AFL constantly changing rules

[greatwhiteshark]

The most confusing thing about the rule changes is that they don't seem to get implemented in leagues below AFL level. I remember seeing a Crows player in the SANFL (Phil Davis IIRC) too scared to rush a behind when it was perfectly legal for him to do so.

This is because the WAFL and SANFL are dead set on trying to keep the game Aussie rules football. Unfortunately they will lose the battle in the long run.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I wish people would stop whining about rule changes.

You think you're the first person to say "leave the game alone"

If you feel that strongly about it I suggest you talk to the people that matter. Address your concerns to the AFL.

AFL is big business. A couple of people here and there having a sook ("Leave things alone") just isn't going to cut it when crowds, gate receipts, etc etc is up. It's very easy to ignore the complaints as representing a vocal minority. So get yourself together with all your mates and make a proper statement.

Shit, every couple of weeks we get some complainer on the main board rolling out the 'leave the game alone line'. What are you going to do about it?

Maybe the rule changes help?

Sure you get annoyed when a player gets a rubbish soft free kick for hands in the back - but with the fitness of today's players (which helps with flooding the backline) and yesterday's rules which allowed guys like Silvagni basically tackle people as they were going up for a marking contest you'd be lucky to see someone kick more than 3 goals in a match.

The interchange rule is a damn fiasco, especially when they get it wrong, but I'd much rather a 50m penalty than have the score wound back to zero, which is what would happen under the old rules.

The game is not being ruined, it's still the best damn game on earth. It's constantly evolving and while guys like KB and Anderson and whoever else is involved do get it very very wrong sometimes, I'm glad they've got the courage to trial new things. I definitely don't agree with everything that's brought in, but I'm still as excited about footy as I've ever been.

 

[cos789]

Sure you get annoyed when a player gets a rubbish soft free kick for hands in the back

Not really a rule change . You've never been allowed to interfere with a player in a marking situation .It's always about interpretation .

Just as most rucking situations nowadays are technically either interference or shepherding calls .To get it back to where players are actually running in and jumping at the ball would take either a major shift back in interpretation or to bring a roving centre circle arrangement .

.

 

[McCrann]

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.

Strange thing to say - so you're saying all the rule changes up to this point have been worthwhile because they've produced a game very few are complaining about? Surely you can see the link there?

 

[McCrann]

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 agree with you on this - what was wrong with the old rule?

I'd never seen it enforced at VFL/AFL level, that is - the Captain calling a headcount because he believed the other team had more than 18 men on the field.

But, what was the problem with it? If an eagle-eyed captain had noticed this, or even someone on the bench who then notified the captain to call for the headcount, what great publicity for the AFL if the captain was proven correct and the other team's score wiped - particularly late in the final quarter.

Would have created worldwide headlines and reams of media coverage. I thought it was a great rule, just a pity I've never seen it in action!

 

[McCrann]

Yea, sick of the AFL changing the rules.

Get rid of the sub rule, have a 4 man bench, cap interchange to 20 or 25 per quarter to fix the high rotations, and be done with it.

Every year they think they need to change rules, gets annoying fast.

You're contradicting yourself there mate, so you're sick of the AFL "changing rules" but you want to introduce an interchange cap? A rule that has never existed in the history of the VFL/AFL?

Strangely enough, there used to be a substitute rule in place in the VFL, up until the 1970s I believe - so it was there for something like 100 years.

Yes - the substitute rule is not in fact a new rule, just an old rule reintroduced!

 

[Last of the Roys]

It is bizarre that this very significant rule change has come in to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.

We can all admit the 'substitute rule' was not introduced to reduce injuries. That was just the Kremlin's b/s spin that anyone with half a brain can see through.

Obviously it is about a perception, held by the likes of Demetriou and Adrian Anderson, that increased rotations are making the game ugly by increasing congestion and therefore apparently reducing the games potential popularity. This is the central reason behind this significant change. But it is in itself an extremely contentious viewpoint:
- that the game has suddenly become so ugly that it needs a radical change of rules to fix it??? It is bizarre when you think about it.

Have any of these people actually gone back and watched games from the different eras? The game today is, for the most part, much better than games played at any time in history. You might be able to make an argument that it has deteriorated as a spectacle since the late '90's / early 00's - but even that is highly subjective, and in my opinion a false perception. Certainly attendances, memberships, and financial support don't support that conclusion. Unfortunately we therefore have a significant change (whose consequences know one can accurately predict) coming in to place for no good reason.

And for those that will inevitably say that 'doesn't the game being so good prove the AFL know what they are doing with rule changes'? The obvious response is that correlation does not equal causation, and that the game could be even better off without significant continuous rule changes. Some rule changes have undoubtedly been positive, but those are generally small natural evolutions from the status quo.

