Rule Changes for 2019

[Wolftone]

The set ups at centre bounces are crap. Another knee jerk reaction. Yet again the AFL fails to understand it's own game.

This worries me as it still will hold the game up;

• A ruckman who takes direct possession of the ball from a bounce, throw-up or boundary throw-in will no longer be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
• Where there is uncertainty over who is the designated ruckman, the ruckman for each team will still be required to nominate to the field umpire.

I am talking about the designated ruckman rule. It's bullshit and always will be and it holds the game up. If they want the game to move get rid of it. The taking the ball out of the ruck has just gone back to the original rule before the AFL not VFL started ******* around with it.

Most of the rules introduced by the AFL have been s**t and have worked to the detriment of the game. That is because corporates not footy people run the game.

 

[Wolftone]

Yet another rule to stop accidental umpire contact. Have the AFL ever wondered why the umpires get accidentally run into all the time? They might like to look at umpiring positioning. The other thing they might like to look at is the umpires always running backward which does not allow them to see players behind them or if they have imperfect peripheral vision they WILL collide with players even if the players try their best to avoid collision.

The umpires all line up in the central part of the ground, down the guts if you like. This is a good reason why they get in the way of the play all the time. Too many umpires taking up space in the guts. There is a much better positioning system that could be very beneficial both to umpires and the game as a whole. The umpire at one end starts at centre bounces to the left of the centre square. the umpire at the opposite end starts at the right of the centre square. As the play moves toward one end or the other the now controlling umpire moves toward the centre and the central umpire moves to left or right depending what side the ball is on. This will allow two umpires to have a full and extensive view of the play. The other umpire stays on the opposite side of the ground to the play but close enough to the centre to take control of play should the ball enter his/her zone.

This would certainly stop umpires from giving frees that are just not there due to being unsighted but still adjudicating. On the other hand not paying a free when it is there due to being unsighted. Because at least one umpire would be in a position to see the play at all times.

 

[Wolftone]

Why the heck are they changing the ruckman prior opportunity rule? That can only result in more stoppages, not less.

As it stands if a ruckman takes the ball out of the ruck and gets touched it is a free kick. That is bloody stupid. Now Naitanui can take the ball from the ruck and run with it, whereas before if he tried to do that and a player touched him, just a tap on the arm no restraint it was a free against. now that was a bloody stupid rule

 

[cleomenes]

The new rules are mostly OK, even if they don't really address much.
The one that will cause trouble is the push in the back modification. We already have players getting away with such pushes far too much. There will be more unpenalized after this change.
The ruck taking possession change back to the old rule is overdue.
Interchange remains the problem it has been since the coaches learned to exploit it tactically instead of using it to manage injuries. No action nere.
The holding the ball change(s) have not been specified clearly, so I don't expect teh problems here to be addressed.
50 m penalties for wasting time have not been clarified, so this will remain a lottery, with players getting away with preventing play on movements most of the time.
Overall, some progress, but too much is left as too hard.

 

[maskmcgee]

As it stands if a ruckman takes the ball out of the ruck and gets touched it is a free kick.

That's not how it is/was at all, if the ruckman took the ball out of the ruck and for any reason failed to kick or handpass the ball it was a free kick.

 

[southjoy]

LETS FACE IT.

Our game is s**t...we need at least 8 different rules a year.
The closeness of the comp this year was purely coincidental! Thank You Gil and what's his name.

NO...really. Thank You Gil

 

[Wolftone]

Ridiculous lol. Lets fix congestion by creating more congestion!

No, in fact the rule has been changed back from the bad change we have had for 10 odd years. The rule as it stands stops players taking the ball out of the ruck because it states 'If a player takes the ball from a ball up, throw in and gets touched it will be deemed a free to the player who manages to touch the ruckman'. This stops play too. Whereas if a ruckman takes the ball from the ruck and manages to break away or handball the ball to a breaking player this is wonderful footy.

I can think of several great ruckmen and a few middling rucks this will advantage. for a start here are a few; grundy, Gawn, Natanui, Naismith, Sinclair, Lobb, virtually all the athletic ruckmen

 

[giggler99]

Yep play on. No more infringement. You can kick, handball or just run out of the square.

Whats the point of having a goal square at all? its only a visual aid now.

 

[The Gong]

Whats the point of having a goal square at all? its only a visual aid now.

Mark in the goal square rule. They're also marking the distance from the goal square the defender can stand. Not much really.

 

[schmuttt]

No, in fact the rule has been changed back from the bad change we have had for 10 odd years. The rule as it stands stops players taking the ball out of the ruck because it states 'If a player takes the ball from a ball up, throw in and gets touched it will be deemed a free to the player who manages to touch the ruckman'. This stops play too. Whereas if a ruckman takes the ball from the ruck and manages to break away or handball the ball to a breaking player this is wonderful footy.

