Analysis 2019 rule changes now official

[Spook]

It's the worse rule change and there are some doozies. let's remove a black and white rule with one that is more grey than a Melbournes winters day

Have you ever played? Even if you are just a kick to kick in the park hero you'd know that you feel for players while you have your eyes on the ball. Just having your hands out and player backs into them shouldn't be and should never have been a free kick.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

AFL is like an overweight man who says he is going to start eating right and going to the gym, and for a good 2 weeks he means it, but after two weeks he says "that is too hard" and ends up only adding one apple to his daily food intake, and changing nothing else about his life.

Gym? Apple? Not me, then.

 

[NoobPie]

Hello Steve Hocking - never knew you supported Sydney....

He’s mocking hysterical reactionaries and that makes him Steve Hocking?

 

[NoobPie]

So a player taking a kick out steps outside the goalsquare - is there a penalty/ball up? What is the difference between that and playing on? It's an unnecessary change by an incompetent administration.

Groan

There isn’t, it’s play on whether he steps out or runs out

The silly ball up because someone’s toe was on the goal square no longer exists. Good riddance

It is a great rule change.

You confuse your lack of comprehension for a lack purpose for the rule

 

[NoobPie]

I'm generally in favour of these rule changes, other then the change to prior for ruckmen.

I wonder what happens to the 'out on the full' rule for kick-outs that aren't touched before crossing the boundary?

Umpires will no longer need to watch the kick out so closely to ensure a player doesn't step over the goalsquare line when kicking out, but this now will be the difference between a free kick or a throw in if I read it correctly.

Also means players kicking out are best to always step at least a little over the goal line to avoid the possiblity of giving away a free kick if they miss their target.

I would assume that an untouched ball would be a free kick regardless of whether it was kicked from the square or not

 

[Sentinel]

I would assume that an untouched ball would be a free kick regardless of whether it was kicked from the square or not

Perhaps, but where does it end? Theoretically the player kicking out could run the length of the ground before disposing of it. Unless you ruled a bounce to be a 'touch' but thats starting to overcomplicate things.

I'd be in favour of just abolishing it completely in favour of the stricter deliberate out of bounds interpretation they have these days.

 

[NoobPie]

Perhaps, but where does it end? Theoretically the player kicking out could run the length of the ground before disposing of it. Unless you ruled a bounce to be a 'touch' but thats starting to overcomplicate things.

I'd be in favour of just abolishing it completely in favour of the stricter deliberate out of bounds interpretation they have these days.

I think that idea is better. Scrap it as an explicit rule.

Otherwise I think it is would have to be applied to the first kick from the guy who takes the kick out, wherever it occurs (even if he runs the whole field)

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Groan

There isn’t, it’s play on whether he steps out or runs out

The silly ball up because someone’s toe was on the goal square no longer exists. Good riddance

It is a great rule change.

You confuse your lack of comprehension for a lack purpose for the rule

So it's a "silly rule" when you're getting rid of a longstanding rule regarding a player who has the ball and their position within the markings on the field of play, but it's a completely necessary rule when implementing a new rule regarding a player who does not have the ball and their position within the markings of the field of play (6-6-6 rule).

You got a new hobby horse now that your mates are no longer pushing that 17-5 abortion?

 

[NoobPie]

So it's a "silly rule" when you're getting rid of a longstanding rule regarding a player who has the ball and their position within the markings on the field of play, but it's a completely necessary rule when implementing a new rule regarding a player who does not have the ball and their position within the markings of the field of play (6-6-6 rule).

You got a new hobby horse now that your mates are no longer pushing that 17-5 abortion?

What the hell are you on about?

Your mother told you you were intelligent too often. She created a monster

 

[Chris Pelchen]

People are overreacting. This is either going to be good for the game, or do absolutely nothing substantial.

Except hold the game up for 5 minutes after every goal while players try to get back to their respective 50. Guess that means more opportunity for TV commercials doesn't it. Great if you're into that. Too bad if you just love footy.
Geez some people will believe anything feed to them by the AFL . Talk about dumbed down average footy fans giving the AFL the power to implement this disaster.
Is it gonna be a free kick at goal from the square to the opposition if you don't get back in time? Or will coaches instruct their players to hobble back to avoid interchange rotations.
We will have a record quarter length next season. 1 hour qtrs coming up.
Good for the game or do nothing.....lol

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Yer just like Carlton got 5 50's in 1 round this year with the stupid zone rule.
Thank god that got relaxed.

Watch Curnow kick 5 R1 next year pushing Rance in the back haha

You're not allowed to PUSH in the back, that's still a free kick, its only the hands in the back, without a push that is no longer a free kick.

Great rule change.

