New Rule Changes

[SteeleBeams]

What do you guys think on the new rules that have been introduced to the home and away season. Personally i like the rushed behind one, because it now means that the defenders can't take the easy way out, and have to keep play going, but as the year goes on i think we will see the umpires letting it go a bit more, which happens with every new rule that comes in.

On the 50m penalty if the player is swung after he gets rid of it, it is a good rule, but i don't like it. Should have been kept to the NAB cup.

Finally, i think that the AFL has to stop adding all these new rules, the game has been fine for like last 147 years, and all of a sudden they are trying to add all new rules. You don't see sports such as soccer adding new rules every year. The sport should be left alone.

 

[Alexander323bc]

I think it is a joke. I think the AFL is a joke. The umpires are incompetent as it is and now they are given another two opportunities to F UP! If players are too stupud to work out what they should do in a case such as Bowden then they deserve to loose the game.

Here is a solution, slap someone 30 meters out and give away a free kick, hence eliminating the option to rush a behind. But no to friggin stupid AFL players are. As soon as someone think outside the square to win a game, they change the rules.
The game is already scewed towards the forwards and now the defenders really are cornered. If the AFL is worried about too many handballs, what do you think this rule will cause, more kicks? Nope, more handballs in close and tackles and free kicks and ****!!!!!!!!!!!! So friggin annoyed I am considering not watching any games this season. I am tired with Lorel and Hardie trying to ruin the beautiful game of AFL football.

 

[Pie eyed]

I am very fearful of the first decision, left to an umpires interpretation of a players intent, which costs us a game.
If a bad decision costs us a final I'll be on my bike with a vast load of "Horse shit" bound for Vlad and AA's driveways.

Even the Umpires are publicly concerned with the intentional rushed behind rule.

 

[Optimax]

That new sling or hold the tackle too long will become very very frustrating

The rushed rule well thats a given, its overkill and very vague. Meaning bullshit interpretations

 

[mdc]

Don't mind the rushed behind rule, though as Pie Eyed said, the umps are sure to **** it up at some point. But at least it's consistent with intentional out of bounds.

The other rule is just plain bad. Free kick down field is sufficient. I bet we see a frustrating slew of these 50's paid in the first couple of rounds, just like what happened when they put in the "no holding on after a mark" rule.

 

[Paddywhackers]

The rushed behind rule will favour Collingwood as much as any club with our awesome array of small forwards applying pressure. Medhurst, Davis, Thomas and to a lesser extent Didiak should mean that the rule will be more advantageous to Collingwood than other clubs.

The other rule I don't mind. Its unneccasary to dump someone after they have kicked it so players will mostly stop doing it once there is a 50 and if they do they will look as stupid as running through the man on the mark.

 

[Alexander323bc]

The rushed behind rule will favour Collingwood as much as any club with our awesome array of small forwards applying pressure. Medhurst, Davis, Thomas and to a lesser extent Didiak should mean that the rule will be more advantageous to Collingwood than other clubs.

The other rule I don't mind. Its unneccasary to dump someone after they have kicked it so players will mostly stop doing it once there is a 50 and if they do they will look as stupid as running through the man on the mark.

Actually the whole purpose of that play by the team without the ball is to eliminate an option for the oposition so that they can not run it away easily, similar to the bump, usually performed when a team handpasses a lot.

 

[Pie eyed]

The rushed behind rule will favour Collingwood as much as any club with our awesome array of small forwards applying pressure. Medhurst, Davis, Thomas and to a lesser extent Didiak should mean that the rule will be more advantageous to Collingwood than other clubs.

The other rule I don't mind. Its unneccasary to dump someone after they have kicked it so players will mostly stop doing it once there is a 50 and if they do they will look as stupid as running through the man on the mark.

Here is my prophesy.

Watch for Collingwood to spend a huge amount of time having the ball locked in our attacking 30. The opposition managing to force the ball over the boundary and through the sticks for numerous behinds and throw-ins, impervious to penalty. The ball will then travel in seconds down to our back line where a contested mark in the goal square will see our layer penalised for intentional as the ball spills off the pack.
Oppo goal.

