AFL constantly changing rules

[SteeleBeams]

Anyone else sick of the constant rule changes ? I think it is ridiculous how many times they change rules, add new rules etc.

I think its time they left the game alone for atleast 5 years and just continue on with what is working. You dont see Soccer constantly changing rules and it is arguably the most popular sport around the world

Thoughts ?

 

[Byron_Clanger]

I am, why can't for just one year they leave the game alone

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I've been sick of the constant change to the rules for years.

Need to get rid of the "rules" committee.

They seem to just make changes so that they appear relevant and get to keep their worthless jobs.

 

[SteeleBeams]

Wow, this topic has never been done before

Thanks for that one genius. Just bringing up discussion on it again.

 

[Majinbuu]

What are the rule changes for this year?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

What are the rule changes for this year?

Interchange is the big one.

 

[Spectemur Agendo]

The game was perfect until the start of the 2009 season, i don't miss the contant rush behinds but it was part of the 100+ year histroy, the interchange rule was the worst! the AFL hit the panic buttom too quick there, they should just fine players who cross the line incorrectly and allow a free shot at goal 10m out if the infringing player interupts play.

 

[TheRevolution]

Rule changes make our game unique !!1!!!!11!111

 

[glenn_ox]

To them it might be only altering their product but to us they're changing our game.

I always wonder if the AFL have an end product in mind. Do they know what they want our game to look like in 5 or 10 years?

 

[asanque]

Vlad and Anderson need to be sacked for a start.

New rules are coming in which are completely unnecessary and are determining game outcomes.

See interchange infringement rule etc.

Half the time a new rule is brought in to rectify issues caused by a recent old rule change.

Enough is enough.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

It's a reactionary organisation.

It looks at an incident in a small space of time and equates it to a much bigger issue.

So rather than base a rule change on 20 years of research/statistics it'll will do it on a 2-4 week period of time because something has become slightly topical.

 

[Furn]

I dont get it.

Do you guys want to go back to the original rules in 1897 or whatever ? Or just 2009?

If rule changes are bad when did that become the case ?

 

[Majinbuu]

just saw the interchange rule, rofl, ****ing stupid

 

[vjknight]

I dont get it.

Do you guys want to go back to the original rules in 1897 or whatever ? Or just 2009?

If rule changes are bad when did that become the case ?

your response is typical of the 'youre all over-reacting' we get from pro rule change folk. that reaction DOES NOT justify the rule changes.

no one wants a return to 1897. what is wanted is simply a stop to knee jerk reactions to short term issues. this game til recently had coped well with coaching methods & styles of game being overcome but new ideas. but now every single issue raised is seemingly needing a rule change to overcome it, rather than simply letting the coaches & players work thru it. not all changes are bad - universal agreement re:the rushed behind rule - that was a glaring issue. but this desire to slow the game down after spending years doing everything to speed it up - undoing their own supposed mess (no admission of guilt funnily enough). very few are complaining about the current game styles it must be said.

KB & crowd - just **** off. leave OUR game alone. its not your play thing.

 

[Furn]

your response is typical of the 'youre all over-reacting' we get from pro rule change folk. that reaction DOES NOT justify the rule changes.

no one wants a return to 1897 tool. what is wanted is simply a stop to knee jerk reactions to short term issues. this game til recently had coped well with coaching methods & styles of game being overcome but new ideas. but now every single issue raised is seemingly needing a rule change to overcome it, rather than simply letting the coaches & players work thru it. not all changes are bad - universal agreement re:the rushed behind rule - that was a glaring issue. but this desire to slow the game down after spending years doing everything to speed it up - undoing their own supposed mess (no admission of guilt funnily enough). very few are complaining about the current game styles it must be said.

KB & crowd - just **** off. leave OUR game alone. its not your play thing.

So what constitutes a knee jerk rules change? One that disadvantages your club?

The 3rd a 4th interchange was brought in out of nowhere after a couple of high profile coaches had a whinge and now the game can't go on without its precious rotations.

What about the out of bounds on the full rule that was a dumb idea i guess ?

 

[cos789]

The 3rd a 4th interchange was brought in out of nowhere after a couple of high profile coaches had a whinge and now the game can't go on without its precious rotations.

Exactly ,nobody said boo when those two were brought in but somehow now it's a big issue ?

What about the out of bounds on the full rule that was a dumb idea i guess ?

Add to that the centre square rule - major changes yet nobody said much back then .

Would have there been such an outcry if the AFL trialled last kicker of the ball is penalised instead of the last touched is penalised .

And what was so wrong in trying to uniformly apply the rule that you cannot deliberately take the ball of play ?

Stop whingeing ! It's the coaches that come up with the rolling flood and such like .It's up to the coaches to provide solutions as well by supplying more attacking inititatives .

