Analysis 2019 rule changes now official

[FRUMPY]

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

As long as we kick more goals after qtr time than we did in 2018

 

[noodle]

You just pick up a ball from the bag, sprint through goal line, put just one foot in the closest corner of the goal square, and just keep on running to the flank before anyone has reacted.

So what purpose does the square serve now?

 

[Magnum27]

Not sure about that. I read it as a player can just go for a run outside the square if the opportunity presents itself.

Maybe that is the case, that being so why have the goal square then ?

 

[kangaspurs]

So what purpose does the square serve now?

Because if players are set up, you might not have the opportunity to play on and want the time to assess options. The square still gives the player room to do this without being called play on as soon as he moves off the line.

 

[richcogs]

Imagine all the ####ing media articles we are going to be seeing from all the experts analyzing how each game was officiated each Monday. I don't follow any sport as closely as our great game. But do soccer, NFL, NHL, Baseball, ect... Change the rules every single year???????

If you just arrive in the country and have never seen a game it's going to be bloody difficult to follow.

I'm sure clubs will be employing extra staff to tactically analysis everything.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

"We don't want to change too much to retain the traditional feel of the game"

Nine ****ing rule changes later.

 

[ptrg]

Quite honestly, you could have six guys stand at the ball bag, all pretend to pick up a ball, all sprint out the square at the same time, and one of them has an actual ball.

They thought the deliberate rush behind exploitation in the Hawks grand final was a flaw, wait till they see what players can now do with this.

 

[Matsu]

Feel like I'm looking at a list of Overwatch patch changes. AFL 1.235 released bug fixes, buffs and neffs listed below.

Still waiting for plus 0.5 'make the game great again' buff but maybe in the next patch

Seriously though the hands in the back and the play on after a behind could make for good viewing, contests and interesting setups and tactics. Seems like this version of the game suits organised teams with decent talls.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

"At kick-ins, a player will no longer need to kick to himself to play on from the goalsquare."

So does this make it impossible to step outside of the square at kick ins?

This is what i don't get, if they don't play on do they still have to have a foot inside the square when they kick it?

Bloody muppets

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I'm generally not favour willy nilly changes but I'm ok with what's proposed.
Unintended consequences are always a risk but I think the ruck changes are good news for ruckmen, and make dead rucks less likely. The setup changes will assist the better teams as well I think. Crowding the centre bounces seems to be a negating tactic when a teams midfield cant do it head to head.

 

[master bate]

Good:
- Runners and waterboys
- Play on from 50m penalties
- Extra room kicking from deep in the backline
- Umpire contact

Bad
- 10m from kick in is good, but why remove the little kick to yourself? That's history!
- Angled run up for after siren shots? Why?? Again, history.

Ugly
- Hands in the back. That will end in tears. A black and white rule replaced with chaos
- Grabbing the ball out of the ruck. Repeat stoppage after repeat stoppage coming up.
- 6-6-6 does nothing to solve congestion and ruins tactical innovation

 

[ptrg]

What if the umpire doesn’t see an instant run-in after a point and doesn’t call play on.
Does it still count?

Where does his 15m start from? His first step into the square, or first step on leaving the square?

 

[ptrg]

Only thing I can say about the ruck rule is that the HTB rule still requires you to make a genuine attempt to get rid of it legally.

At least the opposition ruckman could tackle them without pinning the arms and force him to dispose of it.

 

[Maveric]

Didn't listen to what the fans wanted, only listened to themselves as usual. The only positive change is the hands in the back rule, but the umpires will be that bloody confused by it they will either still pay it anyway or be scared to pay a hands in the back full stop (even when blatant).
The grand final showed that our game is still great, by the time Gill is finished with it it will resemble the 20/20 garbage they rolled out in the preseason

 

[falcons2]

This all seems pretty good.
Rucks - good
Runners off - Good
Clear mark position for deep defence - good
50m play on - good

Umpire contact - no real difference
Round the corner after the siren. Hmmm. Will set squares be out? No real difference
666 why not. No real difference

I think the play on from the goal square will cause some confusion and need clear explanation. Does the kicker-in have to wait until the man on the mark is in place? Can he handball it?
As will hands in the back. When does holding your ground become a push?

