AFL Laws 2013

[Noidenous]

Here's to less wanton bleating about umpiring decisions one simply cannot construe as controversial, let alone incorrect.



2013 rule changes:


Marking contests:

50m penalties:

Set play situations:

Holding the ball:

 

[Noidenous]

Deliberate rushed behinds:

Rough conduct:

Advantage rule:

Ruck contests:

Blocking 'off the ball':

 

[Noidenous]

Frees at stoppages:

Dragging the ball under:

Protect the ball player:

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

So err. Overall, good or shit changes?

 

[Noidenous]

Depends how you like to see the game played.


There's greater protection of players' legs through the 'no feet first' and 'forceful low contact' rules. Less severe leg injuries and free kick milking is a massive plus.

Larger restricted area with clearer definition of encroaching the mark.

Can no longer pull the ball under your opponent in a tackle unless the ball is taken in one natural tackling movement.

Bumping off the ball and marking blocks are to be penalised.

Reduced time for kick-ins and new timing layout for set-shot routines.

 

[saintsrfreak]

Those marking rules will hopefully help Roo out a great deal

 

[St Bongo]

I think the forceful contact below the knees rule change is going to cause a lot of angst this season amongst fans, particular those who haven't been educated about the changes. If you look at the examples in the official AFL video, a lot of the plays are the sort of thing a lot of fans love, like Simpkin's effort. Players courageously diving head first at the ball with an opposition player coming the other way. I support the change on the grounds of injury prevention. But don't be surprised to see a stadium full of Crows or Dockers fans jumping up and down over one of these frees.

 

[Mat Mann]

The forcefull contact is going to be shit fight, even in their examples of what not to do. They've penalised the bloke who actually gets the balls 1st. Simpkin and Caddy were back to back ones. Very sanitising of the game IMO. If Simpkin didn't dive we'd all be denigrating him for not being desperate enough. Fans applaud that behaviour just as much as running back into packs or other courageous efforts.

 

[Noidenous]

I see the forceful contact rule as an extension of the ducking rule.

If you get collected, it's your fault. Now there's less room for umpiring error and/or milking high contact frees by doing nothing but lunging head first, which really was the whole point of the triassic period players 'going in hard' over free-ball situations (which we have had to view a positive opinion of since outcome is skewed towards that intent).

A small part of me wants the AFL to trial pads, particularly helmets, neck pads and something to help brace lower sections of the leg. If it slows the game down, I don't care. Players will be able to do the things they used to be able to with massively reduced risk of common injuries.

The rest of me wants to find an investor and revive Austas as the ultimate spectator sport.

 

[sauce_head]

Am I the only one who is seeing the AFL react by changing rules to avoid injuries that were seldomlu occurring? In some cases making it worse.

I think it was the suns game yesterday were two players approached the ball at the same time. They both refrained from diving and stood over it trying to pick it up. It looked and was rediculous.

 

[Noidenous]

Am I the only one who is seeing the AFL react by changing rules to avoid injuries that were seldomlu occurring? In some cases making it worse.

I think it was the suns game yesterday were two players approached the ball at the same time. They both refrained from diving and stood over it trying to pick it up. It looked and was rediculous.

That they're not all career or season-ending doesn't mean they haven't been happening.

 

[sauce_head]

That they're not all career or season-ending doesn't mean they haven't been happening.

I saw less head injuries before the afl introduced protect the head at all costs. Now I see players ramming heads into people and the current rules interpreting that as play on. the AFL needs to stop meddling. Now you cannot go for the ball head first if it is at somebody's feet. Instead ou have to run up, take texopposition by the hand, politely dosey-do and bend down together and pick up the ball. That is sure to make the mothers that watch the game more happy for their sons to play, but it is not the same game.

Get the rule book out form 1988 and invoke all the rules from then. I see more legal contact in u12 basketball than i do in the afl.

 

[Noidenous]

I saw less head injuries before the afl introduced protect the head at all costs. Now I see players ramming heads into people and the current rules interpreting that as play on. the AFL needs to stop meddling. Now you cannot go for the ball head first if it is at somebody's feet. Instead ou have to run up, take texopposition by the hand, politely dosey-do and bend down together and pick up the ball. That is sure to make the mothers that watch the game more happy for their sons to play, but it is not the same game.

Get the rule book out form 1988 and invoke all the rules from then. I see more legal contact in u12 basketball than i do in the afl.

Why don't we let people use spear tackles again just because I've never seen anyone get their neck broken?