Bookmark it...it's gonna happen often.

 

[kevind]

What do you guys think on the new rules that have been introduced to the home and away season. Personally i like the rushed behind one, because it now means that the defenders can't take the easy way out, and have to keep play going, but as the year goes on i think we will see the umpires letting it go a bit more, which happens with every new rule that comes in.

On the 50m penalty if the player is swung after he gets rid of it, it is a good rule, but i don't like it. Should have been kept to the NAB cup.

Finally, i think that the AFL has to stop adding all these new rules, the game has been fine for like last 147 years, and all of a sudden they are trying to add all new rules. You don't see sports such as soccer adding new rules every year. The sport should be left alone.

I like the 'rushed point' rule. Should make the game more exciting. If it had of been used in last year's GF, then Geelong, the rightful premiers, would have been the ...rightful premiers.

To the other poster who claimed the AFL are ruining the game. It is not the AFL, it is and has been for the last 10 years the coaches' fault. In their quest to win, they are prepared to put on the worst spectacle possible if it helps them win the 4 points.

Footy IMO was at its best in the 90's and has been going steadily downhill ever since, thanks to coaching tactics. One of the great things about AFL was always the one on one contests all over the ground; it was one of the greatest advantages the game enjoyed over all other forms of football. Players in the 90's could also take contested marks, a skill modern players seem to struggle with.

 

[jefffff34]

Rushed behind one is too extreme, it should be a bounce down 25 metres out (team in attack gets the behind too).

The other rule is the definition of gay.

 

[mdc]

To the other poster who claimed the AFL are ruining the game. It is not the AFL, it is and has been for the last 10 years the coaches' fault. In their quest to win, they are prepared to put on the worst spectacle possible if it helps them win the 4 points.

Footy IMO was at its best in the 90's and has been going steadily downhill ever since, thanks to coaching tactics. One of the great things about AFL was always the one on one contests all over the ground; it was one of the greatest advantages the game enjoyed over all other forms of football. Players in the 90's could also take contested marks, a skill modern players seem to struggle with.

kevin, I often find myself agreeing with you, but this is a load of BS.

It is not the role of the coach to be a guardian of the "spectacle" of AFL, as you put it. It is their absolute primary job to exploit the rules as much as possible to achieve the best possible result. I sure as hell hope this is what our coaching staff is trying to do, without any regard to the aesthetics of the thing.

I, for one, enjoy watching the evolution of the game. Innovative coaching is certainly one of the catalysts for this. But so is player fitness and player skill.

Good games, by their very nature, are open-ended and must evolve. If they didn't, this exploitation by the coaches would prove fatal - because it's precisely a game that can't adapt that suffers an inevitable death, sooner or later.

One of the funniest aspects of all the uproar for me personally is that we often hear "they're turning our game into basketball!". Well, actually, basketball has been undergoing an almost identical transformation itself - from tough, gritty, stop-start play in the 90's to open, flowing, continuous play in the 00's. I know very little about other major sports, but I'm sure basketball and footy aren't the only ones.

Natural evolution is, in the case of a sport, equivalent to progress. It is the implementation of imposed outside rules that often set it back - specifically rule changes or tweaks in "interpretation". This is what we should be vehemently opposing (at least those that obviously don't work). Not innovative, progressive coaching.

 

[Alexander323bc]

I like the 'rushed point' rule. Should make the game more exciting. If it had of been used in last year's GF, then Geelong, the rightful premiers, would have been the ...rightful premiers.

To the other poster who claimed the AFL are ruining the game. It is not the AFL, it is and has been for the last 10 years the coaches' fault. In their quest to win, they are prepared to put on the worst spectacle possible if it helps them win the 4 points.

Footy IMO was at its best in the 90's and has been going steadily downhill ever since, thanks to coaching tactics. One of the great things about AFL was always the one on one contests all over the ground; it was one of the greatest advantages the game enjoyed over all other forms of football. Players in the 90's could also take contested marks, a skill modern players seem to struggle with.