Will any of these change congestion? Doubt it!

 

[ptrg]

Also, if the man on the mark at a kick in is now required to be 19m away from the centre of the goals, how far away do any other defending teams need to be away in the pockets?

Can you have a guy either side of the goal square? If not, how close?

 

[ptrg]

I think the play on from the goal square will cause some confusion and need clear explanation. Does the kicker-in have to wait until the man on the mark is in place? Can he handball it?

What if like, on many occasions, they decide to change who’s “kicking in”? If another guy comes into the square to take over and is handballed the ball from his teammate, is that now deemed play on?

If so, what if his mate throws it to him? How would anyone know if they are playing on or handing it over?

 

[mike123]

The only awful change here is the starting positions. That will be gone in 2 or 3 years.

The rest make a lot of sense in the context of the modern game. I actually like the change to the kick in. While it's good to keep some traditions, the idea that you can only kick it out or kick it to yourself before playing on is one that is retrograde and doesn't fit with the rest of the game, where you don't have to do it anywhere else on the ground in order to play on. This will make that part of the game move a lot quicker and give teams a chance to play fast, attacking footy.

I think, too, people are forgetting that a ruckman isn't unopposed in the ruck contest. Late in the game, sure, he can try to grab it and lock it in, but the other ruck will just belt it away. It will also give an advantage to teams that actually play ruckmen instead of 1850 cm mids in the ruck, which is needed.

That’s one ****ing tall midfielder

 

[Caveman68]

Seriously, has it taken a “team of people” 10 months to come up with this novelty shit? This is a serious question. This is time and resources away from things like grass roots footy investment. Just when I think this mob can’t get any worse, they prove me wrong.

 

[Vindicater]

The AFL will change these rules very soon.

 

[space_cowboy]

For fear of it being misinterpreted, I won't say 'Go, Gill. Go.'

But I wish to God he would...

 

[hcd199]

Happy with the restrictions on runners, but that's about it. (Don't mind the 'hands in the back' change in principle, but, with a few exceptions, they've basically officiated it in that way for the last couple of years anyway; making the change official means we'll probably see a few blatant pushes unpaid early next year...)

Allowing ruckmen to take the ball cleanly from the ruck without being deemed to have prior is completely moronic; they've spent the best part of the last decade tweaking HTB to try and make it harder to lock the ball up at stoppages (diving = HTB, must make genuine attempt if no prior, ducking/fending = prior...), only to completely undermine that with this change.

Changes to kick-ins/defensive marks are daft (though, in fairness, not as daft as the elongated square). Making it easier to play on from a kick-in needlessly undermines the previous rules about not overstepping the square for minimal benefit...

I would assume they mean when the ump calls play on only.

...unless they just mean this (which I now really hope they do). I actually wouldn't mind if, once play on is called, the player kicking in is effectively treated as just a normal player who happened to be standing in the square; it's the idea that the square is effectively made meaningless for kick-ins that I have a problem with.

Giving defensive marks more room is unnecessary as well, and won't achieve anything worthwhile, but will create pointless technical issues. For example, Defender marks deep in the back pocket, kicks the ball off a couple of steps, Man On The Mark smothers - 50m because MOTM wasn't behind the artificial mark (despite not having moved forward to encroach)? Play on, because D took steps and then kicked (even though he's still behind the artificial mark, so should be able to do this unimpeded)? Bring the ball back, because the umpire hadn't finished setting up the artificial mark (undermining the "free-flowing" intention of the rule)? "After more than a year of consultation", these proposals are implemented - but what's the bet that these grey areas cause headaches early next year because they haven't properly thought them through?

And don't get me started on "traditional playing positions"... radical reactionaries really are the worst. You know what's 'traditional'? Not mandating starting positions for players!

 

[Vindicater]

The snapping goal rule breaks the rules about staying on your line?

What the ****...

 

[Firestarter]

This is such a crummily run organisation. I can't think of any other that just doesn't leave its own rules alone every 6 months just to see how things go.

 

[Magnum27]

Everyone is bringing up different reasons why the rules may or may not be good. Watch the coaches exploit the crap out of them.