If you could get rid of one rule what would it be and why?

[PhatBoy]

Held without the ball, when clearly the contact by the defender was made when the opponent was in the process of gathering it. Ie. bouncing ball, player has a chance to take possession, fumbles it, defender tackles him but gets penalised for tackling the guy without the ball.

Rewards poor hands.

 

[Tbonefreo]

Removing rule 'interpretations". What a load of horseshit. Changing the rules on the fly without telling most clubs.

Sack the lot actually bunch of w***ers.

 

[SgtSchulz]

Incorrect disposal should be ruthlessly adjudicated.

Prior opportunity should not be granted from a handball.

Deliberate shouldn't apply for rushed behinds.

 

[Bardo State]

Not taking away a rule but pay a marking infringement for body spoils where the player is clearly not going for the ball and just taking someone out of the contest. Ditto chopping the arms. Give forwards a chance.

 

[Duskfire]

The ten metre protected zone, it's an unecesary and useless rule.

The rule exists because teams were getting very good at blocking the corridor. No protected zone means player has less freedom. The rule is fine, it just needs to be far more lax. Just like the below the knees rule, umpires have just taken it to extreme.

The rule needs to exist, maybe just reworded differently.

I really dislike holding without the ball being paid when the ball spills free and the player tackling isn't aware of it because there's a massive pack of players. Holding without the ball exists for that reason, not because the ball got dislodged mid tackle.

 

[asanque]

Get rid of #freekickhawthorn

Let's get rid of #freekickcrows first

+33 free kick differential

Only +15 to the hawks

Edit: seriously get rid of the below the knees (which was brought in to protect from goodes style soccer slides, not for contesting the ball head first)

 

[Requiem]

The ability for the Dogs to lose the game. Replaced by a rule where the umps can make it up so they can get the win.

We already did that for the 2016 Grand Final.

 

[gavaniacono]

The Rules of Nature that Govern Umpire Procreation.

 

[Frazb]

Using foul language at the umpire

 

[HTT]

Only one?

 

[mehow2g]

Push in the back during tackle.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Contact below the knees rule.
There is no other correct answer.

This

 

[JT_the_Man]

Contact below the knees rule.
There is no other correct answer.

Protected zone.

 

[Emissary]

'touched' - if a player kicks it and it goes through the goals, it's a goal. Looking at a million zoomed-in replays to see if someone's pinky finger moved a couple of pixels seems silly.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I would get rid of push in the back because I believe it’s all part of the contest

Thoughts?

I agree with this in most cases. When tackled at stoppages and you get inadvertent falls on to the back, that's not a risk. Many rules are there to protect the players but now we seem to be protecting the sanctity of the rule for the sake of it, not for the protection of players.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Goal review.

It was intended to stop the howlers or when the goal umpire was completely blind to the ball. Not if a fingernail Maybe, perhaps, if you zoom in 10,800 x, touches an atom on the ball.... maybe....

* it off and have it reviewed live and only used for said howlers (09 and 2011 GF for eg. Or the 2010 Byrnes “rushed”).

 

[iameviljez]

Contact below the knees rule.
There is no other correct answer.

Dunno, protected area and ruck nomination giving it a pretty hard crack atm.

 

[iameviljez]

Goal Review.
It’s a joke and we got by for over a hundred years without it...get rid of it.

If Geelong had been leading the 2009 GF by less than five points when the siren went, or Collingwood got up at the death in 2011, we wouldn't be "getting by" with it.

 

[tigs2010]

On field zones. Getting in super early.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Their are many rules to criticize, but complaining about the goal review confuses me. Their have been countless times since the system has been implemented that the goal umpires original decision was overturned.

We never "got by" before the goal review system. Their were many instances where the goal umpire got it wrong... The Sharrod Wellinghan poster in the 2011 GF, Jarrad Waite's foot brushing against the ball against Essendon, the Shannon Byrnes horrible decision against Collingwood, or the Tom Hawkins poster in the 2009 GF(that was game changing). These all could have been avoided if the system was in place.

Could the system be improved? Yes. But should it be scrapped? Absolutely not.

There*

 

[Grrr]

The 10m rule is nonsense and impossible for umps to adjudicate. Good example on Rich/Adelaide game the ball was passed to an Adelaide player who by the time he marked it had almost run into Dusty. Obviously Martin was in the 10m arc, but could go nowhere as the Adelaide player looked to go sideways except curl up in a ball. The ump used common sense (unlike the commentators who all said obvious 50), but under the new rules it was a 50m.
Then someone running out of the area or encroaching a metre or so in running by completely irrelevant to the player with the ball gets called. Impossible and stupid.

 

[Wesley2]

Lifting the arm with the ball to avoid a tackle is legal, but since lifting the arm is a choice and could instead be used to legally dispose the ball it means prior opportunity, meaning if you are tackled performing the arm lift it is HTB and the tackler is rewarded.

 

[wcegls]

What ever rule that allows Collywobblez the ability to make bad threads?

This is a pretty good thread to be honest ...

For me contact below the knees definitely

 

[blitzer]

Its a pretty tough call.

I guess protected zone annoys me the most because of the extremely large penalty of 50m for no involvement in the play the vast majority of the time.

 

[Speck]

I think the below the knees and protected zone needs some modification. I can understand why they were brought in but they've gone further than intended.

Below the knees - the issue is when players slide with their legs first (Adam Goodes a culprit). This shouldn't be allowed, but if you're going for the ball with your head down it should be legal (play on, never a high free kick).

Protected area - the intent is correct, if a player moves 2-3m off his line and it's play on he needs to have the ability to get the ball away. The 10m needs to become almost an "offside" type area if you want it to work - you're allowed there, but if you impact the play (tackle, smother, put pressure on, anything but affect the ball carrier until it's disposed of or leaves the area) it's 50.