Roast Congrats AFL You Win

[DickieKnee]

Don’t hold ya breath brother … … he’s a master at it

And a protected species.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Can't wait for Danger to get fined for flopping.Did it again on the weekend.

What are you taking about? He gets rewarded for flopping.

 

[Spagman]

don't forget the cringe worthy "woke" ads by all their sponsors in the ad breaks - showing their "diversity" while the reality is every club is being investigated for systematic racism

And the "Official CRYPTO" sponsor, and how there has to be an "OFFICIAL SPONSOR" for every single blerking part of the game.

 

[O_Grinners17]

it's been shit for years we just haven't noticed cause we've been good haha

 

[T4P]

Would you be making this thread if we won? I doubt it.

I also doubt it, but that's not really the point. I share the views even when we do win.

I've also watched a fair bit of impartial footy this season, and yeah it's not as frustrating as your own team, but it definitely makes me less interested in watching games.

Talking purely about the rules of the game (not the game day experience), I think experiencing your team losing has become a more frustrating experience. I usually don't find it difficult to appreciate watching a better team beat Richmond - there's something artful in watching a team gain supremacy in the arm wrestle of an AFL match.

The problem is, the circuit-breaker all too often now ends up being a questionable free kick or a 50m penalty for a minor transgression. The clarity of rules, and consequently consistency of umpiring, has gone out of the window. This is not the umpires' fault.

The AFL, in their pursuit of 'free-flowing, high-scoring footy', has sacrificed a foundational component of what makes a sport viable - being able to objectively understand and apply the rules without contradiction. (I also think it has resulted in a more boring style of slingshot footy where maintaining possession has become the dominant strategy due to the complete lack of pressure from the new standing the mark rule, but that's less relevant)

IMO, you basically have two things to optimise for when designing the rules:
1. Safety of players
2. Ease of adjudication - make it easy for umpires to make decisions
From the leftover options, select which rules would make the game most watchable. It's not that hard, and it stuns me how much the AFL fails to recognise the importance of clear decision-making.

 

[fargothegreat]

I also doubt it, but that's not really the point. I share the views even when we do win.

I've also watched a fair bit of impartial footy this season, and yeah it's not as frustrating as your own team, but it definitely makes me less interested in watching games.

Talking purely about the rules of the game (not the game day experience), I think experiencing your team losing has become a more frustrating experience. I usually don't find it difficult to appreciate watching a better team beat Richmond - there's something artful in watching a team gain supremacy in the arm wrestle of an AFL match.

The problem is, the circuit-breaker all too often now ends up being a questionable free kick or a 50m penalty for a minor transgression. The clarity of rules, and consequently consistency of umpiring, has gone out of the window. This is not the umpires' fault.

The AFL, in their pursuit of 'free-flowing, high-scoring footy', has sacrificed a foundational component of what makes a sport viable - being able to objectively understand and apply the rules without contradiction. (I also think it has resulted in a more boring style of slingshot footy where maintaining possession has become the dominant strategy due to the complete lack of pressure from the new standing the mark rule, but that's less relevant)

IMO, you basically have two things to optimise for when designing the rules:
1. Safety of players
2. Ease of adjudication - make it easy for umpires to make decisions
From the leftover options, select which rules would make the game most watchable. It's not that hard, and it stuns me how much the AFL fails to recognise the importance of clear decision-making.

Yeah I don't disagree on the points raised. The timing of it was the issue.

I saw the thread pop up immediately after we'd just been convincingly beaten, and thought it came across as being a bit of a sore loser — a bit like those who choose to blame the umpires.

 

[RunningBounce]

I also doubt it, but that's not really the point. I share the views even when we do win.

I've also watched a fair bit of impartial footy this season, and yeah it's not as frustrating as your own team, but it definitely makes me less interested in watching games.

I feel the same, Tiger, and have for years. Even when we were winning premierships, I was going to less games, and watching way less AFL.

Wasn't sure if it was a general case of the shits with the world. Could still be that.

The AFL, in their pursuit of 'free-flowing, high-scoring footy', has sacrificed a foundational component of what makes a sport viable - being able to objectively understand and apply the rules without contradiction. (I also think it has resulted in a more boring style of slingshot footy where maintaining possession has become the dominant strategy due to the complete lack of pressure from the new standing the mark rule, but that's less relevant)

Agree. But I don't blame the AFL 100%. Whingers have campaigned to "save footy" for years. Most of it was driven by the media. Highlights = money. Also some contribution from the footy "media" being largely ex-players who are paid to watch 9 games a week and didn't like it because it looked different to how they remember it.

Fine. It's not how I like Aussie Rules, but if it makes the majority happy, I'll toddle off and leave them debating why one incident was dropping the ball and the same thing from the 1st quarter was HTB during their goal-fest. Plenty of Aussie Rules in the world.

Interestingly, umpires have walked away too - all levels. Too hard.

Some leagues won't have boundary or goal umpies for u19 and reserves this season. Some will have inexperienced umpires (kids) paired with one experienced umpire for seniors. Some don't play 6-6-6 or stand, because it's too hard to adjudicate, or have stripped back holding the ball decisions to make it simpler for inexperienced umpires to apply consistently. IMO, makes a better contest.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

steve hocking destroyed our game

 

[NaturalDisaster]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics states that deaths in 2021 in Australia is below the average of the past 30 years,with all respect its clear to see that
in an ever increasing ageing assembly here in Terra Australis(Australia starts 200m from the shoreline and runs for over 200 miles from that point) there is NONE and there hasnt been a disaster/pandemic as the inventors claimed,it was always a claim,'he whom makes the claim bears the burden of proof' and in this instance the FACTS prove by numbers of deceased that there never was and never will be a pandemic,the PROOF - Deaths and causes of deaths in Australia 2020-2022,be my guest to look up all the FACTS on that website

Get this shit out of here and into the conspiracy board

 

[SplintWhisky]

Would you be making this thread if we won? I doubt it.

I have had these thoughts for a while. I have been watching old games of the tigers on YouTube and I have to say, the footy of 2010 - 17 was a golden age compared to what we have now. The games these days also feel somewhat predetermined with the level of umpire interference. This year for example we have heard the ump 44 times per match paying a free for either side. In 2013 it was 36 frees a game, almost a 22% increase.

Back in these days I was so excited waiting for my MCC membership. I was going to head into all the Richmond games I could and then also go to the blockbuster games between other clubs. Since the beginning of 6-6-6 I have not been able to muster up the enthusiasm to head to even 20% of Richmond games. Why bother participate in something where the officiating body has made clear that they are against you?

 

[Achilles Heel]

I have had these thoughts for a while. I have been watching old games of the tigers on YouTube and I have to say, the footy of 2010 - 17 was a golden age compared to what we have now. The games these days also feel somewhat predetermined with the level of umpire interference. This year for example we have heard the ump 44 times per match paying a free for either side. In 2013 it was 36 frees a game, almost a 22% increase.

Back in these days I was so excited waiting for my MCC membership. I was going to head into all the Richmond games I could and then also go to the blockbuster games between other clubs. Since the beginning of 6-6-6 I have not been able to muster up the enthusiasm to head to even 20% of Richmond games. Why bother participate in something where the officiating body has made clear that they are against you?

Match fixing

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I have had these thoughts for a while. I have been watching old games of the tigers on YouTube and I have to say, the footy of 2010 - 17 was a golden age compared to what we have now. The games these days also feel somewhat predetermined with the level of umpire interference. This year for example we have heard the ump 44 times per match paying a free for either side. In 2013 it was 36 frees a game, almost a 22% increase.

Back in these days I was so excited waiting for my MCC membership. I was going to head into all the Richmond games I could and then also go to the blockbuster games between other clubs. Since the beginning of 6-6-6 I have not been able to muster up the enthusiasm to head to even 20% of Richmond games. Why bother participate in something where the officiating body has made clear that they are against you?

They've ruined the game its as simple as that.Its boardering on a mix of netball/soccer & basketball.
They have taken away the uniqueness of the sport of the fear of losing kids to other sports.
Fans will go in droves.
The game use to be fast & exciting.
Its a bore now.

 

[This Is Anfield]

They've ruined the game its as simple as that.Its boardering on a mix of netball/soccer & basketball.
They have taken away the uniqueness of the sport of the fear of losing kids to other sports.
Fans will go in droves.
The game use to be fast & exciting.
Its a bore now.

