Review Malcolm Blight - Last Touch Rule, Interchange Cut, 20m Goal Square

[Rave Slave]

On a serious note, the game as a spectacle has rapidly declined on the back of dour tactics, congestion around the ball and ridiculous overpolicing and inconsistency from both the umpires and the MRP.

Fixing it would require a common sense approach (possible) a level playing field of all clubs (won’t happen) and some loosening of the MRP rules to allow greater levels of contact (will never happen - the protection of the head is #1 priority and we will only see these elements strengthened).

 

[Big Gazoongas]

I hate all three of them. I'm not even sure which suggested rule change I hate the most.

Actually, I am. It's the last touch rule, which is an abomination. But the other two are close. There shouldn't be an interchange cap to begin with.

Hey geniuses, newsflash - if you want to reduce the number of players around the ball, you've got to do it directly. Clubs aren't going to stop doing it because of incidental rule changes. They're doing it because it's effective. If you try to stop it with incidental rule changes, there are only two possible outcomes. 1) They adapt to keep doing it anyway, or 2) the rule change is so heavy handed that it ****s up another important facet of the game.

And this is exactly what has happened over time and will continue to happen........but those running the game are far to intelligent to see this.

Then we invite dinosaurs to review the state of the game......FMD.

 

[baldandbroke]

LEAVE THE ******* GAME ALONE FFS.

Shows what a joke this industry is when TV viewers can dictate the rules of a sport.

absolute ******* farce of an organisation

You want to leave the game alone NOW ?????

If not, when would you like to draw the line for "leaving it alone"? 1900? 1951? 1988? 2000?

The game has ALWAYS changed.

Maybe you don't like out of bounds on the full? The centre square? This idea that the game should be left alone is complete fantasy land ... maybe the way the change is being implemented needs to be looked at - but change itself is not the problem.

 

[dylan123]

Agree with all of it except the bolded. If someone's had prior and gets tackled and the tackle clearly knocks the ball out, that's HTB for me. The tackle caused the incorrect disposal, reward it.

Yeah with prior I'd agree with that as well, put it on the player to protect the ball.

 

[dogs105]

You want to leave the game alone NOW ?????

If not, when would you like to draw the line for "leaving it alone"? 1900? 1951? 1988? 2000?

The game has ALWAYS changed.

Maybe you don't like out of bounds on the full? The centre square? This idea that the game should be left alone is complete fantasy land ... maybe the way the change is being implemented needs to be looked at - but change itself is not the problem.

Please leave it alone after 1998.

K. Thx.

 

[kulak]

What if this year’s turgid football is all part of the AFL’s plan to get us to like AFLX?

 

[Bicks]

 

[BrissyCrow]

Personally I would like to see the handball rule changed. In todays game there are far too many throws going on. Players handballing over their head using the hand that holds the ball to help propel the ball. The rule used to be that you had to use the fist of the hand that wasn't holding the ball to propel it. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt I think the umps should call throwing the ball unless its very clear that the disposal method is correct.

 

[chazwazza]

Isn’t last touch only penalised when it’s a clean possession?

Not sure if already answered.
Firstly when referring to the SANFL rule, people need to start calling this Last Disposal OOB not Last Touch, it’s very misleading otherwise.
The SANFL rule is strictly an OOB free kick paid when the ball goes OOB after a clear Disposal by hand or foot and not touched by any player. It should not be paid if the ball is shepherded over or a player hasn’t made a reasonable attempt to get the ball. You can’t just stand there and watch it go over.

 

[Anzacpaul]

You want to leave the game alone NOW ?????

If not, when would you like to draw the line for "leaving it alone"? 1900? 1951? 1988? 2000?

The game has ALWAYS changed.

Maybe you don't like out of bounds on the full? The centre square? This idea that the game should be left alone is complete fantasy land ... maybe the way the change is being implemented needs to be looked at - but change itself is not the problem.

No what I want is for the AFL not to kneejerk react because TV execs aren't happy with the ratings that it's getting. It's farcical.

I struggle to see one rule change I agree with since I've started watching the game, outside of the physical violence changes (gut punches/Barry Hall style slogs etc).

