Rule changes for 2014

[simmo97]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-12-17/crackdown-on-duckers
THE AFL is cracking down on players who duck into opponents to draw high contact under new rules to be introduced in 2014.


The AFL has also announced that a player who initiates a bump will be cited for rough conduct if he clashes heads with his opponent as it places further emphasis on protecting players from head and lower leg injuries.



The AFL Commission approved a raft of changes on Tuesday for season 2014 after hearing recommendations from the AFL Laws Committee.



These changes applied to:

- Head clashes involving bumps.

- Players leading with their head to initiate contact.

- Forceful contact below the knees.

- The use of strength in marking contests.

- Reducing the number of runners from two to one.

- Automatic penalty for being in the protected area.

- Use of the interchange.



The high contact rule aims to discourage players from seeking forceful high contact.

A player who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary player will be regarded as having had prior opportunity. If he is then tackled he will have to dispose of the ball properly to not be penalised.

If a player ducks into a tackle and that action causes high contact to occur the umpire will call play on.


head clash rule which will state that a player bumping should reasonably foresee a head clash occurring if the bump is incorrectly applied.


Make concussion rest compulsory, study says



Under the new rule an incident similar to the one involving North Melbourne's Lindsay Thomas and Collingwood's Ben Reid in round one this year would see Thomas charged with rough conduct.



A free kick would also be paid against Thomas if that case was repeated.



AF operations manager Mark Evans said keeping the game both exciting and safe was the objective of the rulemakers. He consulted widely before presenting the recommendations to the AFL Commission.





"From our research, the number one guiding principle for fans is that the game should remain a physically tough and contested game with body contact, however nearly three quarters of fans agree that player welfare should be at the heart of the laws," Evans said.



The AFL Commission also backed strengthening the rule halting forceful contact below the knees. A free kick will now be paid if a player either makes forceful contact below the knees or acts in a manner likely to cause serious injury, even if contact does not occur.



That means reckless action will be penalised even if the opponent avoids that action by sidestepping or leaping over the opponent.



Players who show strength in the marking contest will also be protected with the inclusion of the word unduly meaning free kicks only paid against a player who "unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds…" in a marking contest.


Player concern about limit on trainers



Evans said consultation showed "strong support for marking players to be allowed the opportunity to use their body when protecting their position in the marking contest and allowing the controlling umpire the discretion to determine whether the force imparted by players within a marking contest is excessive and warrants a free kick."



Players are expected to still legitimately attempt to mark the ball.



The Commission also approved changes flagged previously:



- Umpires now have the discretion to determine whether players in the protected area have delayed or impacted the player in possession rather than automatically awarding a 50m penalty against a player who raises his hands in the air when in the protected area.

- A common sense approach will be taken to interchange infringements however players or teams who deliberately delay their entry to the field via the interchange may be subject to financial sanctions

- The interchange will be capped at 120 per team per game.

- Runners will be restricted from two to one runner per club and the number of trainers allowed to enter the field will be reduced from six to four, with a fifth trainer only allowed to enter the field for stretcher incidents.

 

[simmo97]

for someone who hates the constant rule changes I am quite happy with some of the changes for 2014.

which include;
The high contact rule aims to discourage players from seeking forceful high contact.

A player who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary player will be regarded as having had prior opportunity. If he is then tackled he will have to dispose of the ball properly to not be penalised.

If a player ducks into a tackle and that action causes high contact to occur the umpire will call play on.
(Joel Selwood will be giving away the most free kicks next year)

Umpires now have the discretion to determine whether players in the protected area have delayed or impacted the player in possession rather than automatically awarding a 50m penalty against a player who raises his hands in the air when in the protected area.

- A common sense approach will be taken to interchange infringements however players or teams who deliberately delay their entry to the field via the interchange may be subject to financial sanctions

Players who show strength in the marking contest will also be protected with the inclusion of the word unduly meaning free kicks only paid against a player who "unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds…" in a marking contest.
(UMPIRES SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DIRECTED TO PAID UNDULY ACTIONS IN A MARKING CONTEST)

 

[Sir Vlado]

Looks like the end of Patrick McGinnity's career to me.