I didn’t see it as I was working but, surely, the Port v Demons game was a shining example of the modern game?
Exciting ball movement with lots and lots and lots of goals?

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I didn’t see it as I was working but, surely, the Port v Demons game was a shining example of the modern game?
Exciting ball movement with lots and lots and lots of goals?

I would've taken a sickie mate.

 

[fargothegreat]

I have had these thoughts for a while. I have been watching old games of the tigers on YouTube and I have to say, the footy of 2010 - 17 was a golden age compared to what we have now. The games these days also feel somewhat predetermined with the level of umpire interference. This year for example we have heard the ump 44 times per match paying a free for either side. In 2013 it was 36 frees a game, almost a 22% increase.

Back in these days I was so excited waiting for my MCC membership. I was going to head into all the Richmond games I could and then also go to the blockbuster games between other clubs. Since the beginning of 6-6-6 I have not been able to muster up the enthusiasm to head to even 20% of Richmond games. Why bother participate in something where the officiating body has made clear that they are against you?

Yeah the game is definitely way over-umpired. The AFL need to realise that adding new rules to combat coaches' defensive strategies and make the game more appealing to watch doesn't ever work, as the complicated rules make the game so hard to follow for most people.

Someone needs to come in with a mandate to simplify the rules and strip out as much as they can to make the game easier to follow for newcomers and easier to umpire with rules that are black and white and not up to individual interpretation.

Off the top of my head, here are a few common sense changes I'd make:

• Abolish the stand rule
• Abolish the ruck nomination rule
• Abolish the 'insufficient intent' (deliberate out of bounds) rule. Change the rule to be if you kick or handball the ball when not in your forward 50 and it goes out of bounds without another player touching it its considered out on the full.
• Abolish 'prior opportunity'. Change the rule to be much simpler—if you are tackled, you must immediately dispose of the ball correctly (no dropping it!!!). A ball-up is only called when the ball is held to the player in the tackle, or when multiple players are contesting the ball and it is locked in.
• Abolish the bounce. **** tradition! Just throw the ball up to stop every second bounce being recalled.
• Actually enforce the 'kick must be 15m to award a mark' rule.
• Abolish the 'warning' for 666. Players know the rule now.

I actually think the 666 starting positions work quite well and simplify the game. We're seeing more players like Bolton bursting out of the middle and quickly driving the ball forward. Its a black and white rule that you can't really umpire incorrectly.

The other changes I'd make would be to interchange:

• Reduce interchange to three players.
• Turn the medical sub into a tactical sub that can be used at any time and add a second sub.

Fatigue does open the game up, but it also makes it harder for younger players with underdeveloped tanks such as Sonsie or Stack and older or injury-prone players such as Prestia and Cotch. Including the extra sub and making them tactical means we could play draftees earlier or bring older blokes off for a rest and lengthen their careers. Making it tactical also adds intrigue to the game. Do we do things like play two rucks, but have them each only play a half, or inject someone like Maurice Rioli into the game late to take advantage of tired defenders?

 

[Achilles Heel]

Yeah the game is definitely way over-umpired. The AFL need to realise that adding new rules to combat coaches' defensive strategies and make the game more appealing to watch doesn't ever work, as the complicated rules make the game so hard to follow for most people.

Someone needs to come in with a mandate to simplify the rules and strip out as much as they can to make the game easier to follow for newcomers and easier to umpire with rules that are black and white and not up to individual interpretation.

Off the top of my head, here are a few common sense changes I'd make:

• Abolish the stand rule
• Abolish the ruck nomination rule
• Abolish the 'insufficient intent' (deliberate out of bounds) rule. Change the rule to be if you kick or handball the ball when not in your forward 50 and it goes out of bounds without another player touching it its considered out on the full.
• Abolish 'prior opportunity'. Change the rule to be much simpler—if you are tackled, you must immediately dispose of the ball correctly (no dropping it!!!). A ball-up is only called when the ball is held to the player in the tackle, or when multiple players are contesting the ball and it is locked in.
• Abolish the bounce. fu** tradition! Just throw the ball up to stop every second bounce being recalled.
• Actually enforce the 'kick must be 15m to award a mark' rule.
• Abolish the 'warning' for 666. Players know the rule now.

I actually think the 666 starting positions work quite well and simplify the game. We're seeing more players like Bolton bursting out of the middle and quickly driving the ball forward. Its a black and white rule that you can't really umpire incorrectly.