Actually, I disagree. (Obviously) The game evolves, similar to an organism. While yes coaches are coming up with game plans that win games 'ugly' other coaches come up with game plans that win games despite the negative tactics of the opposition. Everyone thought Sydney was ruining the game by 'flooding' but during this period, Collingwood continued to beat them. You have to let the game evolve and allow coaches the oportunity to come up with a game plan to beat the flood or the zone or "insert new tactic here". As I said before, the simple tactic to beat the continuous rushed behind is to give away a free kick 30 meters out. Or better yet, kick a goal or stop bombing the ball 5 metres out. You see if you kick a goal there will be no need for kick out.
However, maybe my expectation that players and coaches are smart enough to think outside the box or on their feet when presented with a new situation is too high. After all they are all just football players.
In any case, there is no need for knee jerk reactions to new tactics as things will eventually evolve.

Edit: plus everything mdc said.

 

[kevind]

kevin, I often find myself agreeing with you, but this is a load of BS.

It is not the role of the coach to be a guardian of the "spectacle" of AFL, as you put it. It is their absolute primary job to exploit the rules as much as possible to achieve the best possible result. I sure as hell hope this is what our coaching staff is trying to do, without any regard to the aesthetics of the thing.

I, for one, enjoy watching the evolution of the game. Innovative coaching is certainly one of the catalysts for this. But so is player fitness and player skill.

Good games, by their very nature, are open-ended and must evolve. If they didn't, this exploitation by the coaches would prove fatal - because it's precisely a game that can't adapt that suffers an inevitable death, sooner or later.

One of the funniest aspects of all the uproar for me personally is that we often hear "they're turning our game into basketball!". Well, actually, basketball has been undergoing an almost identical transformation itself - from tough, gritty, stop-start play in the 90's to open, flowing, continuous play in the 00's. I know very little about other major sports, but I'm sure basketball and footy aren't the only ones.

Natural evolution is, in the case of a sport, equivalent to progress. It is the implementation of imposed outside rules that often set it back - specifically rule changes or tweaks in "interpretation". This is what we should be vehemently opposing (at least those that obviously don't work). Not innovative, progressive coaching.

I am not suggesting that coaches are or should be the guardians of the game. I am simply laying the blame for the deterioration of the game since the 90s on their doorstep, not the AFLs.

Innovation is fine and the innovations and ideas that developed throughout the period of 1960-2002 improved the game enormously. All innovations however are not necessarily good.

We had the Port Adelaide premiership in which contested football was avoided at all costs, the Sydney flooding to win their premiership and now the Hawthorn zone. None of these tactics produced great spectacles very often, although I grant you that the 2 Sydney/West Coast GFs were quite memorable because of the closeness of the scores.

To state my case, in essence the more you take 'one on one',' head to head ' battles out of the game, as many coaches have done, the more an AFL game looks like circuit work at training.

 

[Alexander323bc]

True, but playing/watching 10 seasons of AFL with 10 different sets of rules doesn't help anyone either, not the players, not the umps, not the coaches, and definetely not the spectators. You can not argue with that!
To think that Stephen Silvani, as the full back of the century and having only finished 14 years ago, will now not get a game is absolutely criminal. Its the equivalent to Pele or Maradona not being able to play football today because the rules and interpretations have changed so drastically, which will be a tragedy.
I watch the premier league every week. Relegation teams continuously "park the bus" in front of their keeper when playing the top 4 teams. Does that mean that FIFA should introduce a rule that says you must have at least 2 players in the oposition half so that more goals are scored? What a load of rubbish.
I don't usually make my posts personal but this time I have to make an exception. For as long as muppets such as yourself support these stuped rule and interpretation changes the worse the game is going to get.

 

[Trojan82]

Footy IMO was at its best in the 90's and has been going steadily downhill ever since

Footy was best in 1990.

The rushed behind rule is fine. Its consistent with the rest of the ground. Its rarely going to cost a team a goal. If you rush a behind you make sure to do it right near the point post. It gives the player an impossible angle.

The other rule is fine. If you are close enough to a player to grab them and throw them to the ground then you are also close enough to simply get in there way to stop there run.

