Charter

[Maggie5]

ANY future changes to AFL rules will be governed by a charter drawn up to protect the virtues, values and idiosyncrasies of the indigenous game.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ges-to-afl-rules/story-fnca0u4y-1226588722161

Really like this idea , especially the part about the idiosyncrasies of the indigenous game. This is the thing that concerns me about the rules committee. It is a game exclusive to Australia and if properly manged can be showcased to the world. However if it is changed to the point to where even where we don't understand it how can we possibly explain to others around the world?

I was overseas a couple of years ago, watching a pies game and trying to explain the rules to friends (Malaysian) there was one slight "hands in the back" where a free kick was given, impact was minimal found it very difficult to justify. Stupid rule.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The charter won't deal with things like the interpretation of the hands in the back rule.

It will seek to enshrine a minimum number of fundamental elements of the game, and in doing so justify the AFL's action in changing anything else it likes without notice. Stuff like hands-in-the-back, interchanges, ruck rules... that'll be seen as peripheral to what defines the game and therefore tweaked every year if the Laws of the Game committee haven't filled their annual quota.

 

[DaVe86]

I think its a really good idea, and will at least help safe guard some of the fundamentals.

I think at first it should be started very basic...ie:

- Played on an oval field
- Played with an oval ball
- 6 points for a goal, 1 point for a behind
- No restrictions on player movement on field, 18 v 18.
- Game requires tall,small and medium players. All heights have unique values.


That might sound quite basic...but if for example one day the AFL floats the idea of putting zones on the field or set positions, then they couldn't because it would breach the charter.


But it won't stop rule interpretations.

 

[Maggie5]

Hopefully it will address the fact that every year to date there has been rule changes. Doesn't give the game time to settle down.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Really like this idea , especially the part about the idiosyncrasies of the indigenous game.

When I read "idiosyncrasies" I took it to mean ...

(1) Goal umpires in long white lab coats. Bring it back!

(2) Random folk wandering around the ground during play (drinks people, runners). That's always the first thing that folks from abroad ask about when they watch a game. That can stay.

(3) Administrators of the game randomly changing the rules on a whim. That's an idiosyncrasy we could do without!

 

[Avatar]

- Played on an oval field
- Played with an oval ball
- 6 points for a goal, 1 point for a behind
- No restrictions on player movement on field, 18 v 18.
- Game requires tall,small and medium players. All heights have unique values.

I like the first 4. Not sure the 5th really fits in a charter though.

 

[Avatar]

The charter won't deal with things like the interpretation of the hands in the back rule.

It will seek to enshrine a minimum number of fundamental elements of the game, and in doing so justify the AFL's action in changing anything else it likes without notice. Stuff like hands-in-the-back, interchanges, ruck rules... that'll be seen as peripheral to what defines the game and therefore tweaked every year if the Laws of the Game committee haven't filled their annual quota.

Yep, that is the reality. The last few years it has chopped and changed, quicker game, less congestion, star players playing more. These reasons have always been quite flimsy and fall apart due to lack of irrefutable evidence. However, if the changes are off the back of a charter they will carry much more weight and in the AFLs view hopefully limit the questioning and uproar.

 

[Markfs]

ANY future changes to AFL rules will be governed by a charter drawn up to protect the virtues, values and idiosyncrasies of the indigenous game.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ges-to-afl-rules/story-fnca0u4y-1226588722161

Really like this idea , especially the part about the idiosyncrasies of the indigenous game. This is the thing that concerns me about the rules committee. It is a game exclusive to Australia and if properly manged can be showcased to the world. However if it is changed to the point to where even where we don't understand it how can we possibly explain to others around the world?

I was overseas a couple of years ago, watching a pies game and trying to explain the rules to friends (Malaysian) there was one slight "hands in the back" where a free kick was given, impact was minimal found it very difficult to justify. Stupid rule.

Aussie rules is a complex game that tries to balance offence and defence, without using the big stick of an offside rule. Hands in the back is really just a reaffirmation of the push in the back rule that was forgotten a couple of decades ago. For some reason, backmen were allowed to push forwards under the ball without giving away a free kick. The "no hands in the back" rule has just reinforced the benefits of being in front. If you're behind, you can try to use your hips etc to get the forward under the ball, but it's illegal to use your hands. I think it's been a change for the better.

I went to work after the Manchester United v Real Madrid game and asked the Man United fans how they felt about the outcome of the game. I asked them what was it like to have a referee fundamentally dictate the outcome of the game.

Sometimes we talk about the umpires and how they interpret our game. Clearly they make mistakes. Clearly, these mistakes sometimes change the momentum of the game. However, I will never have to explain to overseas people about how the umpire in a single decision provided 50% of a teams score when they were clearly losing the game and, at the same time, cut down the numbers of the winning team, and actually made a mistake in doing that.There is no doubt that a single decision determine the outcome of the game.

Next time they ask you to justify our umpire's decisions, remind them about the outcome of Man Utd and Real....

 

[DaVe86]

I like the first 4. Not sure the 5th really fits in a charter though.

Well where I am going with it is that our game should be celebrated for the fact that players of all sizes are required. You need ruckmen, tall forwards and small crumbers. And every player brings something unique to the table.

Therefore, any rule which would potentially hinder particular players should be treated with caution.

For example, the new ruck rules seemingly favour athletic ruckmen. This would go against my charter. Players with athleticism are naturally advantaged through a bigger jump and greater ability to cover the ground. But where a big strong ruckmen is advantaged is his ability to compete body to body.

Therefore I would've been very cautious bringing in ruck rules that eliminates body contact prior to the ball up because it will eliminate the rucks who like body contact.

It would also have been a consideration when brining in the sub rule, as the result has been the elimination of the genuine second ruckman.

A side can realistically only carry one player over the size of 200cm unless he can play forward as well. The second run has become more around the size of 195cm.

Although the charter itself would not have been enough to prevent this rule, it at least would've been a factor to consider.


These are just very silly examples...but all I'm saying is that our game should always be a sport where everyone of any size can play. You can't have a team of giants, and you can't have a team of short people. You need the balance. Any rules that favour particular players should be treated with caution.

 

[mattys123]

I think its a really good idea, and will at least help safe guard some of the fundamentals.

I think at first it should be started very basic...ie:

- Played on an oval field
- Played with an oval ball
- 6 points for a goal, 1 point for a behind
- No restrictions on player movement on field, 18 v 18.
- Game requires tall,small and medium players. All heights have unique values.


That might sound quite basic...but if for example one day the AFL floats the idea of putting zones on the field or set positions, then they couldn't because it would breach the charter.


But it won't stop rule interpretations.

I wouldn't lock in number 4, apparently KB and his cronies are even thinking of reducing the number of players on the field (16 has been mentioned) within the next few seasons.

I hope they don't change this though, I keep referring to soccer as a game that has had very rule changes yet has grown it's brand over several generations.

 

[Vicky Park]

A charter should highlight and celebrate the richness and complexity of our game. All of these dont belong in a charter, but collectively they distinguish our game: diverse skills and body types, the 'speccy', unpredictable oval ball, body contact, multiple umpires with different roles, runners on the field, (ridiculously) long quarters, enormous playing fields, large teams, 'dynamic' rules, huge mostly well-behaved crowds with near equal numbers of male and female fans, run-through banners, complicated finals system, and all the crazy idiosyncrasies that we love and get frustrated by, and bemuse or confuse non-AFL types. I try to enjoy other sports, but compared to footy I find most of them monotone, beige and boring.