 

[Slippery Pete]

A player who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary player will be regarded as having had prior opportunity. If he is then tackled he will have to dispose of the ball properly to not be penalised.

If a player ducks into a tackle and that action causes high contact to occur the umpire will call play on.



The interpretation as we've known it for 100 years, finally being applied correctly.

Better late than never.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

The AFL has also announced that a player who initiates a bump will be cited for rough conduct if he clashes heads with his opponent as it places further emphasis on protecting players from head and lower leg injuries.

Good, this was just bizarre this year (eg Thomas/Reid in round 1)

The high contact rule aims to discourage players from seeking forceful high contact.

A player who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary player will be regarded as having had prior opportunity. If he is then tackled he will have to dispose of the ball properly to not be penalised.

Don't like this. Another ticky touch interpretation for the umpires to figure out. Should just be play on, unless the player actually has had prior opportunity (eg taken a few steps then put the head down). You can see someone like Dangerfield grabbing the ball with his head down, taking half a step into an opposition player with his head down, the ball spilling free and he goes for holding it. Especially in rounds 1-3 when they are always super hot on the new interpretations.

You've either had prior or you haven't. I don't like "deemed prior opportunity because you did something we're trying to discourage".

If a player ducks into a tackle and that action causes high contact to occur the umpire will call play on.

Ok good, but if this wasn't the rule already nobody told me. It's an umpire issue to detect it. Also, ducking the head is rarely the problem now, it's more the dropping at the knees.

The AFL Commission also backed strengthening the rule halting forceful contact below the knees. A free kick will now be paid if a player either makes forceful contact below the knees or acts in a manner likely to cause serious injury, even if contact does not occur. That means reckless action will be penalised even if the opponent avoids that action by sidestepping or leaping over the opponent.

Again, good, but I thought this was already the rule. Was a source of frustration watching blokes get out of the way of dangerous contact and get penalised by not getting a free kick.

Players who show strength in the marking contest will also be protected with the inclusion of the word unduly meaning free kicks only paid against a player who "unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds…" in a marking contest.

I like this - sensible. Needs a bit more clarity in the interpretation of what "unduly" pushing, bumping, etc is. Hopefully it spells the end of the hands in the back rule which is the root of all evil.

Players are expected to still legitimately attempt to mark the ball.

No shit.

Umpires now have the discretion to determine whether players in the protected area have delayed or impacted the player in possession rather than automatically awarding a 50m penalty against a player who raises his hands in the air when in the protected area.

Thank God. Nothing worse than those ridiculous protected area 50s. If it impacts the game, there should be no leeway, even if it's completely accidental. Blokes running alongside the mark can give their team a big advantage by playing dumb and getting away with it. But those ones where guys run 4m behind an opponent who doesn't even know they are there should never be 50.

A common sense approach will be taken to interchange infringements however players or teams who deliberately delay their entry to the field via the interchange may be subject to financial sanctions

Good. Basically, you don't want teams cheating. As long as they're not doing that, I don't care if they go a millisecond too early.

The interchange will be capped at 120 per team per game.

Fine, whatever. We're all; playing by the same rules. Up to the teams to deal with it.

Runners will be restricted from two to one runner per club and the number of trainers allowed to enter the field will be reduced from six to four, with a fifth trainer only allowed to enter the field for stretcher incidents.

As above.

 

[I Lost My Keays]

The selwoods are screwed

 

[Ramify]

A player who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary player will be regarded as having had prior opportunity. If he is then tackled he will have to dispose of the ball properly to not be penalised.

If a player ducks into a tackle and that action causes high contact to occur the umpire will call play on.



The interpretation as we've known it for 100 years, finally being applied correctly.

Better late than never.

ThIS FFS!

Having played the game for nearly 30 years from SANFL to Div 11 SAAFL, I was always under the impression that this was a bloody rule. Only learnt in the past 2 years through watching fox footy that this isnt the case.

So WTF have all those umpires over the years been calling "Ducked. Play On" or "Ducked into the tackle. Holding the ball" for?

God AFL shits me some times.(more and more each year)

 

[AFC3000]

Sounds good on paper, well screen, but we all know interpretation is the problem. That one with the player leading with their head has bothered me for some time. I like that the use of strength in the marking contest is ok.

Seeing the words common sense from the AFL is pleasing haha.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Will never understand the interchange rule. No sport is as demanding as AFL, help the players out.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

These aren't really rule changes. They're just trying to undo the damage caused by other stupid rule changes in previous season and get back to what we had in the first place.

Any coincidence that as soon as Gieschen leaves they start making sense?

 

[Glenno23]

Looks like the end of Patrick McGinnity's career to me.

90% of the Eagles list is in strife!

 

[Slippery Pete]

These aren't really rule changes. They're just trying to undo the damage caused by other stupid rule changes in previous season and get back to what we had in the first place.

Any coincidence that as soon as Gieschen leaves they start making sense?

Did the Giesch leave?

I didn't get that memo.

 

[40porpoise]

Just worried about what interpretations of this rule will become. Initially when I read the rule change I thought of Dangerfield going low into a contest, extracting the ball with his head out and being pinged for holding the ball. I hope this isn't the case.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Just worried about what interpretations of this rule will become.

Ducking your head will count as prior opportunity. If you duck your head, you better break the tackle or else..... GONE.

Which is what the spirit of this great game always intended.

Initially when I read the rule change I thought of Dangerfield going low into a contest, extracting the ball with his head out and being pinged for holding the ball. I hope this isn't the case.

Danger will be fine.

The Selwoods on the other hand......

 

[AFC3000]

Just worried about what interpretations of this rule will become. Initially when I read the rule change I thought of Dangerfield going low into a contest, extracting the ball with his head out and being pinged for holding the ball. I hope this isn't the case.

The way I read it is basically, if your going to go in with your head you better have time to get the ball out. With the rule being in place to stop those players who know they can't get the ball out, but go in head stretched out looking for a free kick. Which would hopefully stop those annoying ones where the player almost has two movements in for the ball, and then stretch a bit further and up to get a free for head high contact while the other player is still or slowing because they know they cant do anything without giving a way a free/killing someone.

Definitely right about interpretation though, they wouldn't of had to change the rules in the first place, or change them back to fix them if they just used a bit of common sense.

 

[Marty64]

if they just used a bit of common sense.

Not on Vlad's watch.

 

[mrmatt]

I usually cringe at the rule changes each year and curse KB to anyone who'll listen but, as someone said above, there is a lot of undoing previous damage going on here.

I really like the strength in the marking contest changes. Definitely means the end of the 'hands in the back' infringement (probably worst AFL rule of all time). Come gameday we are still going to roll our eyes at some of the interpretation, but I'd rather be doing that than seeing someone give away a free for grazing someone's back, or because the defender realised he was out-strengthed and out-of-position so he let himself get thrown out of the contest to get a free.

The ducking one will be interesting as it has good intentions but adds another layer of grey area to physical contests - ie reading how they've worded it - if the tackling player is moving it may still be high contact. Again interpretation. But it will (hopefully) stop the obvious, frustrating ones - and might even up the free kick count at Subi a bit.

The contact below the knees one still bugs me. For mine, they should have made it a sliding infringement from the get-go (that's where the real danger is), but they didn't and now they're still trying to clarify it. The one part of the rule that bothers me is seeing a player, who has eyes only for the ball, jump/dive hands and head first at it, gather it, only to give away a free because his momentum took him into the shins of a flat-footed ball-watcher who didn't have the courage to go for the ball in the first place. So much for protecting the player with the ball.

All in all though, it seems there's been some common sense and a desire to move away from the ticky-touchwood fan-loathing frees.

 

[Footypie32]

- The use of strength in marking contests.


Players who show strength in the marking contest will also be protected with the inclusion of the word unduly meaning free kicks only paid against a player who "unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds…" in a marking contest.


Player concern about limit on trainers



Evans said consultation showed "strong support for marking players to be allowed the opportunity to use their body when protecting their position in the marking contest and allowing the controlling umpire the discretion to determine whether the force imparted by players within a marking contest is excessive and warrants a free kick."

I like this bit about marking. I've been screaming about it for years. You should be able to use your strength to push an opponent out of the contest. If they aren't strong enough to push back, tough. You don't see them handicapping fast players to make it fairer.

I just hope they interpret things correctly. From my experience, whenever you leave it up to the Umpires interpretation, they **** it up.

 

[Coopers]

I thought they were outlawing the strength in the marking contest when I read that...

 

[cmndstab]

If they're going to insist on making rule changes every damn year, at least this time around they're undoing some of the damage from previous years. Probably the first time in five years I have felt better after reading rule changes than before, so I guess that's a positive.

 

[little graham]

allowing the controlling umpire the discretion to determine whether the force imparted by players within a marking contest is excessive and warrants a free kick."

We'll lose games because of the way this will be implemented in our games,mark my words. They've been doing it with the HTB rule for years.

 

[Slippery Pete]

If they're going to insist on making rule changes every damn year, at least this time around they're undoing some of the damage from previous years. Probably the first time in five years I have felt better after reading rule changes than before, so I guess that's a positive.

Incredible that they needed "consultation" to figure out that every single person in the country wants players to be allowed to use their body in a marking contest and for the umpire to be able make a judgement call on it, instead of being bound to ridiculous stipulations like pinky fingers in the back or "bumper bars" (thanks Jeff).

So, for those who have been in a coma, we're going back to what we had from 1900- 2005. It's revolutionary now though....Because you know, consultation and shit.

In other news from AFL House, consultation has disovered vegetables are good for you.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Incredible that they needed "consultation" to figure out that every single person in the country wants players to be allowed to use their body in a marking contest and for the umpire to be able make a judgement call on it, instead of being bound to ridiculous stipulations like pinky fingers in the back or "bumper bars" (thanks Jeff).

So, for those who have been in a coma, we're going back to what we had from 1900- 2005. It's revolutionary now though....Because you know, consultation and shit.

In other news from AFL House, consultation has disovered vegetables are good for you.

You're kidding right? ......every supporter is continuously frustrated by the variance in umpire interpretations from within games & game to game.

The hands in the back, whether you liked it or not was black & white ....no interpretation
And everyone wants the umpire to interpret what is excessive or not ? ......i am guessing like every other supposed improvement at first glance people like it, UNTIL the interpretation goes against their team .....leading to increased frustration.

You can have strength in a contest .....that's been there since day dot
But you're wrong that hands have ever been allowed in the back .....it's just the interpretation has continually changed .......something you're happy to have ?

I will say the season hands in the back was black& white ....was the best season of high marking we've had for many many years.
Marking had gone to this body on body contest ....and yes hands in the back to push players under the ball.
All of a sudden players were again leaping at the ball rather than bodying players .....i for one prefer great high marking thanks

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The rules are set up so that players can't gain an unfair advantage (pushing, grabbing holding). It's very difficult to write the rules down, even though we all know what it means.

What we saw was that frees were being paid even when there was no advantage gained by the infringer. This is what was frustrating. There were technical breaches being paid that had no bearing on the outcome of the contest. Needless whistle blowing in order to abide by the letter of the law, not the intention of the law - which is to prevent players gaining an unfair advantage.

Yes, the line between fair and unfair will differ person to person and that causes frustration/inconsistency but that's the game and is inevitable. Most umpiring decisions involved some level of interpretation
- did he hold the mark long enough
- did he have enough time to dispose of the ball
- did he drop the ball or was it knocked free in the tackle
Etc

 

[ManInTheArena]

Did the Giesch leave?

I didn't get that memo.

Yeah they tried to keep him on using video links and other technology but in the end it was thought there needed to be that face-to-face contact that just couldn't occur from the nursing home.

Edit: no shit I just checked and he's not even 60, the man hasn't aged well.