MMC Trial Rules

[Vader]

The AFL have released the "trial" rules for next year's MMC competition:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/106211/default.aspx

Thoughts?

• I like the 50m penalty rule, the changes to the HTB rule and having boundary umps paying frees at stoppages.
• I would be happy with the scoring rule, but I'd like to see cameras mounted in the goal posts, looking directly along the goal line (to help with the tough decisions as to whether or not the ball had crossed the line before being touched). The normal camera angles just have too many problems with parallax errors.
• The last touch out of bounds rule is fine for Lightning Cup style games (ie R1 of the MMC). I would hate to see it in a full length game.

 

[Dirty Bird]

1) god, that'll slow down the game, just make any kick from outside 50 worth 9, and any kick inside 50 worth 6. I hate it when a set shot could be kicked from 51, but the mark is at 47 and it's 6, or if there shot is fromt he 1, but due to a 50 from the 51, it's worth 9.

get rid of this choice, and just make it from where the kick is (as adjudged by where the back foot is)

2) So wait, the AFL is trying to speed up the game and they bring this shit in. Though, it seems to be if the goal umpire wants help they'll use it, it'll only be used 4-6 times in the whole competition so it wont make much differance.

3) Yay, just what we need, more umpires who can call free kicks. Though, it won't make much differance, the key word is 'obvious', if it were obvious 1 of the 2 umps off the ball will see it, and if they're trying to speed up the game around the field up with throw ups instead of bounce downs, the controlling ump will see it. No change will be made unless we get an egotystical boundry ump, come in and exploit this power to get on TV, though, if that occured the AFL would have a quiet word and tell them to shut up. Not much will happen in week 1, and if somethings does occur, that ump will be in the outback for the rest of the tournoment

4) This is a good rule, problem is, is that it'd be that hard to officiate that nothing will occur

5) OMFG, and there goes any last shred of respectability this comp had, it was bearable how it was, but with this bullshit rule in, it'd just be like Auskick

 

[cmndstab]

Don't mind those rules except the last one, what the hell? Free kick against the last person to touch the ball if it rolls out of bound?? That's ridiculous, who the hell thought that was a good idea?

 

[-WWJD-]

Don't mind those rules except the last one, what the hell? Free kick against the last person to touch the ball if it rolls out of bound?? That's ridiculous, who the hell thought that was a good idea?

I think they trialled that rule a couple of years back in the pre-season comp didn't they?

 

[Vader]

Don't mind those rules except the last one, what the hell? Free kick against the last person to touch the ball if it rolls out of bound?? That's ridiculous, who the hell thought that was a good idea?

It's a fairly common rule in Lightning Carnival type games. It forces players to actively keep the ball in play, rather than letting it go over the boundary (which wastes time while the players setup and the umpire throws it in).

Lets not forget that they're trying to get through 3 games (admittedly 1/2 games) in fairly quick time. This rule is aimed at limiting time lost while the ball is not in play - ie "time on".

Note that this rule is only in play for the Lightning Carnival games in R1, not the full length games from R2 onwards. Given that context, I don't mind it nearly as much.

 

[cmndstab]

If it's a "let's make the games go by quickly" rule I can live with it. If it's being treated as a trial rule they're actually considering, then I'm horrified.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If it's a "let's make the games go by quickly" rule I can live with it. If it's being treated as a trial rule they're actually considering, then I'm horrified.

I like that rule and hope it gets brought in to the season proper.

The deliberate out of bounds rule is the single stupidest rule in the history of sport. An umpire has to decide what a player is thinking. What sort of mind-reading experts have we employed? Oh... but he was under pressure... Um... what else could he have done...? Ahhh... but he gained meterage... It is absolutely unpoliceable. The umpires can barely get the simplest of decisions right as it is anyway.

This is black and white. Free against whoever touched it last. Easy. If you're not sure, throw it in.

 

[cmndstab]

I can think of plenty of rule changes that are easier to adjudicate than the original rules, but still shouldn't be enacted. That's an AFL speciality - take something that causes some controversy and "fix" it by introducing a new rule that completely alters the fabric of the game. Instead they should just make the interpretation clearer for the umpires. Anybody in the path of the disposal? No? It's deliberate. Onus is on the player to ensure they don't put the ball out of bounds without a teammate nearby.

This isn't soccer or netball or any of those other sports where out of play automatically means somebody is getting the advantage. I like the fact that having the ball go out of bounds doesn't immediately give a disadvantage to the last team that touched it. Think of the farcical situations where we'll see a player shepherd the ball over the line to gain a free kick while an opposition teammate desperately tries to keep it in. Or where a player deliberately knocks the ball into an opposition player when near the boundary line to gain a free kick. To my mind, this rule just further exacerbates the "don't go for the ball, just try to have your opposition stuff up and then take the free kick" problems we've had the last few times the AFL has introduced rule changes in a futile attempt to stamp out relatively minor issues.

Not to mention you just know somebody is going to get pinged when the ball didn't come off them last, complain about it, and it's going to turn into a 50m penalty.


For the record, I hate this rule

 

[WALL-e]

Not a fan of rule 5, though it won't really effect the flow. When the balls out there's a stoppage anyway. Save for the upries having one of their conferences every time to determine who it's off.

Wouldn't want to see it implimented ever though.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I can think of plenty of rule changes that are easier to adjudicate than the original rules, but still shouldn't be enacted. That's an AFL speciality - take something that causes some controversy and "fix" it by introducing a new rule that completely alters the fabric of the game. Instead they should just make the interpretation clearer for the umpires. Anybody in the path of the disposal? No? It's deliberate. Onus is on the player to ensure they don't put the ball out of bounds without a teammate nearby.

Surely you could see as you were typing this that it is impossible to adjudicate?

Nearby? What is nearby? How near? 5m? 10m? 15m? And we know how good umpires are at judging distance

In the path of the disposal? The path of the disposal or the intended path of the disposal that came off the side of the boot? Or both? How near to the path of the disposal?

This is nothing but grey area and it is why the rule doesn't work. It's all grey, nothing black and white.

What will happen if that rule is introduced is that the ball will go out of bounds less. The players will 'magically' find a way not to put the ball out of bounds, even though they are still under all this pressure that is supposedly giving them no option but to put the ball out of bounds now.

This isn't soccer or netball or any of those other sports where out of play automatically means somebody is getting the advantage. I like the fact that having the ball go out of bounds doesn't immediately give a disadvantage to the last team that touched it.

It's a safety net for the players. Like forcing a ball up or rushing a behind. Or chipping it backwards so that a team mate can mark it. You know, all the stuff that everyone hates about the game.

Think of the farcical situations where we'll see a player shepherd the ball over the line to gain a free kick while an opposition teammate desperately tries to keep it in.

What, like when a kick off from a point heads towards the boundary line now you mean? So exactly the same as something we already have and causes no concern, ever?

Or where a player deliberately knocks the ball into an opposition player when near the boundary line to gain a free kick. To my mind, this rule just further exacerbates the "don't go for the ball, just try to have your opposition stuff up and then take the free kick" problems we've had the last few times the AFL has introduced rule changes in a futile attempt to stamp out relatively minor issues.

So, like when someone tries to knock the ball back onto an opponents boot like they do now you mean? Another one that we already have now and causes no concern ever?

Not to mention you just know somebody is going to get pinged when the ball didn't come off them last, complain about it, and it's going to turn into a 50m penalty.

So the same as every other decision in the book then.

Those who remember the rule when it was trialed in the (Wizard?) Cup will remember that it worked perfectly and there were no problems whatsoever. The possible negatives you highlighted above were non issues. The reason they got rid of it was because it made the game too fast. There wasn't the stopping for boundary throw ins that allowed players to catch their breath or for tv networks to splice in a slow mo replay of a recent event. Now that the game has evolved and speed is the thing, this line of thinking is out the window and it should be revisited.

