New rules (plus the Lions trial)

[Dylan12]

Dayne Zorko on AFL Tonight.

Interestingly, the Lions also trialled the "new rules" today under match conditions with AFL umps similar to those Hawthorn trialled last week.

Zorko spoke pretty highly of the rules.

 

[MacMum]

From what I've read of these trialled rules, it's what it used to be years and years ago. Everyone had their positions and started in those positions.

I've been harping on for ages now about having a forward left in the 50m at all times. So often the ball is kicked forward and no-one there to receive it, usually a stray opposition player.

If I've understood it correctly, then I'm all for it.

 

[Skoob]

Surprised this hasn't been raised on the forum yet;
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...k/news-story/dd4036c2defdbc88e4f65952cfaf5192

The Lions took part in a scratch match held over two 10-minute halves, with AFL officials watching on at the Gabba on Tuesday...

Some of the ideas trialled by the Lions, included taking kick-ins from 25 metres out from goal, instead of the existing goal square.
Other rules included requiring each side to have three players in the forward and defensive 50 at every stoppage and that players were able to run 20 metres without bouncing the ball.
But despite the changes making the games appear similar to Auskick, Zorko said he “really enjoyed it.”
“We trialled key forwards and backs in the (goal) square, and it just opened the game up a lot more,” Zorko said.

I'm a bit torn on the trial thing. Aside from the fact that I think the ideas are broadly terrible, and doing this mid-season, what I'm torn on is that a lot were cheesed off that last week the Hawks trialled stuff and appeared to be teacher's pet. So at least they are inviting others to try stuff and get other opinions. (Although the cynic in me says they've done this because of the criticism drawn by using Hawthorn).
For a team that is playing mostly poorly, why are we dicking around with Mickey Mouse hybrid football? Practicing stuff we won't be doing on the weekend, like we don't have enough to work on. A training day wasted on kick-ins from 25 out? Seriously, let's get on with working on the game we have to play, not some fanciful hash of the rules.

 

[briztoon]

Sounds somewhat similar to TAC cup rules.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I am somewhat intrigued by the kickout from 25, but don’t think it should apply to rushed behinds. But then that adds a whole new layer of interpretation which adds a whole another thing for umpires to stuff up.

 

[MacMum]

It was mentioned on the Interviews, Podcast, Media info thread.

 

[dlanod]

Surprised this hasn't been raised on the forum yet;
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...k/news-story/dd4036c2defdbc88e4f65952cfaf5192

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...elevant-threads.1142242/page-64#post-56340310

 

[Skoob]

It's unnecessarily changing the game. I will go to my grave insisting that the congestion can be fixed by paying free kicks. I'm not proposing any new rules, just enforcing the ones that exist. The AFL wanted to speed the game up with a 'let it go' mentality, and the result is unfair play, an ignorance of rules and repeat bloody stoppages. Punish infringements and play the game per the rules and it will return to players having to make better decisions. As it is, every contest is a 50/50 gamble on what you can get away with, and a neutral result.

 

[Skoob]

From what I've read of these trialled rules, it's what it used to be years and years ago. Everyone had their positions and started in those positions.

I've been harping on for ages now about having a forward left in the 50m at all times. So often the ball is kicked forward and no-one there to receive it, usually a stray opposition player.

If I've understood it correctly, then I'm all for it.

That's never been a rule before though, has it?
Positional mobility and leaving the foward or back lines is a result of modern congestion. They are getting it back to front. They fix congestion (with existing rules) and we'll see forwards and backs, staying closer to home.

 

[Dylan12]

Surprised this hasn't been raised on the forum yet;
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...k/news-story/dd4036c2defdbc88e4f65952cfaf5192

I'm a bit torn on the trial thing. Aside from the fact that I think the ideas are broadly terrible, and doing this mid-season, what I'm torn on is that a lot were cheesed off that last week the Hawks trialled stuff and appeared to be teacher's pet. So at least they are inviting others to try stuff and get other opinions. (Although the cynic in me says they've done this because of the criticism drawn by using Hawthorn).
For a team that is playing mostly poorly, why are we dicking around with Mickey Mouse hybrid football? Practicing stuff we won't be doing on the weekend, like we don't have enough to work on. A training day wasted on kick-ins from 25 out? Seriously, let's get on with working on the game we have to play, not some fanciful hash of the rules.

Discussion about the Lions trialling the rules on AFL360 at the moment.

 

[Skoob]

Discussion about the Lions trialling the rules on AFL360 at the moment.

No Fox for me, but I imagine it would drive me nuts. This insistence to change the game constantly when they can't run a match the way it is outlined in the current laws is mind boggling. The AFL administration is like a bunch of kids with toys, manipulating their play thing to suit their feelings or agenda every other week.on
Then, they wonder why fewer people watch or attend.

 

[M Malice]

No Fox for me, but I imagine it would drive me nuts. This insistence to change the game constantly when they can't run a match the way it is outlined in the current laws is mind boggling. The AFL administration is like a bunch of kids with toys, manipulating their play thing to suit their feelings or agenda every other week.on
Then, they wonder why fewer people watch or attend.

Are we the only sport on the planet that is constantly changing and tinkering with rules and the interpretations of rules. Gives me the shits.

The one I would like to see wound back is the nominate the ruck rule, wastes too much time allowing players to get to the stoppage, throw the ball up or throw it in from the boundary ASAP.

 

[Skoob]

Are we the only sport on the planet that is constantly changing and tinkering with rules and the interpretations of rules. Gives me the shits.