The other changes I'd make would be to interchange:

• Reduce interchange to three players.
• Turn the medical sub into a tactical sub that can be used at any time and add a second sub.

Fatigue does open the game up, but it also makes it harder for younger players with underdeveloped tanks such as Sonsie or Stack and older or injury-prone players such as Prestia and Cotch. Including the extra sub and making them tactical means we could play draftees earlier or bring older blokes off for a rest and lengthen their careers. Making it tactical also adds intrigue to the game. Do we do things like play two rucks, but have them each only play a half, or inject someone like Maurice Rioli into the game late to take advantage of tired defenders?

They would need someone at AFL hq that doesn’t have his snout in the money trough

 

[This Is Anfield]

Shit rules and shit umpiring would be semi tolerable if it was close to being consistent and fair!!!

 

[Not Important]

steve hocking destroyed our game

reckon the games in pretty good shape this year. faster and more open. 2 many of us r whining about the changes being the cause of our fall away. it has much more 2 do with injuries and failure 2 adapt.

 

[Tigeron]

They would need someone at AFL hq that doesn’t have his snout in the money trough

8

 

[Tigeron]

Gil the destroyer ruined the game the media won't speak up and the umpires are deciding games.

 

[fargothegreat]

They would need someone at AFL hq that doesn’t have his snout in the money trough

I reckon they'd get a hell of a lot more people watching the game on telly if they could understand it better. My gf is constantly asking me about the rules when we watch together and I find it difficult to explain because at the moment half the rules come down to individual interpretation.

 

[RobsJourney]

Yeah the game is definitely way over-umpired. The AFL need to realise that adding new rules to combat coaches' defensive strategies and make the game more appealing to watch doesn't ever work, as the complicated rules make the game so hard to follow for most people.

Someone needs to come in with a mandate to simplify the rules and strip out as much as they can to make the game easier to follow for newcomers and easier to umpire with rules that are black and white and not up to individual interpretation.

Off the top of my head, here are a few common sense changes I'd make:

• Abolish the stand rule
• Abolish the ruck nomination rule
• Abolish the 'insufficient intent' (deliberate out of bounds) rule. Change the rule to be if you kick or handball the ball when not in your forward 50 and it goes out of bounds without another player touching it its considered out on the full.
• Abolish 'prior opportunity'. Change the rule to be much simpler—if you are tackled, you must immediately dispose of the ball correctly (no dropping it!!!). A ball-up is only called when the ball is held to the player in the tackle, or when multiple players are contesting the ball and it is locked in.
• Abolish the bounce. fu** tradition! Just throw the ball up to stop every second bounce being recalled.
• Actually enforce the 'kick must be 15m to award a mark' rule.
• Abolish the 'warning' for 666. Players know the rule now.

I actually think the 666 starting positions work quite well and simplify the game. We're seeing more players like Bolton bursting out of the middle and quickly driving the ball forward. Its a black and white rule that you can't really umpire incorrectly.

The other changes I'd make would be to interchange:

• Reduce interchange to three players.
• Turn the medical sub into a tactical sub that can be used at any time and add a second sub.

Fatigue does open the game up, but it also makes it harder for younger players with underdeveloped tanks such as Sonsie or Stack and older or injury-prone players such as Prestia and Cotch. Including the extra sub and making them tactical means we could play draftees earlier or bring older blokes off for a rest and lengthen their careers. Making it tactical also adds intrigue to the game. Do we do things like play two rucks, but have them each only play a half, or inject someone like Maurice Rioli into the game late to take advantage of tired defenders?