 

[Schulzycrow]

First 4 okay...
Merits for and against rule number 5 as above has already stated. Stop teams from hugging the boundary line ala Collingwood.

Can't really see too much worry.

Some random thoughts in no particular order...
For

Knowing that if skills aren't up to scratch the opposition is getting the ball back.

Maybe will force more corridor play or more zoning to force the ball wide to get it back.

When you are trying to kill a game off by booting it to a contest at the end of a game or quarter it will stop some of this.

Against

Another thing to speed the game up. With a shorter bench can't see how this is helping things.

With 4 boundary umps now the ball is back into play pretty quickly.

If it is to stop deliberate out of bounds. If no team mate is within 10 metres of the ball when it goes over the line oppo gets it. Anything else throw it in.

 

[fabs33]

Wouldn't this out of bounds rule phase out ruckmen even further?

 

[subaru]

Don't mind those rules except the last one, what the hell? Free kick against the last person to touch the ball if it rolls out of bound?? That's ridiculous, who the hell thought that was a good idea?

Whoever invented netball.
Seriously. A dumb idea.

 

[cmndstab]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one Carl Hopefully it won't ever make it to the season proper and we'll be able to forget about it after the first week.

 

[afc1991]

mmc? .

 

[andrew23]

Seriously Vader, just call it the NAB Cup.

 

[Vader]

mmc? .

Mickey Mouse Cup - the just reward for winning a Mickey Mouse competition.

 

[afc1991]

Mickey Mouse Cup - the just reward for winning a Mickey Mouse competition.

Gotcha, cheers.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Whoever invented netball.
Seriously. A dumb idea.

Netball and every other sport in the world because it is obviously the only sensible, practical way it can be umpired.

 

[Vader]

What will happen if that rule is introduced is that the ball will go out of bounds less. The players will 'magically' find a way not to put the ball out of bounds, even though they are still under all this pressure that is supposedly giving them no option but to put the ball out of bounds now.

That's exactly what happened last time they trialled the game. It's truly miraculous what happens when the players are given an incentive to keep the ball IN the field of play, rather than forcing it OUT.

 

[Huntercrow]

Does the last touch rule apply in the forward line?
If so, who would want to be a defender?

 

[Jars458]

What is the 50metre rule about. I thought in previous seasons if you were outside 50 and got a 50 metre penalty that you got 9 points for the goal anyway.

So now you have to go outside 50 to get the nine points? Don't really see the point of it? Will only work for kicks just inside 50 after the penalty?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Does the last touch rule apply in the forward line?
If so, who would want to be a defender?

Forwards sell $1,000,000 worth of tickets.

Defenders sell $2 worth of tickets. Screw em!

 

[Slippery Pete]

I like that rule and hope it gets brought in to the season proper.

The deliberate out of bounds rule is the single stupidest rule in the history of sport. An umpire has to decide what a player is thinking. What sort of mind-reading experts have we employed? Oh... but he was under pressure... Um... what else could he have done...? Ahhh... but he gained meterage... It is absolutely unpoliceable. The umpires can barely get the simplest of decisions right as it is anyway.

This is black and white. Free against whoever touched it last. Easy. If you're not sure, throw it in.

Correct! Only sport in the world where the umpire has to read a players' mind. Which is why the deliberate rushed behind rule is even stupider. A rushed behind, by definition, is deliberate.

You shouldn't give the umpire two different scenarios for a ball going over the same line.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Carl, I have to disagree with you on one point though, re the speeding up of the game.

Attempts to speed the game up over recent years have actually slowed the game down. The more natural stoppages are stamped out, the more teams will create artificial stoppages and hold the ball up to catch a breather. In the old days you could kick it to touch, or play stacks on. You can't do that now, so you have to maintain posession, play "tempo" footy and kick backwards (which fans hate).

We need to stop being obsessed with speeding up the game.