I pay for foxtel and a 3 game membership (will get 11 once a seat is available), plus there's nearly a million club members around the league, countless people with fox sports subscriptions who pay to watch the game we have (or had in a lot of cases).

They'd be far better off removing some of the garbage rules they've bought in over the years rather than adding new ones.

 

[Coopers]

There's not much I agree with there. I think I could get behind the 20m square, but it's not going to change much.

Honestly, if they think rotation capping is thing, then: No in-quarter changes. Changes can be at the breaks (or injury) and the injured dude is off for the quarter. I mean a rule where you now need a steward to manage the interchange is complicating things. NOT the other way around. s**t has to be simple.

Personally I would like to see the handball rule changed. In todays game there are far too many throws going on. Players handballing over their head using the hand that holds the ball to help propel the ball. The rule used to be that you had to use the fist of the hand that wasn't holding the ball to propel it. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt I think the umps should call throwing the ball unless its very clear that the disposal method is correct.

Well, there also used to be holding the ball when you know, you were tackled with it.
And you used to be able to push a bloke out the way and mark it.
And you used to be able to hip and shoulder a guy right in the head (this change I agree with).
And we didn't have flooding cos the players weren't full time athletes and couldn't do that for 2 hours straight.
And we didn't have a slew of rules around the umpire having to read your mind and decide what you were thinking at the time of an act on the field.

 

[cmndstab]

The thing I'm looking for in new rules is the removal of the massive grey area that asks umps to determine what someone is thinking.

I'm sorry, I'm not targeting you specifically on this... but I hate this line of thinking. There's nothing wrong with grey areas. Trying to get rid of them means we eliminate good parts of the game along with the bad. The last touch rule ends up penalising people who have done nothing wrong far more often than the umpire incorrectly decides that someone deliberately put the ball out of bounds. Minor skill errors turn into massive penalties, and winning a 50/50 contest often ends up resulting in a free kick against.

Trying to set up rules that are based on outcome rather than intent is how we ended up with this ridiculous farce where we get people suspended for minor incidents that happened to result in injury, and malicious incidents that didn't get swept under the rug.

And besides, all of this is missing the point. It's not like the game is impossible to umpire. We just need to actually make the umpires full time, pay them properly, and reward the good ones with continued employment. If the umpiring is poor, the solution is to improve the quality of umpires, not dumb the rules down to the point where the game itself suffers.

 

[SaltPeter]

I'm sorry, I'm not targeting you specifically on this... but I hate this line of thinking. There's nothing wrong with grey areas. Trying to get rid of them means we eliminate good parts of the game along with the bad. The last touch rule ends up penalising people who have done nothing wrong far more often than the umpire incorrectly decides that someone deliberately put the ball out of bounds. Minor skill errors turn into massive penalties, and winning a 50/50 contest often ends up resulting in a free kick against.

Trying to set up rules that are based on outcome rather than intent is how we ended up with this ridiculous farce where we get people suspended for minor incidents that happened to result in injury, and malicious incidents that didn't get swept under the rug.

And besides, all of this is missing the point. It's not like the game is impossible to umpire. We just need to actually make the umpires full time, pay them properly, and reward the good ones with continued employment. If the umpiring is poor, the solution is to improve the quality of umpires, not dumb the rules down to the point where the game itself suffers.

Makes me wonder how much it would take to get the umpires to go full time. They earn base salary now of around $65K with the best umpires earning up to around $150K

 

[Samcro24]

7 needs better commentators, less herpa derpa, and better Friday night fixtures.

 

[Slippery Pete]

You want to leave the game alone NOW ?????

If not, when would you like to draw the line for "leaving it alone"? 1900? 1951? 1988? 2000?

The game has ALWAYS changed.

Maybe you don't like out of bounds on the full? The centre square? This idea that the game should be left alone is complete fantasy land ... maybe the way the change is being implemented needs to be looked at - but change itself is not the problem.

Some of the changes have been for the better, sure. The two you mentioned (when were they, 60s, 70s?) are a good example.

But not all rule changes are created equal.