It is not that the rules of the game should never change - but rather that rule changes should be:
1. kept to a minimum;
2. be based on an overwhelming view (held by supporters and clubs) that there is a problem in a particular area;
3. be subject to an open debate with the AFL engaging with supporters and the clubs to seek to identify rule change options that may overcome the problem (without producing other adverse implications);
4. be trialed in the NAB Cup and lower grades, preferably for at least two years before being introduce; and
5. that Adrian Anderson, Andrew Demetriou and Kevin Bartlett should have no involvement in this process whatsoever.

 

[Furn]

It is bizarre that this very significant rule change has come in to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.

We can all admit the 'substitute rule' was not introduced to reduce injuries. That was just the Kremlin's b/s spin that anyone with half a brain can see through.

Obviously it is about a perception, held by the likes of Demetriou and Adrian Anderson, that increased rotations are making the game ugly by increasing congestion and therefore apparently reducing the games potential popularity. This is the central reason behind this significant change. But it is in itself an extremely contentious viewpoint:
- that the game has suddenly become so ugly that it needs a radical change of rules to fix it??? It is bizarre when you think about it.

Have any of these people actually gone back and watched games from the different eras? The game today is, for the most part, much better than games played at any time in history. You might be able to make an argument that it has deteriorated as a spectacle since the late '90's / early 00's - but even that is highly subjective, and in my opinion a false perception. Certainly attendances, memberships, and financial support don't support that conclusion. Unfortunately we therefore have a significant change (whose consequences know one can accurately predict) coming in to place for no good reason.

And for those that will inevitably say that 'doesn't the game being so good prove the AFL know what they are doing with rule changes'? The obvious response is that correlation does not equal causation, and that the game could be even better off without significant continuous rule changes. Some rule changes have undoubtedly been positive, but those are generally small natural evolutions from the status quo.

It is not that the rules of the game should never change - but rather that rule changes should be:
1. kept to a minimum;
2. be based on an overwhelming view (held by supporters and clubs) that there is a problem in a particular area;
3. be subject to an open debate with the AFL engaging with supporters and the clubs to seek to identify rule change options that may overcome the problem (without producing other adverse implications);
4. be trialed in the NAB Cup and lower grades, preferably for at least two years before being introduce; and
5. that Adrian Anderson, Andrew Demetriou and Kevin Bartlett should have no involvement in this process whatsoever.

Seems clubs dont know what they want and just want to whine sometimes.

"A MAJORITY of AFL coaches wants the League to introduce player substitutions next season."

http://aflca.com.au/index.php?id=14&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=61&tx_ttnews[backPid]=9&cHash=da0c99bb42

 

[Slattery_20]

Use of the scrag to give away a 15m penalty in 84/85 Dons sides...
Ridiculous over-use of rushed behinds during 2007-08...
"Lloyd rule"...
Clement & O'Brien & Campbell brown & Hudghton getting into everyone's back but not being pinged because they were/are shorter than their opponents...
Blokes picking up the ball to take the kick-in, waiting 15s, then putting it down for someone else to take it purely to waste time...

Bring 'em all back!
Those were the days... "pure" football.
Games ruined now!
I want to see 5'10 defenders scragging 6'3" CHFs.
I wanna see Joel Bowden wasting 4 minutes conceding points then time-wasting before the next kick.
I wanna see blokes sniping the shit out of each other down each end because there's only 1 umpire.
I wanna see Lloyd & Fev take a minute+ with their set shots, that was brilliant viewing.

I want to see players shepherding the man on the mark. Good to watch too.

 

[cos789]

I'd never seen it enforced at VFL/AFL level, that is - the Captain calling a headcount because he believed the other team had more than 18 men on the field.

But, what was the problem with it?

Where do I start !
It's a huge penalty to pay Vs an infringement .
Extremely time consuming to perform .
Clumsy to invoke .
Clumsy to execute .
Easy to manipulate .

First of all someone has to notice the descrepancy.
If it's the coach he has to get word to the captain .
The captain has to inform the umpire .
The umpire has to inform the other umpires .
The umpires have to line up the players whilst patrolling the boundary .
The umpires do a head count , note scores etc .
Players sent back to position and game restarted .

The flaws.
A team may have had an advantage for any length of time but same result .
If a player can get on and off before the head count (even if noticed) then there is no penalty .
Certain set plays where players left the field(anywhere) and were replaced were legal .

Prevention is better than penalty .

 

[Slattery_20]

Never paid, virtually impossible to enforce, and a ridiculously OTT penalty = good rule.

Rules committee are on a hiding to nothing.
Bring in new rule = rabble rabble rabble. Any mistake made by umpires in the first matches with said rule = rabble rabble rabble.
New rule works, completely forgotten about.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Use of the scrag to give away a 15m penalty in 84/85 Dons sides...
Ridiculous over-use of rushed behinds during 2007-08...
"Lloyd rule"...
Clement & O'Brien & Campbell brown & Hudghton getting into everyone's back but not being pinged because they were/are shorter than their opponents...
Blokes picking up the ball to take the kick-in, waiting 15s, then putting it down for someone else to take it purely to waste time...