The one I would like to see wound back is the nominate the ruck rule, wastes too much time allowing players to get to the stoppage, throw the ball up or throw it in from the boundary ASAP.

Yep. Like annoying umpires that insist on coaching by telling players where to stand or what the rules are. Let the players play, and blow the whistle when they get it wrong. If they want a 'no 3rd man up rule' just pay a free kick against the 3rd man up. No need to nominate rucks, the teams can sort out for themselves who's going up. It's just madness.
"Don't go off your line". "Watch your hands". "Let him go".
It's like having your mother out there. Let him run off his line and blow the whistle. Let him shove his hands wherever he wants, and if it's illegal, penalise, but stop ****ing giving them hints on how to play. It is not the umpire's role.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Yep. Like annoying umpires that insist on coaching by telling players where to stand or what the rules are. Let the players play, and blow the whistle when they get it wrong. If they want a 'no 3rd man up rule' just pay a free kick against the 3rd man up. No need to nominate rucks, the teams can sort out for themselves who's going up. It's just madness.
"Don't go off your line". "Watch your hands". "Let him go".
It's like having your mother out there. Let him run off his line and blow the whistle. Let him shove his hands wherever he wants, and if it's illegal, penalise, but stop ******* giving them hints on how to play. It is not the umpire's role.

Yep, this definitely shits me. The only guidance umps should give is identifying where the spot of the mark is. Anything else should be up to the players.

 

[MacMum]

True......but it might take making it a rule to sort out a game that has changed so much as to not resemble the "rules"/style of the game from when it started all those moons ago...

 

[Skoob]

You don't think the constant tinkering with rules and knee jerk responses to developments in the game, is what brought us here? It's a snowball. Change something, and as a consequence players & coaches do something else. Next minute we have to have a rule for that, and another aspect of the game changes and another rule is 'needed'. It's never ending.

 

[MacMum]

...and they only had to ask us!

...but it is official. Richmond and Lions get the least amount of 50m penalties awarded to them. Hawthorn get the most.

According to the HUN.

 

[Dylan12]

Are we the only sport on the planet that is constantly changing and tinkering with rules and the interpretations of rules. Gives me the shits.

Gives me the shits too.

I follow a few sports quite closely and other sports casually and I can't think of another sport that tinkers with the rules almost on an annual basis whereas those other sports in all likelihood haven't changed a single rule / interpretation.

It honestly makes me wonder what the AFL's end game is; if there even is one.

 

[MacMum]

I agree that all the rule changes are a damn nuisance, but if they finally make rules that actually bring the game back to what it basically was, then I think that is a plus. When I started watching football, there were positions, one on one etc. Worked well, had full forwards who actually kicked goals and stayed in the forward line.

...and the coaches have to take a lot of the responsibility for the shermozzle the game is in too.

...but yes, get it right then leave it alone.

 

[POBT]

Most sports I follow have pretty regular rule changes. Cricket had a fairly decent review of its rules 12 months ago. League has regular changes, often annually. Union has about a million rules with even more interpretations. They change things annually too.

I used to be a big NBA fan in the 90s but drifted away from it for about 20 years. In recent times, I’ve got back into it and was really surprised at how many rules had been changed.

 

[dlanod]

Most sports I follow have pretty regular rule changes. Cricket had a fairly decent review of its rules 12 months ago. League has regular changes, often annually. Union has about a million rules with even more interpretations. They change things annually too.

I used to be a big NBA fan in the 90s but drifted away from it for about 20 years. In recent times, I’ve got back into it and was really surprised at how many rules had been changed.

In addition to the above:

League has weekly changes, with penalty interpretations and rule changes announced and applied in season.

NFL has yearly changes, sometimes quite significant.

 

[jjami15]

It's unnecessarily changing the game. I will go to my grave insisting that the congestion can be fixed by paying free kicks. I'm not proposing any new rules, just enforcing the ones that exist. The AFL wanted to speed the game up with a 'let it go' mentality, and the result is unfair play, an ignorance of rules and repeat bloody stoppages. Punish infringements and play the game per the rules and it will return to players having to make better decisions. As it is, every contest is a 50/50 gamble on what you can get away with, and a neutral result.

Exactly, as much as I have to say it but Clarko is correct especially with the holding the ball and incorrect disposal. It does lean towards rewarding the tackler but time and time again I see high tackles go unrewarded you see a bloke be tackled and then there's an arm draped over his shoulder. I don't have an issue with the reduction in interchange and find it hilarious that the players and coaches come out saying it will slow the game down. The game was fine back in the 80's and 90's without high rotations. My feelings would be;
- incorrect disposal when tackled
- reward the man going for the ball - any prior holding/anything above the shoulder
- reduce interchange to 40 (10 a quarter, don't use it - lose it)
- throw the ball up/in straight away

Waiting to see the 6 in each zone at stoppages and aso have heard the bouncing the ball will be extended to 20m. I do like Healy's 'team prior opportunity' where if a player gets the ball from the ground/contest and allow them to have prior opportunity but as soon as he disposes of it in a chain of possession that prior opportunity has already been utilised.

 

[MSB ROYS]

I would take it the other way and have a rushed behind kicked from behind the fence.

 

[SRH17]

Forceful contact below the knees - umpires are constantly getting it wrong.

 

[Dalions]

Dropping the ball, hate it.
When they have had prior, try to step an opponent and get the ball knocked out of their hands should be a free kick every time but is not paid. Terrible rule.