I’d like to know how many of the rule changes up to about 1990 were for the spectacle, and how many were for purely logistical and fairness purposes to close loopholes in the contest.

The issue people have with a lot of the rule changes from about 2002 onwards is that most of them have been spectacle related.

When you try and plug holes in the spectacle, you invariably create logistical and fairness problems with the game, and that’s a far worse problem.

What good is a spectacle if it has no integrity?

A lot of the rule changes in the last couple of decades have been a consequence of the AFL chasing its own tail.

When we actually do have a logistical/fairness issue with the contest, like the modern epidemic of players drawing high contact, the AFL leaves it alone for about three million years before doing anything.

The integrity of the contest seems to play second fiddle to the spectacle which they wanna tinker with every five seconds... and if that happens for long enough, the game becomes a joke.

 

[Boundryump]

All the grounds should be the same size for starters, is there any other football code that has varying ground/pitch sizes? No interchange for the first quarter and last quarters.

 

[Next Gen Rookie]

All the grounds should be the same size for starters, is there any other football code that has varying ground/pitch sizes? No interchange for the first quarter and last quarters.

Yeah, soccer.

 

[Boundryump]

Yeah, soccer.

Didn't know that

 

[cmndstab]

Some of the changes have been for the better, sure. The two you mentioned (when were they, 60s, 70s?) are a good example.

But not all rule changes are created equal.

I’d like to know how many of the rule changes up to about 1990 were for the spectacle, and how many were for purely logistical and fairness purposes to close loopholes in the contest.

The issue people have with a lot of the rule changes from about 2002 onwards is that most of them have been spectacle related.

When you try and plug holes in the spectacle, you invariably create logistical and fairness problems with the game, and that’s a far worse problem.

What good is a spectacle if it has no integrity?

A lot of the rule changes in the last couple of decades have been a consequence of the AFL chasing its own tail.

When we actually do have a logistical/fairness issue with the contest, like the modern epidemic of players drawing high contact, the AFL leaves it alone for about three million years before doing anything.

The integrity of the contest seems to play second fiddle to the spectacle which they wanna tinker with every five seconds... and if that happens for long enough, the game becomes a joke.

Thoroughly agreed.

When you create a rule to close a fairness problem (ie Hawthorn running down the clock in the GF by continually rushing the ball), that's fine.

When you create a rule to fix the spectacle, you forget that the clubs aren't playing to provide a spectacle, they're playing to win. If they can circumvent your rule to make winning more likely, they'll do so.

When you create a rule to fix a problem caused by your previous attempts to fix the spectacle, you're just chasing your tail. That's how we end up with players sweating off the ball just to tackle the ball hunter, or players running into tackles head first, and then the subsequent sliding incidents which were caused because players were trying to avoid giving away head-high tackles. All of which were caused by the AFL deciding to be harsher on HTB calls in clearances because they wanted to have fewer stoppages. Hell, I'd argue that Gary Rohan's broken leg was a direct consequence of the AFL deciding they hate stoppages.

Anything other than the very first category shouldn't be done.

 

[CrowBloke]

1)

‘‘last touch’’ out of bounds rule

NO.
Many of the last touch oob are accidental --- those deemed to be deliberate or insufficient attempt to keep the ball in are covered by existing rules.
Plenty of time will be wasted (as with goal referrals) to see who touched the ball last from a congested pack, when it's not clear who touched the ball last.
Players will use the rule unfairly to push the ball onto oppo players' bodies and legs, then out, to get the free kick.
It will reduce the number of throw-ins dramatically and spoil the spectacle of a good ruckman tapping to a player for a clearance. I enjoy the ruckmen jostling and the tactics involved at throw-ins.
2)

a limit to 60 interchanges, down from 90

Not sure.
Did he say why? Won't mids especially get more tired?
3)

enlarging the goal square to 20 metres

No. What's the reasoning behind this?
This punishes the attacking team who scored the point by giving the defence the ball + a 20m head start. Teams who are good at defensive pressure will be disadvantaged by rushed points making it a disincentive to attack the goals.
The zone will just set up a bit further back.
Conversely, it might encourage teams to improve their goal-kicking. To reward goals, maybe they could be increased to 8 points and a behind to 2 points? That 2 points might counter the kick-in loss of 20m from a point. OR 2 points for an attack-kicked point, with 1 for a rushed behind. Dunno, but the 6-point, 1-point system seems unfair.
I've always thought that a goal from a kick 50+m out takes much greater skill than one from say 20m out, or from a free kick in the goalsquare (often from a 50m penalty). Maybe Blighty could come up with some point-awarding scheme to take into account the skill/easiness of the goal kicked?

