Rules Rules of the game

Remove this Banner Ad

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,067
33,481
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
I am over it. I am over these murky rules we have in our games. Rules that require a replay in slow motion to determine whether the incident is a free kick or not are not suitable for in-game adjudication. The AFL rules committee is seriously setting umpires up to fail because let's face it - there are a lot of players and coaches in our game that try to the rules.

I would like to see us get rid of two types of rules:
- any murky rules that does not get adjudicated consistently
- Any rule that is easily exploited, but this one probably ties in with the first.

That will make this game so much easier to adjudicate for the umpires.

You'll notice how extreme I am going to be, but I want us to get rid of or modify:

1. High contact free kicks. People may say "oh but high free kicks protect people from being hit in the head". Do they really when we have so many players deliberately going out of their way to force a high contact? The recourse of any high contact of concern can be after the game (e.g. suspension etc.) so I don't care for high free kicks anymore. Too many players don't seem to care enough about contact with the head when ducking anyway. If we have this rule, then I want it enforced on the rare occasion that a player gets clotheslined or something like that. Not when someone pushes their arm up to force the high contact.

2. Touched rule. I do not care whether or not a fingernail has touched the ball or whether the ball has scraped the post. I'm sick of it. If you need to zoom and replay the incident 10 times, then simplify it. Did it go in between the big sticks? Yes? Then it's a goal. Did it not go in the big sticks? Then it is not. Simple.

3. In the back. The application of this rule is one of the most inconsistent in the league. Once you see a player practically riding on someone's back and it's not called a free kick. Another time you'll see a player gently put just one of their palms in the back of a player and it's called a free kick. This is another highly exploited rule where players exaggerate contact by diving. This inconsistency is also evident when a player is on the floor as well. I don't care anymore, just get rid of the whole rule.

4. HTB. I said that "in the back" was one of the most inconsistent because this one's the most inconsistent in my opinion. Does anyone literally even know what this rule is anymore? With this one, I don't actually mind the rule itself, but it needs a facelift. We need to come up with a way that makes umpires able to see it and say with confidence "yes, that is HTB". I actually don't have an answer to this one but anyways.

5. Throw. Every team has players that do it. Umpires cannot zoom into players' hands with their eyes. Therefore, only enforce it when someone is legitimately throwing the ball as they do in NFL. People may say "oh but that results in people throwing the ball more". I literally do not care if it results in people throwing the ball more because they do it anyway. What's the point of occasionally pinging the one or two people that are caught? Also, I don't want the umps to crank down on it either because adjudicating the throw is not easy to do in real-time. It's just a murky rule right now.

6. Holding the man. I actually don't mind this rule, but it may need to be re-defined because it's hard to tell the difference between the one that's holding and gets pinged and the one that's still holding the player but does not get pinged if you know what I mean. They need to modify the rule to make it more recognisable to the umps in real-time.

7. The stand rule. Need I say more?

8. One of "Down the field" and 50-metre penalty. I will take debates on any of the above points, but I don't care what anyone says on this one. Because I am extreme on this, I would rather have us get rid of both, but at the very least get rid of one of them. They're both very influential free kicks and we already have players receive free kicks inside 50. We do not need free kicks that usher players to the goal square. And no, I don't care if a player crosses some imaginary radius around a player with the ball.

I don't really think that there is anything else tbh. If we modify or get rid of these above rules, then watching the game is going to be so much less frustrating.
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,067
33,481
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
The following high free kick is an example of the one I don't want to see anymore. It's technically there, but come on. It's exaggerated


C6D9A548-A650-433E-A1D5-4D7084D47E58.jpeg
 

matthew_s

Club Legend
Aug 19, 2013
1,500
3,144
AFL Club
West Coast
Too many times umpires get sucked into paying the high contact when the player ducks or collapses into it.

players get way too long to dispose of the ball.

so many throws go unpunished
 

Log in to remove this ad.

scottyt2

Senior List
Aug 21, 2006
224
156
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
If a player lowers his body from an upright position (doesn't matter if he slipped) whilst in possession of the ball then if should be called play on if there is high contact. They don't get frees if they duck...dropping the knees is basically the same thing.
 

Lsta062

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 15, 2014
17,067
33,481
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
If a player lowers his body from an upright position (doesn't matter if he slipped) whilst in possession of the ball then if should be called play on if there is high contact. They don't get frees if they duck...dropping the knees is basically the same thing.
They say that they try to crack down on it but they don’t. We see players force high contact so many times and it is paid anyway.

I agree. Whether it is ducking or weaving or slipping. If the high is caused because the player that got hit lowered themselves in any way (accidental or not), then it’s play on.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad