside the arcs unless it is extremely obvious.

 

[Kitcat]

I would prefer 1 rule for sure, but at least we're removing some of the interpretation.

A jury and 5 weeks of deliberation and a court of law struggles to establish motive but an umpire needs to make a call on it within a split second. That part needs to go in the bin.

Some of the considerations for changing the rule to only apply between the arcs are that-

1. it would make the Cameron lead into the right pocket less attractive as an attacking option because a pass from Stengle that goes a couple of metres in front of him and then bounces out is punished by a free kick to the opposition. It would make Stengle think twice before doing so, and instead perhaps take the option of booting to the pack.

2. Jack Henry gets the ball under pressure in the back pocket and hurriedly clears it 30 metres towards Humphries and it lands 2 metres in front of him but takes a right angle bounce and runs 10 metres over the line. Result: a shot at goal from 30 metres out.

3. Charlie Cameron gets the ball near the boundary 30 metres out, Miers tackles him and the ball goes loose, but it makes contact with Miers' boot and dribbles over the line. Result: a shot at goal from 30 metres out.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I like the court analogy.

They too have one standard of proof for one area (beyond reasonable doubt) and another standard for another (on balance of probabilities).

Yet umpires and players and fans will have the even trickier task of holding two standards for oob in their head on the one field of play and apply one inside the arc and another between the arcs.

I can tell you what will happen. No umpire will be game enough to call any deliberate oob anymore when it is inside the arcs unless it is extremely obvious.

Yeah the rule will be forgotten, like ducking into a tackle being prior

 

[standupand]

Some of the considerations for changing the rule to only apply between the arcs are that-

1. it would make the Cameron lead into the right pocket less attractive as an attacking option because a pass from Stengle that goes a couple of metres in front of him and then bounces out is punished by a free kick to the opposition. It would make Stengle think twice before doing so, and instead perhaps take the option of booting to the pack.

2. Jack Henry gets the ball under pressure in the back pocket and hurriedly clears it 30 metres towards Humphries and it lands 2 metres in front of him but takes a right angle bounce and runs 10 metres over the line. Result: a shot at goal from 30 metres out.

3. Charlie Cameron gets the ball near the boundary 30 metres out, Miers tackles him and the ball goes loose, but it makes contact with Miers' boot and dribbles over the line. Result: a shot at goal from 30 metres out.

My understanding of the SANFL rule is that number 3 scenario would be a throw in.

For the others I think yes there would greater onus to hit targets. Poor kicking is poor football after all.

 

[Kitcat]

My understanding of the SANFL rule is that number 3 scenario would be a throw in.

For the others I think yes there would greater onus to hit targets. Poor kicking is poor football after all.

So a soccer kick that rolls out is ok under SANFL?
None of my 3 examples involve poor kicks.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What are the rule changes?? Seems things are getting stupid

 

[geelong_crazy26]

This rule change of last touch in will punish quick sides who like to use the width of grounds for speed and transition forcing everyone to narrow the field.

It will disadvantage a side like us who uses the whole width of the MCG to open teams up.

What is with this poster rule bouncing it to play??? Surely not

 

[standupand]

So a soccer kick that rolls out is ok under SANFL?
None of my 3 examples involve poor kicks.

Yes if it just hits the boot accidentally and goes out it's a throw in.

Not sure we're disagreeing much on the second point. A poor kick can be considered one that misses it's target which is how I understood those 2 scenarios, either the ball bounced first before reaching the target and went out or it went too wide of a player leading towards the pocket. Don't see any issue with treating those kicks as if they were on the full.

 

[Munich]

Crowbots had the flu last week apparently.

 

[dudusmaximus]

Some of the considerations for changing the rule to only apply between the arcs are that-

1. it would make the Cameron lead into the right pocket less attractive as an attacking option because a pass from Stengle that goes a couple of metres in front of him and then bounces out is punished by a free kick to the opposition. It would make Stengle think twice before doing so, and instead perhaps take the option of booting to the pack.

2. Jack Henry gets the ball under pressure in the back pocket and hurriedly clears it 30 metres towards Humphries and it lands 2 metres in front of him but takes a right angle bounce and runs 10 metres over the line. Result: a shot at goal from 30 metres out.

3. Charlie Cameron gets the ball near the boundary 30 metres out, Miers tackles him and the ball goes loose, but it makes contact with Miers' boot and dribbles over the line. Result: a shot at goal from 30 metres out.

Said another way..

The reason it is a free kick only between the arcs (assuming that's the proposed change) is, within the 50m arc, a team can score. You'll be gifting them a free hit.

Swann's logic fails in that players can still score from the boundary line, from outside 50 (e.g. Duncan's drop punt).

Best to keep the rule simple and say it is last disposal all over the ground. Defenders will do their darnedest to keep the ball in play. More skills on display. Structured+Skilled teams like us with have the ball over at the other end in a flash!

 

[cats_09]

 

[cats_09]

 

[The Unforgiven]

Anyone else hoping Crom goes out in straight sets so we can smash Hawthorn in a Prelim?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Anyone else hoping Crom goes out in straight sets so we can smash Hawthorn in a Prelim?

...

I am about to become a captain for the first time this summer, and the team I likely will have will have two typically arrogant and obnoxious Hawk fans in it.

OUT.

 

[Kitcat]

Said another way..

The reason it is a free kick only between the arcs (assuming that's the proposed change) is, within the 50m arc, a team can score. You'll be gifting them a free hit.

Swann's logic fails in that players can still score from the boundary line, from outside 50 (e.g. Duncan's drop punt).

Best to keep the rule simple and say it is last disposal all over the ground. Defenders will do their darnedest to keep the ball in play. More skills on display. Structured+Skilled teams like us with have the ball over at the other end in a flash!

Goals from the boundary line outside the arc are extremely rare.

In examples 2 and 3 the defender has done nothing wrong (as they had no intention of letting the ball go out of play) other than be the victim of a bad bounce, yet gets a free kick against, probably resulting in a shot at goal. Totally disproportionate.
That is a bad look.

 

[dudusmaximus]

Goals from the boundary line outside the arc are extremely rare.

In examples 2 and 3 the defender has done nothing wrong (as they had no intention of letting the ball go out of play) other than be the victim of a bad bounce, yet gets a free kick against, probably resulting in a shot at goal. Totally disproportionate.
That is a bad look.

Measuring intent brings a whole lot of subjectivity into it. Fairness against intent is not the goal here. Reducing time herding the rucks for a throw-in is.

 

[Cataholic]

What are the rule changes?? Seems things are getting stupid

Yeah, some rule changes are good, some not so much, but the incessant wont to meddle with the rules every damn year just seems like meddling for meddling's sake.