The rushed behind rule will mean teams with better skills ala Geelong, Collingwood, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide will benefit (Obviously) And teams that aren't so skilled will find it very difficult coming out of defence.

 

[joxstrap]

The rushed rule well thats a given, its overkill and very vague. Meaning bullshit interpretations

Not having a go here, I've been meaning to ask this question of someone in the know for a long time: How is this rule any different to the interpretation required of an umpire deciding if a player resorts to the sideline in general play?

I see the rushed behind rule as an extension of the rule that you can't take the ball out of play deliberately around the whole ground. While controversial at times, it seems to be reasonably well interpreted by umpires for the last umpteen years - if anything it's easier for them because the defender is given the benefit of any doubt in the umpires mind.

I like the rule, and don't think interpretational issues should be lingered on. Sure bad decisions will happen, but short of genuine concerns (beyond fan moaning) about umpire bias will mean that good and bad decisions are evenly distributed over time.

God help us if we have video replays in AFL, the human element of umpiring is worth retaining.

 

[Alexander323bc]

Not having a go here, I've been meaning to ask this question of someone in the know for a long time: How is this rule any different to the interpretation required of an umpire deciding if a player resorts to the sideline in general play?

I see the rushed behind rule as an extension of the rule that you can't take the ball out of play deliberately around the whole ground. While controversial at times, it seems to be reasonably well interpreted by umpires for the last umpteen years - if anything it's easier for them because the defender is given the benefit of any doubt in the umpires mind.

I like the rule, and don't think interpretational issues should be lingered on. Sure bad decisions will happen, but short of genuine concerns (beyond fan moaning) about umpire bias will mean that good and bad decisions are evenly distributed over time.

God help us if we have video replays in AFL, the human element of umpiring is worth retaining.

Deliberate out of bounds on the wing does not cost you a shot on goal by the oposition.
I knew that monkeys run the competition, I did not know that sheep watched the games. It is the supporters that make the game what it is and for goodness sake grow some cohones and stop supporting this butchering of the game. There was nothing wrong with it for 100 years now we seem to think that everything is wrong with it.

 

[Optimax]

Joxstrap its the amount you have to pay if you do it

A free kick on the wing doesnt result in an automatic goal, this almost certainly will. Also the fact that a contest has to adjudged is another issue, what if its a scrambled kick 30 meters from goal that rolls through and no team mate near it? is that rushed

But mostly the penalty irks me, a bounce 30meters out plaus a behind seemed more appropriate

 

[joxstrap]

Deliberate out of bounds on the wing does not cost you a shot on goal by the oposition.
I knew that monkeys run the competition, I did not know that sheep watched the games. It is the supporters that make the game what it is and for goodness sake grow some cohones and stop supporting this butchering of the game. There was nothing wrong with it for 100 years now we seem to think that everything is wrong with it.

I agree that ideally the game should remain unchanged if possible, and would have supported not implementing the rule equally. I don't think the new rule is bad because of the perceived interpretation problems - ultimately I think it's going to be a big non issue, you'll simply see defenders getting caught a little more, and a higher price put on defensive forwards which is OK by me. It affects all teams, and would have thought Collingwood is well placed to benefit from it.

Joxstrap its the amount you have to pay if you do it

A free kick on the wing doesnt result in an automatic goal, this almost certainly will. Also the fact that a contest has to adjudged is another issue, what if its a scrambled kick 30 meters from goal that rolls through and no team mate near it? is that rushed

But mostly the penalty irks me, a bounce 30meters out plaus a behind seemed more appropriate

I hear you on the penalty - I thought your critisicm of it was purely interpretation - to me they are identical questions asked of the umpire. The player either wanted to resort to the boundary deliberately or not. Previously a player spoiling a contest around the ground wouldn't be penalised for knocking it over the line, just as they won't through the goals.

I think rule interpretation isn't a huge issue at all. The penalty might be too severe, agreed - but the idea is to provide a major disencentive to rush, which to me has to be more than a bounce thirty meters out which would result in rush ---> huge flood to the defensive fifty.

I've often thought that they should bring in a rule where you have two balls in play concurrently, both in play without pause. Try implementing a rolling zone in that game...