AFL rules that drift and soften.

[Aristotle Pickett]

I have noticed with certain rules, players start getting away with more over time.
Eg.
A) 50 meter penalty- it was tightened up a few years ago where you couldn't grab a player after he marked, now you can grab and push him.
You can also wait a few seconds before giving the ball back.

B) Stand the mark rule- it is not as strickly enforced now. Players have jumped and taken a step before play on is called at times

C) In the back- players are pushing players in the back in marking contests and getting away with it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

incidental concussion sometimes getting you suspended when doing a football act. Some players get suspended, others get cleared, it is capricious bullshit.

 

[MF]

Dissent - They were all over it for about 10 weeks and now it's just back to the way it was before.

 

[Go_Roos!]

Parroted out by the AFL - you are not allowed to make contact with the head, the head is sacrosanct, oh, look, it isn't!

 

[Breretonisahood]

Dissent - They were all over it for about 10 weeks and now it's just back to the way it was before.

The dissent rule is a classic example of AFL bs. When they brought it in, the reason was to set a “responsible citizen” example to lower leagues about umpire abuse. How did 10 or so weeks of ridiculous 50m penalties achieve anything? It didn’t. The problem of umpire abuse still plagues lower leagues but now the AFL couldn’t care less about the dissent rule.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I have noticed with certain rules, players start getting away with more over time.
Eg.
A) 50 meter penalty- it was tightened up a few years ago where you couldn't grab a player after he marked, now you can grab and push him.
You can also wait a few seconds before giving the ball back.

B) Stand the mark rule- it is not as strickly enforced now. Players have jumped and taken a step before play on is called at times

C) In the back- players are pushing players in the back in marking contests and getting away with it.

100% this

The stand rule really shits me.

 

[RedV3x]

The AFL have made a rod for their own back by allowing players to get their own way by stealth.
Umpiring has turned from looking at "premise" to attempts to quantify laws.

1. Marking and rucking situation - players must have eyes for the ball -simple.
because of the muddy grounds in Melbourne grappling has crept in and basically stayed.
2. Tackling - must be in controlled and non dangerous manner
tackling has had many permutations for touchy "carried forward in the tackle" to be driven into the ground and wing tackle etc.
3. In possession of the ball - players must be seen to be in controll of the ball but are now penalised if the ball is knocked free in a tackle (which i actually agree with) but players are continually held when paddling the ball.
4. Unnecessary actions - the law states you cannot hold/block/interfere a player when not within 5 meters of the ball (less in marking)
so why are players allowed to push/grapple/pseudo hold all the time ?
5. The hold law is a direct result of umpire's being too slow to call "play on".

So what is the status now.
1. Marking is getting there but still lacks absolute consistency.
2. Rucking is an absolute abomination and we need a new approach like a centre-style boumce for all contests.
3. Tackling is getting there forceful and safety-wise but lacks consistency especially decision-wise.
4. Skilled players are held when there is no clear possession.
5. Some disposals are called throws though possession was not clear.
6. Unnecessary stuff occurs all the time.
7. Umpires are still sometimes slow to call play on.
8. Kick-in is an abortion.


What's good.

1. A mark quantified as six seconds.
2. A shot on goal quantified as 30 seconds BUT NOT PLAY ON after six seconds.
3. Starting offside laws ie. 6-6-6

What should be done.

1. "Touched" law should be done away with.
2. "Last disposal" for out-of-bounds.
3. A 15m kick-in box acting like a mark 15m out.
4. If a player selects a shot-on-goal the he cannot play-on.
5. A centre-style boumce for all contests ie. only the ruckmen within 5m of umpire.

 

[aj1992]

I haven't seen kicking In danger be paid for a long time.

 

[aj1992]

I haven't seen kicking In danger be paid for a long time.

NVM just paid In the Port vs gws game lol.

 

[eddiesmith]

I haven't seen kicking In danger be paid for a long time.

There should have been one last week in Pies v Dees game, yet the umpire paid a FCBK free kick instead despite the player trying to kick his opponents head off.

FCBK is a rule that has always shitted me, but it had drifted away a bit lately with quite a few let go, then they suddenly start paying it again this finals series.

Deliberate out of bounds got out of control late in the season with them paying everything, but they seem to have backed off a bit this finals series.

Also push in the back in a tackle gets ignored a lot, umpires seem to give it the Ginni treatment and blame the player getting tackled for diving.

 

[eddiesmith]

I have noticed with certain rules, players start getting away with more over time.
Eg.
A) 50 meter penalty- it was tightened up a few years ago where you couldn't grab a player after he marked, now you can grab and push him.
You can also wait a few seconds before giving the ball back.

