News Rule Changes/adjustments

[Schraderbrau]

Fairly sure they didn't recruit Lewis to be 3rd man up to the most dominant ruckman in the comp.

The logic is sound however never ever underestimate melbourne's capacity to do stupid stuff

 

[unplugged]

Really happy with the rule changes, I think. Mainly for reasons already stated here... it helps Grundy (who is still developing), or even someone like Cox (still learning the game) who might be pinch-hitting.

As for the deliberate rushed behind, I noticed on a few occasions this year that we didn't rush a behind under any circumstances, even though we could've done it and claimed it under sufficient pressure. I daresay that this change was on the cards for a while and the coaches instructed the playing group to prepare for such.

The only player we have that sometimes draws high free kicks on purpose is Pendles. He's usually good for probably 10 a year but I don't blame him when sometimes it was a genuine and easy way out of being tackled holding the ball (i.e. a last resort). He's good enough to change his game, it's other players from other teams it will be interesting to see...

I take it this means the interchange cap stays the same as 2016?

 

[Markfs]

The problem with ruck contests around the ground is that the AFL has tried to regulate them. I say ....get rid of all the special rules for ruck contests. If a player is strong enough to push his opponent out after the ball is thrown in the air then so be it. If he is smart enough to shepherd the opponent away from the ball after the ball is thrown up then so be it. If someone wants to jump up on the rucks then so be it.

Cant push in the back.... cant put hands in the back...other than that, free for all.....

It would encourage big strong men...

 

[left at home]

The problem with ruck contests around the ground is that the AFL has tried to regulate them. I say ....get rid of all the special rules for ruck contests. If a player is strong enough to push his opponent out after the ball is thrown in the air then so be it. If he is smart enough to shepherd the opponent away from the ball after the ball is thrown up then so be it. If someone wants to jump up on the rucks then so be it.

Cant push in the back.... cant put hands in the back...other than that, free for all.....

It would encourage big strong men...

back to the old days of play?

 

[Markfs]

back to the old days of play?

probably...but there would be less free kicks for technicalities

nominating a ruck goes against the spirit of the game. its one step on the way to netball...

 

[cleomenes]

The problem with ruck contests around the ground is that the AFL has tried to regulate them. I say ....get rid of all the special rules for ruck contests. If a player is strong enough to push his opponent out after the ball is thrown in the air then so be it. If he is smart enough to shepherd the opponent away from the ball after the ball is thrown up then so be it. If someone wants to jump up on the rucks then so be it.

Cant push in the back.... cant put hands in the back...other than that, free for all.....

It would encourage big strong men...

In theory, this seems sensible, but it doesn't take account of the changes in coaching in recent years. These days, any wrinkle in the rules that coaches can identify as a way to gain advantage is exploited, usually to the detriment of the game. The AFL is then forced to intruduce new rules or interpretations to try and keep the game something like its initial form.
They don't always get it right, and they fail most horribly when they act as Dimitriou did when he tried to change the game to paddock basketball. We still have not recovered from that one.
I would agree with Markfs if I had confidence that players and coaches had the good of the game at heart, but the soda only seem interested in winning.

 

[Markfs]

In theory, this seems sensible, but it doesn't take account of the changes in coaching in recent years. These days, any wrinkle in the rules that coaches can identify as a way to gain advantage is exploited, usually to the detriment of the game. The AFL is then forced to intruduce new rules or interpretations to try and keep the game something like its initial form.
They don't always get it right, and they fail most horribly when they act as Dimitriou did when he tried to change the game to paddock basketball. We still have not recovered from that one.
I would agree with Markfs if I had confidence that players and coaches had the good of the game at heart, but the soda only seem interested in winning.

I don't see a problem with trying to win. This isn't ballet, although the people in charge are trying to make it look graceful and elegant. I am talking about big men pushing and shoving each other and trying to win the ball. And yes, it's just like it was 50 years ago. The AFL wont like it because it doesn't look like two men waltzing....but the fans will like it. It will rid the game of the ridiculous ruck infringements and will encourage big strong men.... and big strong men are becoming scarcer...viva grandes hombres!!!

 

[Hardas]

I think I am in favour of the ruck change, but I'm not certain it will help anything. Originally, there were two ruckmen at every contest, one of whom morphed into the ruck rover over time, so third man up was in the original game setup. At least the AFL is no longer trying to eliminate specialist rucks.
Duckers and knee droppers are a blight and this is a good change. Be aware that there will be mistakes as umpires misjudge this, and our own captain may have to revise his techniques.
The punch to the stomach change is good.
The rushed behind change I'm not happy about. It was always a defensive option for players to reset play when the pressure got too great in defence. Sometimes teams lost games by the point they allowed to be rushed. The only change necessary was to restore the balance after Hawthorn's exploitation of the rule to walk through behinds at the kickout to gain extra time to find a target. The previous change stopped this, and was all that was necessary.
Shepherding in marking conteast has not been addressed.
Shepherding of the mark has not been addressed.
The congestion in the area where the ball is has not been addressed. This is where the laws of teh game need close and perhaps radical attention.

Shepherding the bloke on the mark should've been sorted out, and it could be done easily enough.

 

[Black_White]

16 a side to solve the congestion problem, or at least lessen it.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

1. Night Grand Final (inevitable, so just do it)

2. 15 min qtrs plus time on.

3. 15-16 player per side (as has been mentioned)

4. Free corsets for the u/8's.

5. "Re-name" the positions to reflect the modern game.

6. Merge a couple of Melb clubs. Distasteful but needs to happen.

7. AFL CEO's to receive regular spankings from a fan. Show to be hosted by Ed & called "Who wants to spank an A-Hole (working title)."

8. Allow "independent" vendors to sell food. I had nice brat at Comerica stadium a few years ago, nothing like we have.

9. Hot towels in the men's room. In lieu of this a non backed up crapper would be appreciated.

10. Rompingwins & Slobbo to lose their jobs.

 

[cleomenes]

1. Night Grand Final (inevitable, so just do it)

2. 15 min qtrs plus time on.

3. 15-16 player per side (as has been mentioned)

4. Free corsets for the u/8's.

5. "Re-name" the positions to reflect the modern game.

6. Merge a couple of Melb clubs. Distasteful but needs to happen.

7. AFL CEO's to receive regular spankings from a fan. Show to be hosted by Ed & called "Who wants to spank an A-Hole (working title)."

8. Allow "independent" vendors to sell food. I had nice brat at Comerica stadium a few years ago, nothing like we have.

9. Hot towels in the men's room. In lieu of this a non backed up crapper would be appreciated.

10. Rompingwins & Slobbo to lose their jobs.

A nice mix of fantasy and possibility.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Geelong and Hawthorn are the big losers from these rule changes.

It's nice to have a rule change that actually benefits us.

True Mr Kappa.

And double benefit not to hawthorns liking.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Which would no doubt lead to multiple Monday or Tuesday announcements from the AFL that "the umpires got that decision wrong, (insert either) it should have been a free kick to Collingwood OR it should not have been a free kick against Collingwood"

Somehow you just know, well get the bad rub of the green

 

[mike123]

16 a side to solve the congestion problem, or at least lessen it.

Would rather stricter interpretations on the tackler

 

[Stoods]

Dont like the idea of shortening quarters or a 15-16 man team.

Hope they never do it

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Any rule that enables Grundy to ply his trade without interference is a good thing for us.

Although bringing this a rule change in prior to trade week may have netted us a better deal for witts.