Rule Changes for 2019

[hcd199]

Seen a tweet from Mick McGuane going on about that apparently the ball has to bounce after a ruckman has tapped it down in a ruck contest, meaning players can't shark hitouts anymore

Is this actually true, or is it just a trial JLT rule?

I think he's referring to one of the consequences of the 2017 third man up ban, that if you're not a designated ruck, you can't contest the ball until it's tapped by a ruck or has hit the ground; a non-recalled wayward throw-in (or a situation where neither team has a nominated ruckman) ends up being left to hit the ground because anybody else contesting it in the air is "third man up". He's absolutely right - it's just one of many idiocies to come from a ridiculous rule change - but it's not a new one.

 

[go you pups]

I think he's referring to one of the consequences of the 2017 third man up ban, that if you're not a designated ruck, you can't contest the ball until it's tapped by a ruck or has hit the ground; a non-recalled wayward throw-in (or a situation where neither team has a nominated ruckman) ends up being left to hit the ground because anybody else contesting it in the air is "third man up". He's absolutely right - it's just one of many idiocies to come from a ridiculous rule change - but it's not a new one.

Ah right

Understood now, think I read some other tweet there that confused me

Yeah I wasn't happy third man up was abolished, it cleared congestion most of the time

Just a reactionary rule because teams like the Dogs, Cats and Hawks were profiting off it

 

[WCE fan22]

Any player interchanging shouldnt be penalised for not being in the correct position so long as they are running toward their spot. They positions are mental they should just be 6 in the forward area (edge of square to goals) and 6 in the back area none of this crap inside 50 and 1 in the goal square. Also the ruck contest is an easy one to fix just give a free if there is more than one player from either team going up for the ball get rid of this under 10s having to put your hand up s**t that would make up for the random dodgy throw in or bounces. Dont mind the play on from a point not so sure about play on from a 50 m penalty absolutely allow the player unhindered to get to the 50 mark though. Im not a bit fan of big changes all they are going to do by speeding the game up is create more injuries.

 

[Coach_Required]

The hands in the back rule will be another example of the AFL having no idea what they are doing.

The rule is you still cant push a player directly in the back, you can now place hands in the back to hold your position, sounds simple doesnt it? Yet I dont think the umpires undertstand this rule as I saw multiple times over multiple games players shoved squarely in the back in a marking contest usually across boundry lines and the umpire called for a throw in and I'm not talking about slight touches these were full on forceful pushes.

A player will get hurt if this continues, either a knee injury trying to stop them from crashing into a fence or just slamming into the fence.

Not bloody good enough

 

[Coasters7]

Runners need to be reinstated pretty quickly. Such a reactionary rule change. Agree that something had to be done about the onfield coaching but they’ve gone to the other extreme, where game day coaching is non existent.. the coach might as well not show up for the match. Couldve fixed it slowly as it wasn’t really a pressing issue. Bigger fines to clubs, fines to individuals, suspensions etc should’ve been trialed first.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

Bigger fines to clubs, fines to individuals, suspensions etc should’ve been trialed first.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but fines isn't it. Do you really think clubs would care about a few grand fine on grand final day with a flag on the line?

 

[Coasters7]

I'm not sure what the solution is, but fines isn't it. Do you really think clubs would care about a few grand fine on grand final day with a flag on the line?

Yeah was just throwing up things off the top of my head. Was more trying to make the point that they couldve experimented with different punishments rather than banning them all together.

 

[quotemokc]

It sounds stupid but I would rather runners literally hand players a written note on the field so they have no reason to stay out there.

 

[shaqsuns]

Runners need to be reinstated pretty quickly. Such a reactionary rule change. Agree that something had to be done about the onfield coaching but they’ve gone to the other extreme, where game day coaching is non existent.. the coach might as well not show up for the match. Couldve fixed it slowly as it wasn’t really a pressing issue. Bigger fines to clubs, fines to individuals, suspensions etc should’ve been trialed first.

I completely disagree with this statement. Clubs overplayed the runners rule and that’s why it had to change. This will bring flair back into the game as the runners won’t consistently coach on the field and players will be a bit more daring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WCE fan22]

The afl rules committee has completely lost touch with the afl game and appear to be trying to change it into a new game entirely. Give these new rules 2 weeks and i suspect some fans will turn off the tv and not go to games, if this is their plan then congratulations they will probably succeed.

 

[Coasters7]

I completely disagree with this statement. Clubs overplayed the runners rule and that’s why it had to change. This will bring flair back into the game as the runners won’t consistently coach on the field and players will be a bit more daring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something had to be done.. but they went to the opposite extreme before exploring other possibilities. It’s just classic AFL jumping straight into things without thinking and it’ll create unforeseen problems down the line. This game is as much about coaching and coaching on gameday as it is about the players.

Imagine a final, 3 minutes to go, down by less than a goal and Simmo wants to get McGovern down forward to clunk one.. but no goals end up being scored in the remaining 3 minutes and he can’t get the message out. Or Dangerfield being stuck on the bench because a runner can’t get out there to tell the other guy to get off. Obviously that’s an extreme case but it’ll be like that all game.. you want as much flexibility as possible to have players exactly where you want them to be. There’s just a bit too much change all at once and clubs are going to have to completely reorganise everything to do with rotations and positioning. Going to be a lot more of that 4 rotations at once type thing that I saw in a match, last weekend I think it was?

 

[D-N-R]

Something had to be done.. but they went to the opposite extreme before exploring other possibilities. It’s just classic AFL jumping straight into things without thinking and it’ll create unforeseen problems down the line. This game is as much about coaching and coaching on gameday as it is about the players.

Imagine a final, 3 minutes to go, down by less than a goal and Simmo wants to get McGovern down forward to clunk one.. but no goals end up being scored in the remaining 3 minutes and he can’t get the message out. Or Dangerfield being stuck on the bench because a runner can’t get out there to tell the other guy to get off. Obviously that’s an extreme case but it’ll be like that all game.. you want as much flexibility as possible to have players exactly where you want them to be. There’s just a bit too much change all at once and clubs are going to have to completely reorganise everything to do with rotations and positioning. Going to be a lot more of that 4 rotations at once type thing that I saw in a match, last weekend I think it was?

Check out will schoefilds moment in the GF. He took it upon himself to run forward and got caught out of position. Then Mcgovern took that mark because he had to go off his man, kicked to Vardy, to Ryan then to Sheed then history.

Sometimes good things can happen even when players * up.

And I think Ryan or Sheed were meant to be off the ground but the ball was on the wrong side of the ground for a change.

Also remember if one team doesn't have any instructions neither does the other.

 

[shaqsuns]

Something had to be done.. but they went to the opposite extreme before exploring other possibilities. It’s just classic AFL jumping straight into things without thinking and it’ll create unforeseen problems down the line. This game is as much about coaching and coaching on gameday as it is about the players.

Imagine a final, 3 minutes to go, down by less than a goal and Simmo wants to get McGovern down forward to clunk one.. but no goals end up being scored in the remaining 3 minutes and he can’t get the message out. Or Dangerfield being stuck on the bench because a runner can’t get out there to tell the other guy to get off. Obviously that’s an extreme case but it’ll be like that all game.. you want as much flexibility as possible to have players exactly where you want them to be. There’s just a bit too much change all at once and clubs are going to have to completely reorganise everything to do with rotations and positioning. Going to be a lot more of that 4 rotations at once type thing that I saw in a match, last weekend I think it was?

I don’t think many fans pay thousands of dollars per year to go watch coaches set up zone or put their superstars on the pine.

As most coaches say on the talk back shows, on game day they are more the overseer not really a game changer as most of their coaching is done during the week.

The beauty of Aussie Rules for a 150 years was that it was a contest within a contest (18 vs 18) and there is nothing more exciting as a fan watching a star player take risks and be daring.

The issues with coaches is that they take the flare out of the game and they have to much influence on people’s opinions regarding silly rules like this “runner” issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhawk]

But how does the umpire rule if the player has played on or stepped over the line? The player will always argue that they have played on.

Edit: that’s from kick in’s

I like the 100m rule because players should follow the simple rules and not scream abuse at umpires/players.

 

[kickitolachie]

We've had three rounds, and are starting to see the effect of the current batch of rule changes, as well as the carryover from some previous ones.

Hands in the back: has returned the game to the grey area it used to have. Once more, players get away with blatent pushes, but marking contests are a bit fairer most of the time. Umpires don't have the certainty in their decisions on this one that the last rule gave them, and are under more pressure. It hasn't changed much for the game.

Runners etc.: Has made the field look better, and has upset the coaches and commentators no end. Will probably be rescinded soon.

Ruckman taking possession: has returned the rule to what it used to be, and from where it should never have been moved.

666: makes the field look better at start of play, and riles the coaches. Hasn't actually changed much except to delay the clogging of defences for a few seconds after the bounce.

Kickout changes: hasn't changed much yet. The call of "back to the nine" is an addition to the weird things we hear from umpires.

Below the knees: has been around a little while, and the distortion it causes is becoming more apparent. As usual, AFL pronouncements refuse to contemplate that they have it wrong. The umpires know what is a dangerous slide and what is not, but they are not allowed to use this knowledge. Eventually, one of the players who falls over the top of someone trying to get the ball will kick him in the head and seriously injure the ball player, and the rule will be changed.

Holding the ball: seemed to be being tightened in round 1, with some calls of "took too long" being very heartening, but it was a flash in the pan. No change really. Congestion continues to build as players seek to barge through with impunity. After a long working up period, the dragging the ball in interpretation seems to be consistent and fair now. It was hard going to get to this point.

AFLX: dead in the water.

50 m penalties. The extension to 100 m for a trivial offence makes the game a laughing stock. A game changing effect for something that didn't need attention.
The application of the initial penalty remains a lottery, with minor contact after marks copping a lot of penalties, but more or less at random. Most such offences are ignored but the odd one is picked out. The more serious and carefully coached wasting time (the initial offence for which the 50 was applied) when players refuse to disentangle from or get themselves off free kick recipients is ignored.

AFL pronouncements stress the desire for open play and clearing of congestion. There is continual tinkering with the rules supposedly aiming at achieving this. There is no appetite to face the root cause which is interchange for tactical gain. Until there is a willingness to confront this, the game will continue to decline as a spectacle. TV is keeping the illusion that the game looks OK, but at the ground it looks terrible.

Off topic but related, the Trump-like AFL statements that "there was no tanking" at Melbourne leave one in despair that there is any integrity in the organisation. Can nobody there understand that an admission of error followed by a real and obvious effort to do better is what the football faithful want? There is not much appetite for witch hunting outside the football media, but there is a great desire for some honesty.

 

[situationz]

The new rules for runners were a tad excessive, but I do think they improve the look of the game a little (and coaches have less control on the game, which is seemingly a good thing if you want high scoring footy like me). Hands in the back is kind of dumb, good they got rid of it.
As for increased scoring: while the game definitely looks better with 6-6-6, scoring hasn't really gone up (yet). I think the new kick-in rules might have kept scoring down a bit, by limiting repeat 50 entries

ALso, the umpiring has been awful so far, especially the silly off-the-ball punching frees and contact below the knees calls. Umpires should really just ignore off the ball fouls that don't affect the play.

 

[Ron The Bear]

HS's match report on Geelong/GWS cites Tom Hawkins as "a perfect example of why the 6-6-6 rule is a winner".

Average score so far is 81.83 points per team, the lowest after four rounds since 1967. Next-lowest in that period is 85.21 in 1968, so it's not close. And we've had good weather and firm grounds to boot.

After last year's carry-on about the state of the game, I'd like the media to look a bit closer and ask whether it really has been a winner.

 

[footyfan1978]

Four rounds in and for mine seen enough to be convinced their idea these 9 alterations were going to fix the spectacle has failed. The north v crows game was terrible and so was gold coast v carlton as examples of the worst problem still exists due to the interchange mess. Until they fix that, this is painting over cracks in the game as a spectacle. Most of the changes like 6-6-6 do not bother me but they do not address the main issue of interchange rotations turn game into a 22 v 22 situation with freshest 18 on at any point. It was never designed to be that way and means congestion will continue to remain for large chunks of game when the initial centre clearance does not result in a quick goal.

They tip toed around the real problem and hoped these minor changes would solve the congestion. They were wrong. It is still there once the initial 6-6-6 reverts to more recent setups of flood the opposing sides forward line.