My take on your post-

• Abolish the stand rule: Totally agree, get that shit out of the game quick smart, it's horrible. It creates too many free-goal situations, and players even try to abuse it, pretend to handball, player on the mark moves to react (which is almost impossible to stop, it's an instinctive flinch), 50 metres. Is that really what we want in our game? Cale Hooker did it almost every time he took a mark last year.
• Abolish the ruck nomination rule: Totally agree, just bloody throw it up/in, if a team isn't ready or on the flipside is able to play it well enough that a third man can impact things, whatever, it's not game-breaking, and it's far better than slowing the game down to nominate and then paying shit free kicks for mistakes.
• Abolish the 'insufficient intent' (deliberate out of bounds) rule: On this I disagree a little. I'd just love to see them go back to how it was before, just pinging very clear deliberates. These days if you are a defender who bombs the shit out of defensive 50, you get penalised for it. It used to be a defender's main weapon to get out of danger, but is now penalised to try and increase scoring, because it makes it harder for teams to get the ball out of defence. I say just bring it back to how it was, clearing kicks are fine, good job, but very clear deliberate, ping it. If a clearing kick on the wing goes 30 metres and then out of bounds, rather than ping for deliberate (because, especially in the wet, 99 times out of 100 it's not actually deliberate), just throw it in quickly and don't wait for the teams and rucks to show up and be ready.
• Abolish 'prior opportunity': This one will potentially always be contentious because holding the ball can be really hard for umpires in the heat of the moment. But it is very badly umpired now, that's for sure. My take is that it should be if you have had the ball for two seconds (no, you don't need to count, it's pretty easy to "feel" how long two seconds is, and worded differently it basically just means prior opportunity anyway) and you get tackled without disposing of the ball correctly OR get tackled and the ball gets locked in, it's holding the ball. If you've had the ball for less than two seconds, doesn't matter if you are tackled and it's a throw or the ball gets locked in, it's not holding the ball. I feel like that could make things really simple.
• Abolish the bounce: Up until last season I have always said no, keep the bounce, it's a great part of our game. Then we played GWS when our season was dead, we got wrecked by both GWS and the umpires that day, and there were at least three occasions when the umpire bounced it a mile outside the circle to Mumford's advantage, he just punched it a mile forward, and they called play on, then there was ONE to Nank's advantage and they stopped play. After that, and after seeing SO many bad bounces this season already, I say scrap it.
• Actually enforce the 'kick must be 15m to award a mark' rule: I agree, and I almost want to say make it 20 metres. Chip chip footy is horrible, especially when the 15m isn't enforced.
• Abolish the 'warning' for 666: Agreed, if you fail to line up 666 at the centre ball up, free kick to the other team.
• Reduce interchange to three players: I think keep it as four, 22 is about the right number.
• Turn the medical sub into a tactical sub: I don't agree with a tactical sub sorry. I would keep the medical sub but, if a player is subbed out, they are not allowed to play the following week. This hopefully goes some way to stopping coaches abusing it, as they will only use it if a player is genuinely injured enough.

Some additions I'd make-

• Stop calling a free kick when a legal tackle turns into an "in the back" or an "over the shoulder": I absolutely hate it when I see a normal tackle and then the player with the ball flops forward or rolls onto his stomach and the umpire calls in the back. They probably do it to keep the game moving and I hate that, it's just another attempt to manufacture play and manufacture scoring. Same with a legal tackle that then slides up over the shoulder. If the tackle was legal at first, let it go.
• Similar to the above, I would love if they stopped calling free kicks when there are tiny little bits of nothing contact to the shoulder or above, just let it go unless it actually impacts the player/play.
• Abolish the protected area: This one has just never sat right with me. Unless a nearby player actually does something to physically impede the guy with the ball, it shouldn't be pinged. Players should not be required to be "aware" of invisible field zones. It just goes against all instinct and is impossible to fairly adjudicate, and the punishment also does not fit the crime. Guy has the ball 80 metres from goal, about to bomb it into 50, opponent strolls by 4 metres to the left of him, 50 metres is called and it becomes an almost certain goal. It's insane. But even without the fact that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the fact is that it's just too hard a rule to make clear, again, there are no lines on the field that magically appear, and it's not fair to say "just don't go near the guy with the ball", often players are already nearby and they have to mad dash away from danger quickly, lest they cause a 50, it's just so dumb, and causes so many shitty "feelsbad" moments for players and fans.
• 50 should either be a lot harder to receive, or it should just be 30: Especially given how many shitty little ways there are to give away 50 metres, the penalty is just way too game-changing, so I feel it should either be harder to give away and umpires should relax, and/or it should only be 30 metres.
• Rotations: Honestly I was all-for less rotations to tire sides out and open up the game, but I dunno, since they brought it in I'm now almost for bringing it back to unlimited. One because it sucks that there is some invisible stat that needs to be kept track of that isn't actually part of the game, it's micromanagement that must be horrible to do on game day, and second, is footy better these days since the lowering of rotations? God no, footy is kinda shit at the moment, I feel so negative when I watch it, I don't enjoy it but since I've been into it so long, I stick by it almost masochistically, I can't help it. Maybe just put it back to unlimited and let them bloody run themselves ragged. You might then see the better players explode more often.

That's all I can really think of.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

reckon the games in pretty good shape this year. faster and more open. 2 many of us r whining about the changes being the cause of our fall away. it has much more 2 do with injuries and failure 2 adapt.

there's only been about 5 games this year that i wouldn't call disgraceful viewing

 

[Tigerbob68]

My take on your post-

• Abolish the stand rule: Totally agree, get that shit out of the game quick smart, it's horrible. It creates too many free-goal situations, and players even try to abuse it, pretend to handball, player on the mark moves to react (which is almost impossible to stop, it's an instinctive flinch), 50 metres. Is that really what we want in our game? Cale Hooker did it almost every time he took a mark last year.
• Abolish the ruck nomination rule: Totally agree, just bloody throw it up/in, if a team isn't ready or on the flipside is able to play it well enough that a third man can impact things, whatever, it's not game-breaking, and it's far better than slowing the game down to nominate and then paying shit free kicks for mistakes.
• Abolish the 'insufficient intent' (deliberate out of bounds) rule: On this I disagree a little. I'd just love to see them go back to how it was before, just pinging very clear deliberates. These days if you are a defender who bombs the shit out of defensive 50, you get penalised for it. It used to be a defender's main weapon to get out of danger, but is now penalised to try and increase scoring, because it makes it harder for teams to get the ball out of defence. I say just bring it back to how it was, clearing kicks are fine, good job, but very clear deliberate, ping it. If a clearing kick on the wing goes 30 metres and then out of bounds, rather than ping for deliberate (because, especially in the wet, 99 times out of 100 it's not actually deliberate), just throw it in quickly and don't wait for the teams and rucks to show up and be ready.
• Abolish 'prior opportunity': This one will potentially always be contentious because holding the ball can be really hard for umpires in the heat of the moment. But it is very badly umpired now, that's for sure. My take is that it should be if you have had the ball for two seconds (no, you don't need to count, it's pretty easy to "feel" how long two seconds is, and worded differently it basically just means prior opportunity anyway) and you get tackled without disposing of the ball correctly OR get tackled and the ball gets locked in, it's holding the ball. If you've had the ball for less than two seconds, doesn't matter if you are tackled and it's a throw or the ball gets locked in, it's not holding the ball. I feel like that could make things really simple.
• Abolish the bounce: Up until last season I have always said no, keep the bounce, it's a great part of our game. Then we played GWS when our season was dead, we got wrecked by both GWS and the umpires that day, and there were at least three occasions when the umpire bounced it a mile outside the circle to Mumford's advantage, he just punched it a mile forward, and they called play on, then there was ONE to Nank's advantage and they stopped play. After that, and after seeing SO many bad bounces this season already, I say scrap it.
• Actually enforce the 'kick must be 15m to award a mark' rule: I agree, and I almost want to say make it 20 metres. Chip chip footy is horrible, especially when the 15m isn't enforced.
• Abolish the 'warning' for 666: Agreed, if you fail to line up 666 at the centre ball up, free kick to the other team.
• Reduce interchange to three players: I think keep it as four, 22 is about the right number.
• Turn the medical sub into a tactical sub: I don't agree with a tactical sub sorry. I would keep the medical sub but, if a player is subbed out, they are not allowed to play the following week. This hopefully goes some way to stopping coaches abusing it, as they will only use it if a player is genuinely injured enough.

