Rules Wish-list

Remove this Banner Ad

yebiga

Unable to post reasonably
Aug 1, 2008
12,844
14,495
PC Wonderland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I believe we should be trying to maximize the best aspects of the game whilst simplifying the rules for everyone to understand. There is far too much unnecessary guesswork in adjudicating the rules. Whereever possible we should not be asking umpries determine intention - it is an impossible task.

Below are my solutions to areas of the game I find frustrating and/or insane.


20-meter kick to award a mark
This retention passing game is dull. 15 meters retention passes are a blight on the game. 15-meter kick is impossible to defend and serve merely delay action. Often umpires are paying 12 or 12 meter kicks. 20 meters would make simple retention much more difficult. We would see more conntested marks and faster ball movement and play.

Penalize all kicks that travel Out of bounds - on the full or after a bounce -
(only if the ball is touched prior to crossing the line is it a ball up - like the rule we had for a kick out following a behind)
no more asking umpires to be psychic to determine whether a kick out of bounds is deliberate or not. There are just too many embarrassing inconsistencies with this deliberate rule. If a kick results in crossing the boundary line - whether it bounces or not - it is a free-kick to the opposing team. There is no negative consequence to this change. It is a rare no brainer. It would reduce unnecessary stoppage, keep the ball in play, and add a new level of excitement.

I'm am not sure whether we go the full hog with the last touch rule - but this is a no brainer.

No Prior Opportunity
At least 10-20 times a game, a player will take possession with both hands when it is apparent they will be tackled by 2-3 opponents. We then all suffer have to suffer the pantomime of the player trying to dispose of the ball until the umpire inevitably calls a ball up. It is not in the spirit of a fair contest. Prior opportunity is a rule that began in under 12s and was championed by the AFL in the 1980s to help attract Rugby followers to the Sydney Swans. Inevitably, tackles have dramatically increased over the decades since. And tackles create stoppages.

If we want quick ball movement, high scoring, and exciting play all you need do is remove the prior opportunity crutch. Tackles will decrease substantially. Therefore reducing stoppages and concussions.

Advantage Play-On
In Rugby Union the referee Signals advantage without blowing a whistle. Only, if the next sequence proves to be not advantageous is a whistle blown and the ball returned to the penalty spot. I can't see why this would not work much better in our game. Once the whistle is blown the momentum of the game has been altered. This small change would make play more continuous.


Mark/Free Exclusion Zone - Ease-up
Can we exercise some sense here and not give 50 metre penalties unless there is real inteference.
Can we also have an exclusion zone for the player on the mark - this shepherding of the guy on the mark just looks like cheating and adds nothing to the game.


Goal Review - Delays
Where a goal umpire calls a goal there is no need to wait for a review - the ball goes straight to the middle - a quiet review is conducted after every goal anyway
If there is an over-rule it is called prior to the next centre bounce.

Only where the goal-umpire thinks it is a point but has some doubt is a review required prior to the re-commencement of play.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,523
7,463
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
I believe we should be trying to maximize the best aspects of the game whilst simplifying the rules for everyone to understand. There is far too much unnecessary guesswork in adjudicating the rules. Whereever possible we should not be asking umpries determine intention - it is an impossible task.

Below are my solutions to areas of the game I find frustrating and/or insane.


20-meter kick to award a mark
This retention passing game is dull. 15 meters retention passes are a blight on the game. 15-meter kick is impossible to defend and serve merely delay action. Often umpires are paying 12 or 12 meter kicks. 20 meters would make simple retention much more difficult. We would see more conntested marks and faster ball movement and play.

Penalize all kicks that travel Out of bounds - on the full or after a bounce -
(only if the ball is touched prior to crossing the line is it a ball up - like the rule we had for a kick out following a behind)
no more asking umpires to be psychic to determine whether a kick out of bounds is deliberate or not. There are just too many embarrassing inconsistencies with this deliberate rule. If a kick results in crossing the boundary line - whether it bounces or not - it is a free-kick to the opposing team. There is no negative consequence to this change. It is a rare no brainer. It would reduce unnecessary stoppage, keep the ball in play, and add a new level of excitement.

I'm am not sure whether we go the full hog with the last touch rule - but this is a no brainer.

No Prior Opportunity
At least 10-20 times a game, a player will take possession with both hands when it is apparent they will be tackled by 2-3 opponents. We then all suffer have to suffer the pantomime of the player trying to dispose of the ball until the umpire inevitably calls a ball up. It is not in the spirit of a fair contest. Prior opportunity is a rule that began in under 12s and was championed by the AFL in the 1980s to help attract Rugby followers to the Sydney Swans. Inevitably, tackles have dramatically increased over the decades since. And tackles create stoppages.

If we want quick ball movement, high scoring, and exciting play all you need do is remove the prior opportunity crutch. Tackles will decrease substantially. Therefore reducing stoppages and concussions.