 

[sauce_head]

Why don't we let people use spear tackles again just because I've never seen anyone get their neck broken?

Ii don't recall spear tackles being legal ever. I don't know how you can dispute there are more players ramming their heads into people now. Do you think that is a better situation?

Cane Toads to control snakes comes to mind. Are you saying snakes in cane was good?

See how your argument works? Anything is acceptable if it is to address something that is bad. Even if what you end up with us something worse. I guess that just gives them something else to fiddle with.

 

[Noidenous]

Players were ramming their heads into other players in a deliberate attempt to either get to the ball first or milk the free. It's cheap, it raises massive legal issues for the AFL regarding concussions etc. and it potentially ruins the career/season of the player who's getting his legs ripped off as a result.

What more argument do you want than that?

Let's go back to the days of old leather helmets in the NFL where players die on the ground and they're so much more manly because I, the spectator, happen to love beating my chest and vomiting all over myself.

 

[sauce_head]

Players were ramming their heads into other players in a deliberate attempt to either get to the ball first or milk the free. It's cheap, it raises massive legal issues for the AFL regarding concussions etc. and it potentially ruins the career/season of the player who's getting his legs ripped off as a result.

What more argument do you want than that?

Let's go back to the days of old leather helmets in the NFL where players die on the ground and they're so much more manly because I, the spectator, happen to love beating my chest and vomiting all over myself.

It's not NFL. Players who do not want to play the sport don't have to. They can play another sport that has suitable levels of contact for their requirements (perhaps Gealic?). I don't know why you have to resort to monkey and vomit comments. Perhaps some people like the harder edge. Perhaps all people who like any contact at all are chest beating whilst they are vomiting, which presumably demonstrats how people who dont like it are high brow. Ballet, or monkey vomit?

All your points are answered by my previous posts, so I wont bother re-posting.

 

[Noidenous]

It's not NFL. Players who do not want to play the sport don't have to. They can play another sport that has suitable levels of contact for their requirements (perhaps Gealic?). I don't know why you have to resort to monkey and vomit comments. Perhaps some people like the harder edge. Perhaps all people who like any contact at all are chest beating whilst they are vomiting, which presumably demonstrats how people who dont like it are high brow. Ballet, or monkey vomit?

All your points are answered by my previous posts, so I wont bother re-posting.

Oh yes, because an 18 year old male surely considers his mortality every second of the day. At least there won't be another post regarding so-called 'toughness'.

Watch the chop block at the start of this and tell me if you want to see one a week caused by 'tough' players diving into legs:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...-of-the-Game-Preventing-helmet-to-helmet-hits

What would you think of someone who cleverly disguised they were targetting someone's temple with their forehead every time they laid a tackle in the AFL? Fun for the whole family, right?

Do you think the sport can afford to keep paying higher and higher amounts of 'danger money' for salaries when clubs like North and Melbourne come to mind (or us in the 90's)?

How 'tough' is the Collingwood player at 3:00? Gee, what a champion.

 

[sauce_head]

Oh yes, because an 18 year old male surely considers his mortality every second of the day. At least there won't be another post regarding so-called 'toughness'.

Watch the chop block at the start of this and tell me if you want to see one a week caused by 'tough' players diving into legs:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...-of-the-Game-Preventing-helmet-to-helmet-hits

What would you think of someone who cleverly disguised they were targetting someone's temple with their forehead every time they laid a tackle in the AFL? Fun for the whole family, right?

Do you think the sport can afford to keep paying higher and higher amounts of 'danger money' for salaries when clubs like North and Melbourne come to mind (or us in the 90's)?

See my above posts. I am busy wiping the vomit off my badly beaten chest.

 

[Noidenous]

See my above posts. I am busy wiping the vomit off my badly beaten chest.

Your above posts don't do anything other than regurgitate exactly the same old nonsense that comes from armchair-riding softcocks who in generations past used to turn up to a colosseum.

'I just want my fix of blood, how dare you get in the way of that'.

 

[Noidenous]

I saw less head injuries before the afl introduced protect the head at all costs. Now I see players ramming heads into people and the current rules interpreting that as play on.


See my above posts.

Nah, no-one ever got taken out before the 90's.

Diving on the ball and making forceful contact below the knees gives away free kicks instead of earning them now, it's not play-on in either situation.

 

[Noidenous]

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/dummies-guide-holding-the-ball/tabid/91/newsid/105385/default.aspx