 

[dogs105]

Yeah, soccer.

And rugby.
And rugby league has varying size in goal areas.

 

[brucetiki]

1)
NO.
Many of the last touch oob are accidental --- those deemed to be deliberate or insufficient attempt to keep the ball in are covered by existing rules.
Plenty of time will be wasted (as with goal referrals) to see who touched the ball last from a congested pack, when it's not clear who touched the ball last.
Players will use the rule unfairly to push the ball onto oppo players' bodies and legs, then out, to get the free kick.
It will reduce the number of throw-ins dramatically and spoil the spectacle of a good ruckman tapping to a player for a clearance. I enjoy the ruckmen jostling and the tactics involved at throw-ins.

If it's the last possession out of bound rule that the SANFL have, it works well. It's only awarded if it's off a clear boot or handpass. If in doubt, it's a throw in. If shepherded out, it's a throw in. Players deliberately getting the ball onto an opposing boot for a free doesn't happen.

Yes it reduces the number of throw-ins, which is what it's intended to.

 

[chazwazza]

1)
NO.
Many of the last touch oob are accidental --- those deemed to be deliberate or insufficient attempt to keep the ball in are covered by existing rules.
Plenty of time will be wasted (as with goal referrals) to see who touched the ball last from a congested pack, when it's not clear who touched the ball last.
Players will use the rule unfairly to push the ball onto oppo players' bodies and legs, then out, to get the free kick.
It will reduce the number of throw-ins dramatically and spoil the spectacle of a good ruckman tapping to a player for a clearance. I enjoy the ruckmen jostling and the tactics involved at throw-ins.
2)
Not sure.
Did he say why? Won't mids especially get more tired?
3)
No. What's the reasoning behind this?
This punishes the attacking team who scored the point by giving the defence the ball + a 20m head start. Teams who are good at defensive pressure will be disadvantaged by rushed points making it a disincentive to attack the goals.
The zone will just set up a bit further back.
Conversely, it might encourage teams to improve their goal-kicking. To reward goals, maybe they could be increased to 8 points and a behind to 2 points? That 2 points might counter the kick-in loss of 20m from a point. OR 2 points for an attack-kicked point, with 1 for a rushed behind. Dunno, but the 6-point, 1-point system seems unfair.
I've always thought that a goal from a kick 50+m out takes much greater skill than one from say 20m out, or from a free kick in the goalsquare (often from a 50m penalty). Maybe Blighty could come up with some point-awarding scheme to take into account the skill/easiness of the goal kicked?

FFS, it’s not last touch, it’s last disposal out of bounds.

 

[cmndstab]

If it's the last possession out of bound rule that the SANFL have, it works well. It's only awarded if it's off a clear boot or handpass. If in doubt, it's a throw in. If shepherded out, it's a throw in. Players deliberately getting the ball onto an opposing boot for a free doesn't happen.

Yes it reduces the number of throw-ins, which is what it's intended to.

It doesn't penalise teams for any of those things, yes. However, it does still penalise teams for good play. I remember an incident in the AFLW season where one of our players took on two opposition players, managed to actually win the ball, and then had no choice but to put it on the boot. The ball skidded along for twenty metres or so and then bobbled out of bounds - obviously nobody was there because that's not where the play had been heading. The result? A free kick against, completely nullifying the brilliant defensive effort by the player. Why on earth would we want that?

Or a player who tries to drill a goal from outside 50, and has the ball bounce one way instead of the other and it ends up rolling out of bounds. Penalised for taking a shot on goal.

Or a player who tries to switch in defence, misses their target slightly, and now the opposition team has a shot on goal. Way too harsh a penalty.