 

[Father Jack]

your response is typical of the 'youre all over-reacting' we get from pro rule change folk. that reaction DOES NOT justify the rule changes.

no one wants a return to 1897 tool. what is wanted is simply a stop to knee jerk reactions to short term issues. this game til recently had coped well with coaching methods & styles of game being overcome but new ideas. but now every single issue raised is seemingly needing a rule change to overcome it, rather than simply letting the coaches & players work thru it. not all changes are bad - universal agreement re:the rushed behind rule - that was a glaring issue. but this desire to slow the game down after spending years doing everything to speed it up - undoing their own supposed mess (no admission of guilt funnily enough). very few are complaining about the current game styles it must be said.

KB & crowd - just **** off. leave OUR game alone. its not your play thing.

Not the case, they were minimising stoppages in order to give players less chance to rest less time to be able to flood up and down the ground, but that was negated by the increased usage of the interchange bench. So now they are taking steps to limit that.

Please note that these rule changes were brought in by the AFL in order to keep the game as it was after teams had exploited existing rules. Hopefully this will result in more positional play.

How many more of these mindless threads do we need? I was hoping that at least we'd get a new argument in this one to justify it, but nope.

 

[Underdog]

I dont get it.

Do you guys want to go back to the original rules in 1897 or whatever ? Or just 2009?

If rule changes are bad when did that become the case ?

They've basically changed the rules and/or interpretations on a yearly basis over the past decade.

This is a huge amount.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/balls/more-rules-please-were-the-afl/20100429-ttgm.html

As per the above link, they just simply aren't letting the game evolve, instead they are plugging undesired facets with rule changes.

It ludicrous.

I'm not against rule changes, I am against the constant need to change the rules of the game which seems to be happening ever more frequently over Andrew Demetriou's reign.

 

[LordLucifer]

Do you guys want to go back to the original rules in 1897 or whatever ?

Yes I would actually ........

 

[vjknight]

So what constitutes a knee jerk rules change? One that disadvantages your club?

The 3rd a 4th interchange was brought in out of nowhere after a couple of high profile coaches had a whinge and now the game can't go on without its precious rotations.

What about the out of bounds on the full rule that was a dumb idea i guess ?

this time a predictable tool response.

ask most, yes most non one eyed fans and they agree the flowing game styles of geelong, and now collingwood have been great to watch, and many teams have followed suit. the stkilda style, while successful, was adapted further to the pies credit. so sorry tool but my post was nothing to do with the pies success.

the 3rd & 4th interchange was led by sheedy but over about a 5 year period, and there was universal acceptance of the change. likewise the change to the out of bounds rule.

your responses are not helping your arguments.

some rule changes are unnecessary & an overreaction. many from recent times especially.

 

[LordLucifer]

some rule changes are unnecessary & an overreaction. many from recent times especially.

That's the crux of the issue overall right there !!!!

 

[The BRICKSTER]

The game was perfect until the start of the 2009 season, i don't miss the contant rush behinds but it was part of the 100+ year histroy, the interchange rule was the worst! the AFL hit the panic buttom too quick there

Agreed. The rush behind rule hardly ever gets played so it may as well not even be there. Can't stand the new sub rule. Would hate to be the player that is the sub, being able to only play half a game each week depending on the circumstances.

 

[Father Jack]

the main rule I've got an issue with is the stupid one about having too many on the field that they brought in after the Sydney-NM game. It doesn't work and punishes teams who patently don't have 19 men on the field, and if they do it is for a millisecond and has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

 

[Furn]

this time a predictable tool response.

ask most, yes most non one eyed fans and they agree the flowing game styles of geelong, and now collingwood have been great to watch, and many teams have followed suit. the stkilda style, while successful, was adapted further to the pies credit. so sorry tool but my post was nothing to do with the pies success.

the 3rd & 4th interchange was led by sheedy but over about a 5 year period, and there was universal acceptance of the change. likewise the change to the out of bounds rule.

your responses are not helping your arguments.

some rule changes are unnecessary & an overreaction. many from recent times especially.

From 4 years ago.

"THE AFL Laws of the Game Committee believes it is winning the battle against ugly football, but it will still consider a restriction on interchange rotations in the near future."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/league-keeps-eye-on-rotations/story-e6frf33l-1111114990159

The AFL has given the game a chance to sort itself out and rotations have gone up and up. This isn't a knee jerk rule change its been on the cards for 4-5 years now. Just like the above rules.

You just don't like because your premiership gameplan is based on high rotations and change means less chance on maintaning the status quo.

Why else is there 10 pies fans in every sub rule thread saying its rubbish and not one for it ?

 

[pickman]

the main rule I've got an issue with is the stupid one about having too many on the field that they brought in after the Sydney-NM game. It doesn't work and punishes teams who patently don't have 19 men on the field, and if they do it is for a millisecond and has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

I must congratulate the AFL on making what should've been a simple rule adjustment into an over complicated mess.

Instead of yellow boxes and gates in silliness here's a simple way of madating interchanges... the interchanging player cannot enter the field of play until the player he is replacing and completely left the field of play.

In short, one player off, one player on.