News New interpretations

[gaskin]

DANGEROUS tackles will be more heavily punished in 2016 as the AFL clamps down on tackles made with a lifting, slinging or rotating technique.

Under revised interpretations of the law sent to clubs on Thursday, umpires will apply a stricter adjudication on what is acceptable, while the Match Review Panel will now enforce a stricter definition of dangerous high tackles that cause forceful high contact.

In a series of minor changes the AFL will also:

- Widen the protected area around the mark
- Monitor the handover of who is guarding the mark
- More strictly apply the deliberate out-of-bounds rule
- Have stronger grounds to appeal tribunal and MRP penalties

However, the League decided not to make any changes to limit the tactic of players going 'third man up' at ruck contests, but has vowed to monitor the practice.

Carlton's Bryce Gibbs was suspended last season after pinning the arms of Port Adelaide's Robbie Gray in a tackle, while Port Adelaide's Jay Schulz was cleared when Sydney Swans opponent Ted Richards was knocked out as a result of a the Port forward's tackle.

Both incidents caused significant debate, leading the AFL to work to clarify the definition of an acceptable tackle.

The wording around the potential to cause serious injury will also be expanded to include "intentional head-high strikes and high bumps with significant head contact and/or player momentum".

The AFL Commission approved a recommendation to increase the size of the protected area around the mark but a trial on the potential new distance will occur in the 2016 NAB Challenge.

Umpires will also strictly monitor the handover of who is guarding the mark in 2016, and the interpretation of deliberate out of bounds will be even stricter next season.

AFL.com.au understands there was strong discussion around trialling a rule that would see clubs lose possession if their last kick or handball went out of bounds but that will not happen. Rather, the AFL will monitor results of the new rule being adopted in the SANFL.

A similar rule was trialled in the 2011 NAB Cup but the League decided against adopting it at the time.

The AFL has also made a significant change to the MRP process with the League now able to appeal a 'manifestly inadequate' sanction or classification handed down by the Tribunal.

Last season the AFL felt it could not appeal a suspension perceived to be too light, but a player or club retained the right to appeal a penalty thought to be too great.

Finally, contact with an injured player will now be deemed as a fixed financial sanction on the table of offences.

AFL football operations manager Mark Evans said the AFL Commission had determined that the changes would spread the game out, protect player safety, and improve umpiring.

The Commission had taken feedback from fans into account, he said.

"The view of the AFL and the Commission is that a series of tighter interpretations in the areas of dangerous tackles, boundary line play and the protected area for the player with the ball will deliver an effective result for how the game is player and how it looks next season, compared to undertaking more serious changes to the game," Evans said.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-12-17/afl-cracks-down-on-dangerous-tackles

 

[Frank J Moose]

There is only one thing sure with new interpretations, one of our players will be the first to suffer and they it will be gradually would back as they realised they got ot wrong.

 

[footyfix]

There is only one thing sure with new interpretations, one of our players will be the first to suffer and they it will be gradually would back as they realised they got ot wrong.

You can take that to the bank.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

There is only one thing sure with new interpretations, one of our players will be the first to suffer and they it will be gradually would back as they realised they got ot wrong.

You can ask Michael Johnson about that.

 

[Scham]

More grey areas. Great, that's just what we need.

The clarifying or tightening of the sling tackle and head high contact (the Lewis - Hodge rule) are positives but otherwise I don't see any of the other changes being either necessary or positive.

 

[freo_leo29]

- Widen the protected area around the mark
- Monitor the handover of who is guarding the mark

These 2 are heavily used in Hawthorns gameplan, they are constantly swapping who is on the mark as players slide back and forth across the field.
They also use it to creep up the mark so it will be interesting to see if frees are paid against them for this but in reality this will change for rounds 1-3 then revert to normal.

 

[Jezzitizle]

Yeh there will be some over zealous decisions, mostly against us for the first few rounds and then go back to how it was. Hawks will be allowed to do as they please.