Or a player tries to do the old handball to the ground trick, run out of bounds around a player, and gather the other side. Can't do it now because if the ball bounces funny, it's a free kick against. For trying to create an attractive play.

There are so many scenarios where it's a bad thing, and to save what, maybe a handful of poor umpire deliberate calls per week over the entire competition? I hate it so much.

And if you think that players don't deliberately shepherd the ball out of bounds in order to get a free kick, you weren't watching AFLW this year. Happened all the time.

 

[baldandbroke]

I'm sorry, I'm not targeting you specifically on this... but I hate this line of thinking. There's nothing wrong with grey areas. Trying to get rid of them means we eliminate good parts of the game along with the bad. The last touch rule ends up penalising people who have done nothing wrong far more often than the umpire incorrectly decides that someone deliberately put the ball out of bounds. Minor skill errors turn into massive penalties, and winning a 50/50 contest often ends up resulting in a free kick against.

Trying to set up rules that are based on outcome rather than intent is how we ended up with this ridiculous farce where we get people suspended for minor incidents that happened to result in injury, and malicious incidents that didn't get swept under the rug.

And besides, all of this is missing the point. It's not like the game is impossible to umpire. We just need to actually make the umpires full time, pay them properly, and reward the good ones with continued employment. If the umpiring is poor, the solution is to improve the quality of umpires, not dumb the rules down to the point where the game itself suffers.

That's ok - I don't mind if you hate this kind of thinking ... that's called differing opinions. Personally I hate the grey areas in the rule book that call for interpretation. Hate them.

As an aside, here are all the AFL changes I could find from1990 to 2017 (mostly from here - http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rule-changes-18582013 which shows 1858-2013), and I think everyone can agree they aren't all terrible:


1990

• Player awarded free again given option of kick or handpass.

1994

• Playing time for a quarter amended to 20 minutes plus time-on instead of 25 minutes plus time-on.
• Introduction of third field umpire.
• Introduction of third interchange player.
• Introduction of third boundary umpire, using rotational interchange system in pairs.

1995

• Revised system of adding time-on. Recorded when boundary or goal umpires signal, until the next act of play.
• Tripping by hand becomes reportable. Penalty: Free & 50 metres.
• Tripping by foot remains reportable. Additional penalty: Free & 50 metres.
• Player must kick ball back into play following the scoring of a behind immediately after one warning from field umpire. Penalty for delay: Ball-up on centre of kick-off line.
• Player kicking in after a behind is allowed to kick ball clear of hand and foot within the goal-square before playing on.

1996

• Any player receiving treatment from medical staff required to be removed from centre square prior to centre bounce.
• Protected area around player taking set disposal from free or mark changed from 10-metre semi-circle to five-metre corridor on either side.
• Amendment in the interpretation of the holding ball law. If player has had a prior opportunity to dispose, he must kick or handball immediately once tackled.
• Deliberate tripping by hand incurred a free plus 50-metre penalty. The offence was no longer reportable.

1997

• Repeated abusive language to an umpire incurred a free plus 50-metre penalty. The offence was no longer necessarily reportable.

1998

• Introduction of fourth interchange player.

1999

• Bringing the ball into play from a mark or free permitted beyond the boundary line provided that the player moves in one direction while in the act of disposal.
• Tripping by hand reverted to being reportable.

2000

• Introduction of free against team whose team official interferes with the play. Fifty-metre penalty automatically imposed on a player when reported for an offence. (Rescinded after Round 17.)

2001

• Time-saving second goal umpiring behind flag introduced. It was placed on the same post as the goal flags.

2002

• Minimum distance of ball travel for a mark increased from 10 metres to 15.

2003

• Play-on to be called if a player unnecessarily delays disposal after mark or free.
• Playing on from a kick-in after the registering of a behind permitted provided that the ball is kicked clear of hand and foot within the goal-square.
• Shepherding at centre bounce ruck contests outlawed.
• Elimination of advantage free from a centre square infringement.
• Penalty introduced for deliberate tapping of ball out-of-bounds on the full in a ruck contest.
• Player catching ball from centre or field bounce or throw-in to be deemed to have had prior opportunity to dispose of it.