Advantage Play-On
In Rugby Union the referee Signals advantage without blowing a whistle. Only, if the next sequence proves to be not advantageous is a whistle blown and the ball returned to the penalty spot. I can't see why this would not work much better in our game. Once the whistle is blown the momentum of the game has been altered. This small change would make play more continuous.


Mark/Free Exclusion Zone - Ease-up
Can we exercise some sense here and not give 50 metre penalties unless there is real inteference.
Can we also have an exclusion zone for the player on the mark - this shepherding of the guy on the mark just looks like cheating and adds nothing to the game.


Goal Review - Delays
Where a goal umpire calls a goal there is no need to wait for a review - the ball goes straight to the middle - a quiet review is conducted after every goal anyway
If there is an over-rule it is called prior to the next centre bounce.

Only where the goal-umpire thinks it is a point but has some doubt is a review required prior to the re-commencement of play.
Agree with pretty much all of that but the main thing is that in future they remove rules rather than add them. If a rule's unclear or not working get rid of it instead of adding more rules to 'fix' that one. I think they might also need to get rid of some more traditional rules in the process, as long as the non-negotiables stay put.
 

Dazza the Viking

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2019
4,517
3,248
AFL Club
Hawthorn
When are the AFL going to include a throw as a stat, umpire calls play on every time the player throws the ball these days, also when players get tackle they just let the ball go and it’s called play on. The AFL is only interested in continuous play, that’s why players can do what they like when they get tackled.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

yebiga

Unable to post reasonably
Aug 1, 2008
12,844
14,495
PC Wonderland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
When are the AFL going to include a throw as a stat, umpire calls play on every time the player throws the ball these days, also when players get tackle they just let the ball go and it’s called play on. The AFL is only interested in continuous play, that’s why players can do what they like when they get tackled.
What you point out is another symptom of the confusion with the rules. On the one hand prior opportunity encourages a player to take possession regardless of the circumstances but then we don't want all the ball up or frees. You can't have both. So now the game descends into a rugby pack and hopefully the ball is somehow released. All the time the umpire may or may not pluck a decision out of the air.

I'm convinced the thinking in the AFL is motivated by appealing to the Rugby states. In Rugby, the breakdown of a series of passess into pack maul is exciting because possession can change. Rugby is all about retaining possession. So a lot hangs on the outcome of a pack. AFL is more dynamic and possession can change hands in many more ways.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
6,478
9,986
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I believe we should be trying to maximize the best aspects of the game whilst simplifying the rules for everyone to understand. There is far too much unnecessary guesswork in adjudicating the rules. Whereever possible we should not be asking umpries determine intention - it is an impossible task.

Below are my solutions to areas of the game I find frustrating and/or insane.


20-meter kick to award a mark
This retention passing game is dull. 15 meters retention passes are a blight on the game. 15-meter kick is impossible to defend and serve merely delay action. Often umpires are paying 12 or 12 meter kicks. 20 meters would make simple retention much more difficult. We would see more conntested marks and faster ball movement and play.

Penalize all kicks that travel Out of bounds - on the full or after a bounce -
(only if the ball is touched prior to crossing the line is it a ball up - like the rule we had for a kick out following a behind)
no more asking umpires to be psychic to determine whether a kick out of bounds is deliberate or not. There are just too many embarrassing inconsistencies with this deliberate rule. If a kick results in crossing the boundary line - whether it bounces or not - it is a free-kick to the opposing team. There is no negative consequence to this change. It is a rare no brainer. It would reduce unnecessary stoppage, keep the ball in play, and add a new level of excitement.

I'm am not sure whether we go the full hog with the last touch rule - but this is a no brainer.

No Prior Opportunity
At least 10-20 times a game, a player will take possession with both hands when it is apparent they will be tackled by 2-3 opponents. We then all suffer have to suffer the pantomime of the player trying to dispose of the ball until the umpire inevitably calls a ball up. It is not in the spirit of a fair contest. Prior opportunity is a rule that began in under 12s and was championed by the AFL in the 1980s to help attract Rugby followers to the Sydney Swans. Inevitably, tackles have dramatically increased over the decades since. And tackles create stoppages.

If we want quick ball movement, high scoring, and exciting play all you need do is remove the prior opportunity crutch. Tackles will decrease substantially. Therefore reducing stoppages and concussions.

Advantage Play-On
In Rugby Union the referee Signals advantage without blowing a whistle. Only, if the next sequence proves to be not advantageous is a whistle blown and the ball returned to the penalty spot. I can't see why this would not work much better in our game. Once the whistle is blown the momentum of the game has been altered. This small change would make play more continuous.


Mark/Free Exclusion Zone - Ease-up
Can we exercise some sense here and not give 50 metre penalties unless there is real inteference.
Can we also have an exclusion zone for the player on the mark - this shepherding of the guy on the mark just looks like cheating and adds nothing to the game.