Some additions I'd make-

• Stop calling a free kick when a legal tackle turns into an "in the back" or an "over the shoulder": I absolutely hate it when I see a normal tackle and then the player with the ball flops forward or rolls onto his stomach and the umpire calls in the back. They probably do it to keep the game moving and I hate that, it's just another attempt to manufacture play and manufacture scoring. Same with a legal tackle that then slides up over the shoulder. If the tackle was legal at first, let it go.
• Similar to the above, I would love if they stopped calling free kicks when there are tiny little bits of nothing contact to the shoulder or above, just let it go unless it actually impacts the player/play.
• Abolish the protected area: This one has just never sat right with me. Unless a nearby player actually does something to physically impede the guy with the ball, it shouldn't be pinged. Players should not be required to be "aware" of invisible field zones. It just goes against all instinct and is impossible to fairly adjudicate, and the punishment also does not fit the crime. Guy has the ball 80 metres from goal, about to bomb it into 50, opponent strolls by 4 metres to the left of him, 50 metres is called and it becomes an almost certain goal. It's insane. But even without the fact that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the fact is that it's just too hard a rule to make clear, again, there are no lines on the field that magically appear, and it's not fair to say "just don't go near the guy with the ball", often players are already nearby and they have to mad dash away from danger quickly, lest they cause a 50, it's just so dumb, and causes so many shitty "feelsbad" moments for players and fans.
• 50 should either be a lot harder to receive, or it should just be 30: Especially given how many shitty little ways there are to give away 50 metres, the penalty is just way too game-changing, so I feel it should either be harder to give away and umpires should relax, and/or it should only be 30 metres.
• Rotations: Honestly I was all-for less rotations to tire sides out and open up the game, but I dunno, since they brought it in I'm now almost for bringing it back to unlimited. One because it sucks that there is some invisible stat that needs to be kept track of that isn't actually part of the game, it's micromanagement that must be horrible to do on game day, and second, is footy better these days since the lowering of rotations? God no, footy is kinda shit at the moment, I feel so negative when I watch it, I don't enjoy it but since I've been into it so long, I stick by it almost masochistically, I can't help it. Maybe just put it back to unlimited and let them bloody run themselves ragged. You might then see the better players explode more often.

That's all I can really think of.

I'm too tired to put my two cents in as such. Just wanted to say great posts and points made both yourself and fargothegreat
Only thing I'll chuck in is that 50m penalties and deliberate out of bounds used to play such a minor role in footy a fair while back and that was a good thing! 30m penalties would be interesting as I've watched a few really old games recently and the old 15m penalty was actually quite common but you often see how far forward they'd run and wonder if it was really much of a penalty at all!

 

[SplintWhisky]

Yeah the game is definitely way over-umpired. The AFL need to realise that adding new rules to combat coaches' defensive strategies and make the game more appealing to watch doesn't ever work, as the complicated rules make the game so hard to follow for most people.

Someone needs to come in with a mandate to simplify the rules and strip out as much as they can to make the game easier to follow for newcomers and easier to umpire with rules that are black and white and not up to individual interpretation.

Off the top of my head, here are a few common sense changes I'd make:

• Abolish the stand rule
• Abolish the ruck nomination rule
• Abolish the 'insufficient intent' (deliberate out of bounds) rule. Change the rule to be if you kick or handball the ball when not in your forward 50 and it goes out of bounds without another player touching it its considered out on the full.
• Abolish 'prior opportunity'. Change the rule to be much simpler—if you are tackled, you must immediately dispose of the ball correctly (no dropping it!!!). A ball-up is only called when the ball is held to the player in the tackle, or when multiple players are contesting the ball and it is locked in.
• Abolish the bounce. fu** tradition! Just throw the ball up to stop every second bounce being recalled.
• Actually enforce the 'kick must be 15m to award a mark' rule.
• Abolish the 'warning' for 666. Players know the rule now.

I actually think the 666 starting positions work quite well and simplify the game. We're seeing more players like Bolton bursting out of the middle and quickly driving the ball forward. Its a black and white rule that you can't really umpire incorrectly.

The other changes I'd make would be to interchange:

• Reduce interchange to three players.
• Turn the medical sub into a tactical sub that can be used at any time and add a second sub.

Fatigue does open the game up, but it also makes it harder for younger players with underdeveloped tanks such as Sonsie or Stack and older or injury-prone players such as Prestia and Cotch. Including the extra sub and making them tactical means we could play draftees earlier or bring older blokes off for a rest and lengthen their careers. Making it tactical also adds intrigue to the game. Do we do things like play two rucks, but have them each only play a half, or inject someone like Maurice Rioli into the game late to take advantage of tired defenders?

The ironic thing was our style of play was not defensive and the AFL got all shitty about it. I would want the new rules gone and the ruck nomination thrown away as well. Just let the coaches coach and someone will find a way to bust defense's like we did