I can think of several great ruckmen and a few middling rucks this will advantage. for a start here are a few; grundy, Gawn, Natanui, Naismith, Sinclair, Lobb, virtually all the athletic ruckmen

So a free doesn't break up the congestion but another stoppage does?

 

[giggler99]

Mark in the goal square rule. They're also marking the distance from the goal square the defender can stand. Not much really.

But once a defender plays on that man on the mark is voided?

I get that! I think teams now will just set up in a way in which it won't allow players to run off like a sort of defensive arc.
Glade there is no 18m goals square, But this kick in rule is gonna get some getting use to.

 

[kickazz]

Goal umpires should also signal the score first, then signal why (touched, hit post, missed).

Yes. Same goes for field umpires. Advise the team it is for and point the direction first, then day what the free is for.

 

[kickazz]

I like the play on any time during the measuring of the 50. We've needed this for a while now.

They need to explain what the obligation for the defending team is though during the measuring. Does the defender have to stay behind the umpire for example? Otherwise you'd stay as close to the ball carrier as possible so you can tackle if they try to play on.

 

[shaqsuns]

This. How on earth do you enforce the playing on from the goal square? If the player steps over the line when kicking in now, is that not just play on?

F******* dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kickazz]

This. How on earth do you enforce the playing on from the goal square? If the player steps over the line when kicking in now, is that not just play on?

Pretty easily I would think.

Man on mark starts put while you are in the square.

Man on the mark can approach you when you cross over the square.

 

[RUNVS]

Also I am very disappointed in how little they have changed the prior opportunity rule. I think it was Clarkson this year who came up with the suggestion that if a player handballs it or does a small kick to a teammate then that teammate loses all prior opportunity, so if that teammate is tackled it is an immediate free kick. I liked that idea as it sounds like a great way to get the ball moving and to get the ball out of tight packs in a rush.

Of course the AFL didn't go with the idea though, instead choosing to make a lot of little changes that won't matter.

 

[kickazz]

Also I am very disappointed in how little they have changed the prior opportunity rule. I think it was Clarkson this year who came up with the suggestion that if a player handballs it or does a small kick to a teammate then that teammate loses all prior opportunity, so if that teammate is tackled it is an immediate free kick. I liked that idea as it sounds like a great way to get the ball moving and to get the ball out of tight packs in a rush.

Of course the AFL didn't go with the idea though, instead choosing to make a lot of little changes that won't matter.

Team holding the ball. I think it was Hardwick that wanted it.

Sounded like a crap idea to me though. Even harder to interpret. Probably lead to even more defensive play at stoppages.

 

[Glenn_]

Can see it now with the hand in the back ruling, a increase in diving for players trying to claim they were pushed.

 

[Maddo11]

I like the play on any time during the measuring of the 50. We've needed this for a while now.

They need to explain what the obligation for the defending team is though during the measuring. Does the defender have to stay behind the umpire for example? Otherwise you'd stay as close to the ball carrier as possible so you can tackle if they try to play on.

Pretty sure they'll just tack on the "protected area" to the moving player. No defenders within 15m until such time as the player with the ball plays on.

 

[Maddo11]

Can see it now with the hand in the back ruling, a increase in diving for players trying to claim they were pushed.

Yep, any time the defender knows they're in a tough spot/beat and can feel the hands on their back they'll flop.

 

[kickazz]

Regarding this rule:

"When a defender marks or is given a free kick within nine metres of their goal the man on the mark must be brought into line with the top of the goal square."

Surely the umpire won't have to go through the motions of bringing the player back each time. It's clear now that if a free is paid to a defender, you need to get back behind that line. The onus should be on the player to do this, leaving the umpire to get in position.
Otherwise it becomes another play delaying opportunity.

 

[Maddo11]

Regarding this rule:

"When a defender marks or is given a free kick within nine metres of their goal the man on the mark must be brought into line with the top of the goal square."

Surely the umpire won't have to go through the motions of bringing the player back each time. It's clear now that if a free is paid to a defender, you need to get back behind that line. The onus should be on the player to do this, leaving the umpire to get in position.
Otherwise it becomes another play delaying opportunity.

Yep, the AFL cracked down on this sort of delaying tactic many years ago with the "if you're not in the contest then you can't touch the player after they take a mark" 50m interpretation, but it's been creeping back in, as well as with what you describe. Players that charge over the mark knowing the umpire will give them 5 seconds or so to get back behind the mark before penalising them. It's s**t, and needs to stop.

 

[shaqsuns]

I’ve officially given up on our once great game. Thank goodness for soccer, basketball and gridiron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ManInWhite]

Will be interesting to see how many of these rules remain with AFL only and don't get adopted at local footy level. The play on during a 50m will need tweaking as time on is currently applied when a 50m penalty is given. Technically you can't play on while time on has been called so they'll need to arrange it so that time on begins but if a player plays on, time is automatically restarted.

 

[peteau89]