 

[Father Jack]

Except hold the game up for 5 minutes after every goal while players try to get back to their respective 50. Guess that means more opportunity for TV commercials doesn't it. Great if you're into that. Too bad if you just love footy.
Geez some people will believe anything feed to them by the AFL . Talk about dumbed down average footy fans giving the AFL the power to implement this disaster.
Is it gonna be a free kick at goal from the square to the opposition if you don't get back in time? Or will coaches instruct their players to hobble back to avoid interchange rotations.
We will have a record quarter length next season. 1 hour qtrs coming up.
Good for the game or do nothing.....lol

really? you honestly this will happen? you think the ump is going to stand around while players waste time?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

The no prior for ruckman out of the ruck will be a good time-waster late in games. Ruckman can just take the ball out of the ruck and get tackled - another ballup. Can do it all day long.

And how many frees will be given away by waterboys and runners. Just no need to have that rule.

Absolutely mind blowing that they’d bring that one in when their whole mantra is to end congestion. The “interpretation” will be relaxed by the end of the Richmond-Carlton game (assuming it’s still alive after the preseason).

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

This play on while the 50 is being measured is going to cause confusion and chaos

 

[Gibbke]

Well, I'll go against the grain here - I like the new rules...!

No big game redefinitions here, just a few tighten ups. Runners and water boys can get the f### off the field - always thought that, and every other sport on the planet laughs at us because of the weird multifunctional population on the field at any one time...more restriction on their movement, I say...

If you get pinged for not being back in time for the bounce, well...take your celebratory hands off that man's arse and gtf back into position before the bounce!

I like the set shot rule - allows Buddy to be Buddy but doesn't let him unfairly improve the angle...

You'll see some confusing moments until they sort out the kick in...that's just one that makes it a little simpler for umpires...

The two things they must fix are:
1) Deliberate out of bounds,
2) And now that it's a thing, player headcounts. They can point the finger at the SANFL and NEAFL all they like, but some public revelations (like this happens more than you think!) make this a rule custodians (read: AFL) issue...replace Woodville with Collingwood and North Adelaide with Richmond and you can imagine the potential shitstorm...!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What the hell are you on about?

Your mother told you you were intelligent too often. She created a monster

Lol ok mate

 

[Pessimistic]

Except hold the game up for 5 minutes after every goal while players try to get back to their respective 50. Guess that means more opportunity for TV commercials doesn't it. Great if you're into that. Too bad if you just love footy.
Geez some people will believe anything feed to them by the AFL . Talk about dumbed down average footy fans giving the AFL the power to implement this disaster.
Is it gonna be a free kick at goal from the square to the opposition if you don't get back in time? Or will coaches instruct their players to hobble back to avoid interchange rotations.
We will have a record quarter length next season. 1 hour qtrs coming up.
Good for the game or do nothing.....lol

Another technicality. GWS played part of one game with less than 18 players due to having injuries.
Do they get further punished for not having 6 in each sector?

 

[NoobPie]

It's hilarious the people here who think they are profound, maverick independent thinkers but really they hear "rule changes" and "AFL" and their amygdala twitches and flood of nonsense comes out. They are just another member of a low grade hive mind spewing nonsense

People theorising about one hour quarters, morons asserting that the removal of ball ups for toe on the line kick out infringements is some loss in and of itself. Just some of the more recent examples of nonsense in this thread

Here's my prediction. The rules will overall have a very positive impact on the game. There will be some marginal unintended consequences and trade offs (as there inevitably will be) that the same feral hive mind will train in on completely dissassociated with all their dead sh?t predictions that didn't happen

Anybody who actual thinks can see that the process this year is far superior to the previous "rules committee" based approach. Two of the rules have overturned previous changes from that process (ruck and hands in the back).

The other rules are interventionist changes that tip the balance back towards attack over defense, reduce congestion at the margins and / remove idiosyncrasies. i.e:
-6-6-6 starting positions which increases space at the restart and removes the ability to start extra numbers behind the ball
-the two kick out changes which re-balances an unbalanced restart after a point
-9 metre minimum mark distance...obvious one
-50 metre rule...currently teams are very comfortable risking 50s in the oppositions back half because they can slow the game and set up their defensive form
-removing runners from open play....another obvious one
-allowing players to employ modern goal kicking approaches after the siren...another obvious one unless you think rules should prescribe techniques

Now, of course the AFL is in part motivated in this by maximising the next TV deal. No doubt the large reset now is to provide momentum going in to the next negotiations

Beyond that though all these reactionary morons are just fools with Nietzsche-complexes.

 

[NoobPie]

Another technicality. GWS played part of one game with less than 18 players due to having injuries.
Do they get further punished for not having 6 in each sector?

I suspect you can have no more than x in each sector

 

[Mordecai]

Anyone know the penalty for players not being in 666 position?

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

Anyone know the penalty for players not being in 666 position?

Death by snoo snoo

 

[RUNVS]

Death by snoo snoo

Snu Snu

 

[Pessimistic]

What happens when there's only 17 fit players?

You can only punish a player for being the 7th player. you cant punish a player for not being the 6th

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Another technicality. GWS played part of one game with less than 18 players due to having injuries.
Do they get further punished for not having 6 in each sector?

I assume it's a maximum of six in each zone.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No problems with the changes won’t make a difference anyway. I like the new ruck rule.