B) Stand the mark rule- it is not as strickly enforced now. Players have jumped and taken a step before play on is called at times

C) In the back- players are pushing players in the back in marking contests and getting away with it.

C is often just a case of people not understanding the rule. You are allowed to push your opponent in the back if you take the mark in the same motion, it’s only a free kick if there’s 2 motions, the push then the mark.

 

[ZEV]

Few jumper punches avoiding MRO attention/detection lately

 

[HTPunter]

The dissent rule is a classic example of AFL bs. When they brought it in, the reason was to set a “responsible citizen” example to lower leagues about umpire abuse. How did 10 or so weeks of ridiculous 50m penalties achieve anything? It didn’t. The problem of umpire abuse still plagues lower leagues but now the AFL couldn’t care less about the dissent rule.

It’s the worst rule in the AFL.

Because they went from one extreme (players allowed to scream angrily at the umps face), to the other (can’t shake your head too much), for a short period of time, before giving up on it because of backlash for being too heavy handed, and then randomly picking it out a couple of times a year this year, in cases that were nowhere near the most extreme examples.

So, it’s still a rule, you just have to play chook lotto.

Not picking on him as a North fan, I have nothing against him, but last week JHF genuinely screamed at the ump after being called a throw - and clearly showed full dissent. It was an angry scream. No 50 (which fits the recent way it’s paid, but still stands out as a recent example of where it could be paid). And then you have games where it was paid for a lesser reaction.

 

[Gaspard]

The AFL have made a rod for their own back by allowing players to get their own way by stealth.
Umpiring has turned from looking at "premise" to attempts to quantify laws.

1. Marking and rucking situation - players must have eyes for the ball -simple.
because of the muddy grounds in Melbourne grappling has crept in and basically stayed.
2. Tackling - must be in controlled and non dangerous manner
tackling has had many permutations for touchy "carried forward in the tackle" to be driven into the ground and wing tackle etc.
3. In possession of the ball - players must be seen to be in controll of the ball but are now penalised if the ball is knocked free in a tackle (which i actually agree with) but players are continually held when paddling the ball.
4. Unnecessary actions - the law states you cannot hold/block/interfere a player when not within 5 meters of the ball (less in marking)
so why are players allowed to push/grapple/pseudo hold all the time ?
5. The hold law is a direct result of umpire's being too slow to call "play on".

So what is the status now.
1. Marking is getting there but still lacks absolute consistency.
2. Rucking is an absolute abomination and we need a new approach like a centre-style boumce for all contests.
3. Tackling is getting there forceful and safety-wise but lacks consistency especially decision-wise.
4. Skilled players are held when there is no clear possession.
5. Some disposals are called throws though possession was not clear.
6. Unnecessary stuff occurs all the time.
7. Umpires are still sometimes slow to call play on.
8. Kick-in is an abortion.


What's good.

1. A mark quantified as six seconds.
2. A shot on goal quantified as 30 seconds BUT NOT PLAY ON after six seconds.
3. Starting offside laws ie. 6-6-6

What should be done.

1. "Touched" law should be done away with.
2. "Last disposal" for out-of-bounds.
3. A 15m kick-in box acting like a mark 15m out.
4. If a player selects a shot-on-goal the he cannot play-on.
5. A centre-style boumce for all contests ie. only the ruckmen within 5m of umpire.

 

[Gaspard]

Some of these ideas are good. The modern rules annoy me a lot in their all over the place application.
Holding the man is rarely paid, but at random it is. Just one instance.
The incomprehensible shambles that is the ruck free kick is bizarre. Blocks are penalized or not at random, but ruckmen grab and sling one another, or push one another in the back with impunity.
It is galling that the greatest penalties (50m) are for irrelevant activities. Moving on the mark or dissent are not actions with much impact on a game, yet judgements about them decide results.
Players get their heads mangled, but there is no free kick if they are judged to have contributed. The head is still sacrosanct though.
Out of bounds gets a free kick if the umpire thinks it was deliberate. Out on the full for a free was fine.
The free area for kick offs, where you don't have to bounce the ball for 30 m distorts the game. The goal square was an adequate advantage for the kick in.
The game is full of quick fixes for transient or even non existent problems. The rushed behind over reaction is an example.
There is an addition that I would favour, and that is to ban extra tacklers dropping on a man already tacked and on the ground. That, I believe, is worth a free.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Anything subject to interpretation (eg most of the rules)

 

[RedV3x]

Anything subject to interpretation (eg most of the rules)

The law says a player must IMMEDIATELY dispose of the ball when tackled.
Immediately means immediately.
It doesn't mean do a 360 degree and then break the tackle.
Immediately means immediately.
There is no way to interpret this law other than "immediately".