2004

• Size of centre square increased from 45m to 50m.

2005

• Introduction of a 10-metre diameter outer circle, where ruckmen must be positioned at centre bounces.

2006

• Removal of the requirement of a player kicking in after the scoring of a behind to wait until the goal umpire completes waving the flag. The kick-in can occur as soon as the goal umpire signals the score as a behind.
• Allowance of a set shot at goal from a mark or free awarded within the goal-square to be taken from directly in front.
• Introduction of automatic time-on from when a field umpire crosses his arms until a ball-up.

2007

• Introduction into official laws of the game of an automatic free kick to a player with his head over the ball or if any high contact made in any way. This also became an automatic reportable offence.

2008

• Interchange rule violation penalised with a free kick against the offending team, 50 metres forward of the centre circle (introduced mid-season).
• Introduction of a four-boundary umpire system (introduced in round 21).

2009

• Umpires empowered to recall an errant bounce at a stoppage and replace it with a throw-up.
• Penalty for interchange rule violation became a free kick, plus a 50-metre penalty from wherever play is stopped.
• A free kick paid against a player engaged in any form of misconduct.
• The scoreline to be aligned with the back of the goalpost padding.
• A player in possession of the ball, when the play is stopped for stretcher usage, to retain it when the game restarts.
• If an umpire impedes a player when setting the mark for a shot at goal, play to be stopped and the mark to be re-set to avoid a disadvantage.
• After the all-clear is given for a score and an infringement against the defending team occurs before play restarts, the free kick to be taken either where the infringement occurs or 50 metres from the kick-off line, whichever is to the advantage of that team.

2011

• Interchange: three interchange plus one substitute. The three interchange players able to rotate off the bench as four have done in previous years. The substitute player empowered to go on at any time to replace a player. The player he replaces cannot come back on to the ground.
• The infringed player, rather than an umpire, given the power to determine the advantage rule.
• A player who elects to apply a bump in any situation will become liable if he makes forceful contact with the head, unless: the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not be reasonably forseen.
• Emergency field umpire empowered to award prohibited contact free kicks from interchange bench.
• Stricter interpretation placed on deliberate out of bounds rule to focus on less benefit of doubt for the player who has the ball and walks over the boundary line.

2012

• Goal line technology introduced to assist goal umpiring decisions.

2013

• A free kick to be awarded against any player who makes forceful contact below the knees of an opponent (does not apply to smothers with the hands or arms).
• Umpires to throw the ball up for all field stoppages during the game. The bounce will continue to be used at the start of each quarter and after goals.
• Separation of ruckmen at stoppages, with no contact permitted until the ball has left the umpire.

2014

• Limit the number of trainers allowed on the ground from four to six, although earlier plans to restrict their time on the ground to following a goal, was scrapped.
• Players will be penalised for leading with their head in order to draw high contact from an opponent and players who elect to bump an opponent assume full liability should any high contact result.
• The ‘sliding rule’, introduced for the 2013 will be broadened to include actions likely to cause forceful contact below the knees of an opponent, whether it results or not.
• The hands in the back rule, the interchange procedure and the protected zone around the mark will be relaxed, with punishment for players who place their hands in the air while cruising through the protected space left to the umpires discretion.
• A player electing to bump will be cited for rough conduct if contact comes via a head clash. Players to be instructed a head clash should be reasonably foreseen when bumping.

2015

• Two-on-one marking contests to be strictly policed to preserve contested grabs as a feature of the game.
• Firmer interpretation of holding the ball, with umpires being coached to crack down on players with prior opportunity.

2016

• There will be a stricter crack down on dangerous tackling techniques this year, with a sticker interpretation on free kicks for lifting, slinging, diving or rotating tackles with excessive force.
• Umps are going to be a bit hotter on the deliberate out of bounds, especially if a players doesn’t show enough intent to keep the ball in play.

2017

• Only nominated ruckmen will be able to compete at a contest for a throw-in or ball-up, with players no longer permitted to contest a ruck contest as a third man up
• There will be a stricter interpretation of Deliberate Rushed Behinds
• The interpretation of where a player draws high contact will be simplified