New Rule Interpretations for 2015

[gaskin]

Hayden Kennedy runs through the 2 new interpretations for the upcoming season

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-02-18/how-the-game-will-be-umpired-in-2015


Give it a watch as they have video examples but the too long; didn't watch version is basically:


1. A stricter policing of marking contests and blocking

• Players who move off the line to prevent a player from contesting the ball
• Shepherds the player from contesting the ball

2. Holding the ball/prior opportunity

• If the player with the ball is balanced and steady (within a reasonable time frame)
• If a player tries to take a player on (fend off or evade)
• If a player has had an opportunity to dispose of the ball but chooses not to

 

[Bicco]

This will be strictly enforced for the first five rounds...... And then it will go back to what it always has been.

 

[Clems Knee]

This will be strictly enforced for the first five rounds against Fremantle players in critical situations...... And then it will go back to what it always has been.

Fixed for you

 

[UFO Tatsu]

Hayden Kennedy runs through the 2 new interpretations for the upcoming season

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-02-18/how-the-game-will-be-umpired-in-2015


Give it a watch as they have video examples but the too long; didn't watch version is basically:


1. A stricter policing of marking contests and blocking

• Players who move off the line to prevent a player from contesting the ball
• Shepherds the player from contesting the ball

2. Holding the ball/prior opportunity

• If the player with the ball is balanced and steady (within a reasonable time frame)
• If a player tries to take a player on (fend off or evade)
• If a player has had an opportunity to dispose of the ball but chooses not to

Haven't we been doing this pretty well since Lyon has been in charge?

 

[TheMcManusNose]

#1 sounds like it is focused on our method of defending in the opposing 50. I reckon we'll cop it a bit initially with the likes of Dawson, Johnno, Ibbo and Spurr being penalised for engaging their man next to the drop of the ball and allowing another of our players to drop across and take it. We're probably better at it in that we are more subtle than most but it could snowball if they start paying it for everything.

 

[Eski3]

I don't like the marking one. What will happen is there will be an uncontested mark in defence, the umpire will blow his whistle and give a free kick to a forward off the ball. The crowd will go "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHAT WAS THAT FOR?!?!" and the replay will show a little off the ball nudge from a third player on the forward as the forward started his run towards the ball

It will also be easy for diving forwards to exploit

 

[Righteo]

Looks like they've tried to address the shemozzle that is HTB at least, those interpretations seem more in line with the actual spirit of the rule. Prior opportunity is actually a thing again.

 

[Freo_4eva]

All that lists is what the laws have, and should always have been interpreted as, under what is written.

Well done Hayden another 12 months of hard work culminating in this announcement.. collect your cheque on the way out

 

[imadoka]

Would this work?
No grey areas so if you take possession you are indicating to the umpire you can give the ball off by hand or foot correctly and if you don't your gone.
Now if you have a player hot on your tail and don't feel you can dispose it with out getting caught
just tap in on in the direction of a team mate in the clear who can take possession and deliver a kick or hand pass legally .
Now if the ball and players are on the ground fighting for the ball the last thing you would want to do is take possession and tie it up for a ball up so you would tap it out in the direction of a team mate.
Now the game would flow more freely, less ball ups, maybe a few more holding the ball decisions
but nothing gets the crowd going more than 40000 people screaming out holding the ball.
Any way feel free to shoot holes in my idea.

 

[AAACockburn]

Would this work?
No grey areas so if you take possession you are indicating to the umpire you can give the ball off by hand or foot correctly and if you don't your gone.
Now if you have a player hot on your tail and don't feel you can dispose it with out getting caught
just tap in on in the direction of a team mate in the clear who can take possession and deliver a kick or hand pass legally .
Now if the ball and players are on the ground fighting for the ball the last thing you would want to do is take possession and tie it up for a ball up so you would tap it out in the direction of a team mate.
Now the game would flow more freely, less ball ups, maybe a few more holding the ball decisions
but nothing gets the crowd going more than 40000 people screaming out holding the ball.
Any way feel free to shoot holes in my idea.

Nup too hard to think about changing the rules every year.
Just stick to what works huh..

 

[Alfonz]

As far as marking contest goes ... if you take your eyes off the ball, then fair enough. But I'm sick of rule interpretations which punish players for being stronger. If you are watching the ball, and can protect your position with a pushing/strength contest, and the ball is within range, it should be play on.

Without breaking them down and analyzing closely, in the heat of a game I don't see anything particularly different between the McIntosh and Lake examples. Yet one is supposed to be a free, and the other not. Equals more grey areas and frustration from fans. Seems a fine line to decide between "moving off the line" and "holding your position".

Still waiting for the genuinely needed interpretation change which addresses the "everyone can maul Sandilands because he is so tall" inequity. Also waiting to see if we can improve from our dead last position in free kick differentials, which was so anomalous that statistically it would suggest an actual clear unfair bias against our side.

 

[Scham]

Holding the ball/prior opportunity

• If the player with the ball is balanced and steady (within a reasonable time frame)
• If a player tries to take a player on (fend off or evade)
• If a player has had an opportunity to dispose of the ball but chooses not to

For the spectacle of the game they should be encouraging that not penalising it. Keep it simple. HTB should be when a player (regardless of prior opportunity) doesn't get rid of the ball as soon as tackled. If the tackle sticks and the player tackled still has possession and its not being held in by the tackler, it's HTB. Simple.

Nothing better than seeing a Stephen Hill, Peter Matera etc etc taking the game on. AFL has NFI. Killing the game.

 

[valkorum]

#1 sounds like it is focused on our method of defending in the opposing 50. I reckon we'll cop it a bit initially with the likes of Dawson, Johnno, Ibbo and Spurr being penalised for engaging their man next to the drop of the ball and allowing another of our players to drop across and take it. We're probably better at it in that we are more subtle than most but it could snowball if they start paying it for everything.

That was exactly my first thought as well.

 

[salim malik]

If they interpreted the obstructing and holding during marking contests to the letter of the law Sandi's leg would have fallen of from the free kicks he would have received.
I can't be bothered reading so called new rules on marking obstructions when Sandi has been fouled against for years with out a peep from the powers that be.
Its another load of crock from the AFL.

 

[Taylor]

This has worried me since it was suggested a while ago.

Our defense spends a lot of energy getting an extra man to the contest to take the mark while the other defender wrestles for position with the forward.

Technically that shouldn't be a problem under this rule as long as our wrestling defender goes for the ball at some point but they don't even lift their arms at the moment.