Goal Review - Delays
Where a goal umpire calls a goal there is no need to wait for a review - the ball goes straight to the middle - a quiet review is conducted after every goal anyway
If there is an over-rule it is called prior to the next centre bounce.

Only where the goal-umpire thinks it is a point but has some doubt is a review required prior to the re-commencement of play.
Can I ask, why?

What is the point of these suggestions? What will be the outcome? And what is the desired outcome?
 

yebiga

Unable to post reasonably
Aug 1, 2008
12,844
14,495
PC Wonderland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Can I ask, why?

What is the point of these suggestions? What will be the outcome? And what is the desired outcome?
A superior spectacle by reducing congestion and increasing the time the ball is in play. A 15-meter uncontested mark is never going to be thrilling. A 20 meter requirement for a mark is a no brainer - makes it a little harder to retain possession for no good purpose. Increases contested marks and interceptions.

Clearer rules for umpires to intrepret and less frustrating to watch - deliberate out bounds/prior opportunity

Reduce injuries and particularly concussion - reduce tackles ergo congestion

Create a playing environment that allows the most skilled and talented to shine. This tackle mania favours the unskillful and strong over the sublime

A simplification of the rules to encourage the growth of a Global TV audience. Even those of us brought up on the game don't understand the tackling/holding the ball/incorrect disposal/insufficient effort/knocked out in the tackle lottery.
 

flyinghi64

Club Legend
Dec 7, 2006
2,867
2,105
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Agree on scrapping prior, this will remove most around the ground stoppages.
If you choose to take possession then the onus is on you to "legally" dispose of it. This will cause more knock on's and running play and a lot less congestion causing stoppages.

20m kick agree as well, would go as far as 25m to be honest.

Also when there is a free paid players should have 5 seconds to get the ball back otherwise 50m.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
11,287
10,944
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
A superior spectacle by reducing congestion and increasing the time the ball is in play. A 15-meter uncontested mark is never going to be thrilling. A 20 meter requirement for a mark is a no brainer - makes it a little harder to retain possession for no good purpose. Increases contested marks and interceptions.

Clearer rules for umpires to intrepret and less frustrating to watch - deliberate out bounds/prior opportunity

Reduce injuries and particularly concussion - reduce tackles ergo congestion

Create a playing environment that allows the most skilled and talented to shine. This tackle mania favours the unskillful and strong over the sublime

A simplification of the rules to encourage the growth of a Global TV audience. Even those of us brought up on the game don't understand the tackling/holding the ball/incorrect disposal/insufficient effort/knocked out in the tackle lottery.
The rules were once easy to follow, everyone knew them. Sure umpires made some bad calls but that comes with all sports.
The AFL decided to change the rules and bring in sub rules to rules and here we are today with the problems we have and an almost totally different sport.

A 20m mark will still be uncontested, half the game is uncontested. Teams allow these uncontested plans. 15m or 20m kick will not change that.

The only way to reduce congestion is to pay free kicks when they are there and that means all free kicks. 80% of all tackles now are high yet the AFL say the head is sacrosanct? The AFL have convinced the footy public that it is the fault of the bloke with the ball which is absolute garbage. The bloke other than ducking his head should be able to do whatever he wants and it is the tacklers responsibility to not get him high. Force the coaches and players to change how they tackle and tackle lower. Head high contact is rife now and it’s simply because some idiots decided the bloke with the ball is at fault. It’s a bloody comedy act.

I am all for letting the best players shine, but the AFL don’t want that. They don’t like that if some one is quicker he can just run away from his opponent so they have allowed players to grab jumpers, harrass their opponent before they even get the ball. That is simply holding the man and is a free kick, pay the free kicks and the coaches will instruct their players you cannot touch them until they take possession. This is all very simple stuff made difficult by poor decisions by the AFL.

The AFL created this mess. It can’t be fixed until they go back to the rules and how it was umpired 30 years ago.

Nominating for a ruck knock is Auskick stuff, simply embarrassing.
Paying 50m for players not interfering is just ludicrous.
Being able to kick out after a behind and not having to kick from the goal square has done nothing and was change for change sakes. Another stupid change.
Deliberate out of bounds should be for deliberate out of bounds, not miss kicks. Team kicking should always be given the benefit of the doubt. And name me another sport you penalise a team fir advancing the ball their way. Just stupid.

The list goes on and on, you are wanting them to fix what they have already changed numerous times, just change it all back to the Rules of Australian Football 30 years ago, implement those rules as they are written, force the coaches and players to change how they go about things and let the game evolve naturally.

By continuing to try and fix what has been stuffed up has led us to where we are now which is a hybrid sport called AFL where the rules are to difficult to officiate and the sport is in one hell of a mess.
 

Top Bottom