Make a rule change

[The King!]

Don't get a game? Play in the reserves. Isn't that what emergencies do anyway?

But if they can be pulled in at anytime they could not be playing reserves? sometimes reserves dont even play in the same state

 

[poshman]

Can anyone explain to me why we need to limit rotations?

I dont get this either. Some think that limiting rotations means we will get better footy played like it was back in the day. I have rewetted a heap of games from back in the day recently... the best games now are better than the best games then. If you take nostalgia out of it and look at skills, pace, tactics etc there is a huge difference.

I hope they dont go below 120. Now they have the limit though they should just have four on the interchange. If they are still concerned they could possibly have a sub for injuries and concussions only. But I think four on interchange is the way to go personally.

 

[Milanista28]

I dont get this either. Some think that limiting rotations means we will get better footy played like it was back in the day. I have rewetted a heap of games from back in the day recently... the best games now are better than the best games then. If you take nostalgia out of it and look at skills, pace, tactics etc there is a huge difference.

I hope they dont go below 120. Now they have the limit though they should just have four on the interchange. If they are still concerned they could possibly have a sub for injuries and concussions only. But I think four on interchange is the way to go personally.

I remember someone making the point that it wasn't a good look so many players running on and off all game, Why anyone would go to a game and think "Geez I don't like the look of that" is beyond me.

 

[pazza]

Clubs restricted to using substitute players for injuries only.

 

[Seeds]

Hypothetical question. If you were in charge of the AFL rules committee and could make one change this season (which would come into imediate effect), what would it be?

For me - bye bye sub rule.

I would increase it to two subs

 

[Seeds]

Scrap the rule "if a player has a hold of your jumper and you bounce the ball it's holding the ball" idiotic and unnecessary.

No it isn't. It was used as a tactic to get holding the man frees before they made it holding the ball.

 

[Seeds]

Remove sub rule.
No free kick for those that duck.
No fines or suspensions for melees. Bring back the fights.

Definition of a bogan footy post right here.

 

[Seeds]

Have a choice from 3 for the sub. So 3 on the bench and a sub from a choice of 3. Can make some more tactical choices for the game by having a defender, mid, forward etc.

Buries heads in hands. So you will have lots of players not playing every week?

 

[Seeds]

This.

It will also reduce headhigh collisions because the players will not be rewarded for going head first into tackles.

So you want the game to be netball? In my day putting the head over the ball and charging into contests was courageous and worth respect.

 

[Affidavit]

Definition of a bogan footy post right here.

Nah you're right. No contact at all! Should be like netball.

 

[Collingwoodity]

So you want the game to be netball? In my day putting the head over the ball and charging into contests was courageous and worth respect.

Quite the jump.

Did you lead with your head in order to get the ball or to obtain a free kick?

 

[Seeds]

Quite the jump.

Did you lead with your head in order to get the ball or to obtain a free kick?

The ball. But charging into another player is even more courageous. Kudos I say. If they are willing to risk serious head injury just to get a free then at the very least they deserve that free.

 

[Seeds]

Nah you're right. No contact at all! Should be like netball.

I was referring more to your first two comments.

 

[Craigacat]

How about a rule stipulating that when you dispose of the ball by hand; the hand holding the ball has to be stationary and the hand punching the ball has to be a fist?... Oh, and also maybe that you're not allowed to do it over your head?

 

[Emissary]

No "touched" rule. Why does it matter if someone gets a fingernail on the ball or not? Applies to marking, goals, OOF etc. Too hard to adjudicate on accurately.

 

[Aussie_boy]

Fixture rule 1A: Friday night football shall not involve Carlton

 

[Geronimo#]

Somehow make it that 3 forwards/backs can't take possession of the ball outside 50. That'll stop a bit of congestion! Bring back the big strong forward and the high mark I say.
Also reduce interchange to 20 for the game while your at it.
Also after a goal no ones allowed to enter the centre square untill the ball leaves it. Game fixed. Goodnight

 

[Geronimo#]

by the way I mean 3 forward/back at each end. Now really time for bed.
Ps inbox me Gil with a big check for more ideas

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

i wouldn't call getting rid of the sub making a new rule, It's more like deleting a silly one.

If i could change one rule it would be to make the push in the back only applicable when a player is either being tackled, or in the act of kicking or on a lead.

A Push in the back in a marking contest of strength should be A'okay in my opinion. Its not dangerous and it rewards the player with better body positioning and strength,

I'm not so sure I would agree with the part in bold. Man in front has always been considered the better positioning.

I can only change one rule, so scrapping interchange and modifying the sub is out of the question as it reqires at least two.

Tempted to get much harsher on deliberate out of bounds, to the point where any doubt is a free. But not that either. There are some other interpretation ones as well, but actual rule change .... hmmmm


Probably a change to the sheperding rule. As far as I'm concerned you should be allowed to block an oppoenent's run at the ball in order to protect a team mate. Actually coming at an opponent is a different story but so often a guy who is simply positioned well to block an opponent's path and allow a team mate an uncontested possession, gets shoved in the back, and is penalised for sheperding.
Bumping someone off the ball, still pay that, but when its just positioning either pay the "in the back" if that occurs or at the very least allow play on. Its a team game. You shouldn't have to clear a path for an opponent, which is how it seems sometimes.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The problem with "lets leave the rules alone for 5 years" is that players and tactics evolve. There would be some new tactic that makes fans confused and angry and we would have to be stuck with it for the next 5 years.

Getting rid of a permanent rules committee who have to make changes to justify their own existence might be a good start though.

 

[JackFlash]

Kicking backwards in defensive 50 is "PLAY ON" even if ball is marked.

 

[Bulldocker]

The chances of hitting the post are pretty slim. If that happens you obviously werent meant to win the game.

Are you serious? You're not meant to win the game if you send the ball out of bounds - not because you hit the goalpost. What a thoroughly stupid comment

 

[garrydavis]

I would make a rule saying that no rules can be changed.

 

[Concussion]

Scrap the advantage rule when a player is infringed in a marking contest and the ball is spoilt.
Stop the play and put the play from behind the mark.