 

[Allikat]

Widening the zone around the mark will be a good thing for snap kicks. It frustrates me so much seeing a line of players being told to stand back by the umps and holding up the game because they don't do it

 

[Mockcockpit]

Widening the zone around the mark will be a good thing for snap kicks. It frustrates me so much seeing a line of players being told to stand back by the umps and holding up the game because they don't do it

There has always been different interpretations of the mark when kicking for goal than other parts of the ground but I'm happy if they clear players out of the zone. But if they do that, to be fair, it should be play on immediately if the players turns side-on to goal in preparation for the around the corner kick.

 

[Allikat]

There has always been different interpretations of the mark when kicking for goal than other parts of the ground but I'm happy if they clear players out of the zone. But if they do that, to be fair, it should be play on immediately if the players turns side-on to goal in preparation for the around the corner kick.

Yeah I'd be happy with that interpretation. It'll help to keep the game flowing

 

[Alfonz]

I'd like them to clamp down on the 10-12m passes that Hawthorn continually get away with. It was ridiculous in the prelim. When we did one (and would have been a shot on goal), the umpire of course decided to call it correctly.

 

[Kram]

Policing deliberate out of bound even more strictly??

 

[Allikat]

Policing deliberate out of bound even more strictly??

I think in the way that players being tackled try & drag themselves out of bounds to force a throw in rather than get pinged for HTB. I think this'll be the rule that we get harshly dealt with first

 

[Scham]

Widening the zone around the mark will be a good thing for snap kicks. It frustrates me so much seeing a line of players being told to stand back by the umps and holding up the game because they don't do it

That won't change though. It'll just be done further away.

 

[freo84]

Awesome more grey area for us to get pinged on.....can't wait to watch the Doggies get 40 frees to 6 in the 1st half.

Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk

 

[Admiral Byng]

- More strictly apply the deliberate out-of-bounds rule

*groan*

 

[Admiral Byng]

So I guess every kick that goes out of bounds will be deemed deliberate then? Even miss-kicks and bad bounces?

 

[dockerfemme]

So I guess every kick that goes out of bounds will be deemed deliberate then? Even miss-kicks and bad bounces?

It seems to me they are currently quite strict (too strict?) on kicks that can be a hack out of the defensive 50 or a miskick. They are not strict on players who deliberately take a tackle on the boundary line and get moved over, or who tap it across the line etc.

 

[Randomizor]

Widening the zone around the mark will be a good thing for snap kicks. It frustrates me so much seeing a line of players being told to stand back by the umps and holding up the game because they don't do it

This is the one situation where I think that temporary paint stuff they use in soccer would come in handy. Draw the mark on the ground, if an opposition player steps over it well oops you've just given away a goal. Easy.

 

[Randomizor]

It seems to me they are currently quite strict (too strict?) on kicks that can be a hack out of the defensive 50 or a miskick. They are not strict on players who deliberately take a tackle on the boundary line and get moved over, or who tap it across the line etc.

Yeah the difference between a clearing kick towards space and deliberate out of bounds is bad luck sometimes. I don't understand how that can form the basis of a rule.

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

- Widen the protected area around the mark
- Monitor the handover of who is guarding the mark

These 2 are heavily used in Hawthorns gameplan, they are constantly swapping who is on the mark as players slide back and forth across the field.
They also use it to creep up the mark so it will be interesting to see if frees are paid against them for this but in reality this will change for rounds 1-3 then revert to normal.

You do realise you're talking about Hawthorn???

 

[Borry]

Another year of fun and games.

**** the Ford Territory driving, new housing estate soccer mothers.

 

[clivenator26]

They should get some of the magic spray/shaving cream the referees have in soccer. It would help, especially on the tight angle shots.

 

[Rob]

Perhaps this year they can actually codify the Ballantyne rule instead of just pulling it out of their arse halfway through the first quarter in a ****ing prelim final.

 

[Rob]

They should get some of the magic spray/shaving cream the referees have in soccer. It would help, especially on the tight angle shots.

I've always wondered why the bloke on the mark almost always takes a few steps inboard when there's a mark or free kick near the boundary. It just gives the kicker a licence to improve the angle. Stay on the mark and it makes it a lot more obvious when the player starts creeping in.