Bring 'em all back!
Those were the days... "pure" football.
Games ruined now!
I want to see 5'10 defenders scragging 6'3" CHFs.
I wanna see Joel Bowden wasting 4 minutes conceding points then time-wasting before the next kick.
I wanna see blokes sniping the shit out of each other down each end because there's only 1 umpire.
I wanna see Lloyd & Fev take a minute+ with their set shots, that was brilliant viewing.

I want to see players shepherding the man on the mark. Good to watch too.

Yep and I want to see...........

The bloke first to the ball penalized under nearly all circumstances.
Two blokes going for a marking contest or a rucking contest or any contest and free kick paid because their arms brushed each other.
Free kicks paid for hands in the back when player has not been pushed.
Free kick paid to forward because defender touches his arm while trying to spoil.
50m penalty's paid for infringements you would not call in auskick.
Not being able to protect your lead by running through a behind or getting the ball to the boundary line. (Got to make it easy for the opponent to get the ball back????)
Umpires explaining their decisions to adults.
Turning into a circus something as simple as a player leaving the ground and another player replacing him. (love that 50m penalty and free kick for being 2mm over the line)

The game is not a night at the theatre. It is a sport and at the AFL level should be win at all cost.
But just like Auskick.....................AFL = Everyones a winner!!!!!!!!

 

[Last of the Roys]

Seems clubs dont know what they want and just want to whine sometimes.

"A MAJORITY of AFL coaches wants the League to introduce player substitutions next season."

http://aflca.com.au/index.php?id=14&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=61&tx_ttnews[backPid]=9&cHash=da0c99bb42

The AFL asked that question in the context of a debate around bringing in substitutes (IN ADDITION TO THE 4 MAN BENCH) in order to compensate sides who suffer injuries during matches (and are therefore at a disadvantage). The context had nothing to do with limiting rotations.

But the overwhelming view was that more interchanges meant better football.

In their survey of the fans, the AFL of course asked an extremely leading question, implying that something would definitely be done about rotations. BUT THERE WAS NO 'DO NOTHING' OPTION. It was just a fait accompli that something must be done.

These guys really should have been communist 'central planners' in another life. They are control freaks of the highest order.

 

[Bully187]

If anyone see's Adrian Anderson walking out of his office at docklands crossing the road, step on the accelerator, you will be commended by all fans of the game for saving Australian rules football from some ****y little lawyer. I honestly think in the next few decades it could become touch as tackling is 'too dangerous'. Surely fundemental rule changes should have to go through a voting type system. Rule changes should need to be signed off by at least 10 of the 17 clubs or by 70% of registered football fans to come into effect, the way it is at the moment is an absolute joke and it seems like 2 guys (AA and KB) have more say over the way the games played than any administrators in the last 100yrs.

 

[cos789]

Surely fundemental rule changes should have to go through a voting type system. Rule changes should need to be signed off by at least 10 of the 17 clubs or by 70% of registered football fans to come into effect.

So what fundamental law changes are you implying need scrutiny ?

Introduction of Centre square ?
Kick out on the full penalised ?
Change from 10m to 15m kicks and running ?
Bouncing the ball deemed in possession ?
Introduction of "prior opportunity concept" ?
Introduction of 25m/50m penalties ?
.

 

[Slattery_20]

Yep and I want to see...........
The bloke first to the ball penalized under nearly all circumstances.

Not really the case though, is it? They have to make an attempt to get rid of it once they've got it. Pretty self-explanatory.

Two blokes going for a marking contest or a rucking contest or any contest and free kick paid because their arms brushed each other.

Again, not really the case. Make an attempt for the ball you're fine. Cynically take the arms out, it's a free. Again pretty self-explanatory & promotes fair contests over the cynical free.

Free kicks paid for hands in the back when player has not been pushed.

Agree that one is arguable.

Free kick paid to forward because defender touches his arm while trying to spoil.

You're repeating yourself.

50m penalty's paid for infringements you would not call in auskick.

They can be a bit touchy, yes. I wish this were properly policed & codified. Sometimes guys get away with F or C towards the umpire or "that's S"; sometimes guys get pinged for merely asking "Why?"

Not being able to protect your lead by running through a behind or getting the ball to the boundary line. (Got to make it easy for the opponent to get the ball back????)

What exactly did that add to the game?

Umpires explaining their decisions to adults.

Only when they ask.

Turning into a circus something as simple as a player leaving the ground and another player replacing him. (love that 50m penalty and free kick for being 2mm over the line)

Much better rule.