It wasn’t just the Bowden match in 2008. As someone else mentioned the 2008 grand final also helped the rule come in, as well as Mal Michael’s emphatic rushed behind in 2006. Initially the rule was correctly umpired strictly but then it went soft.
Rules you would like to see implemented
- Thread starter timokane
- Start date
- Tagged users None
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Bro the ball didn't go down the other end after the Rocca miss to Akers goal.
Correct, Josh Fraser put Collingwood in front with a goal not long after Rocca’s behind.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Akermanis didn't even kick Brisbane's next goal.
Correct again, it was Lynch.
No player would take possession if they are about to be tackled, that's the point. If your opponent is stilly enough to pick up the ball when your arms are closing, then your free kick for a well-executed tackle. Many players will still take on tacklers to get their arms free and get a disposal away, but it will be riskier. After all our modern players are experts and keeping their arms up, or getting a boot to it.
No prior opportunity just means that we will see players tap or soccer the ball away from congestion if they can't take possession. The phonebox stoppage look will disappear. If clubs put numbers around the ball, nobody can take possession until it gets hit to the outside, at which point, the team with the numbers on the outside will have the advantage. Means no more "extractor" roles in the midfield and a return to ruck craft, front-and-square roving, not to mention repeat stoppages being a thing of the past. Nathan Buckley suggested it early this year. There's a whole thread about it called "ending congestion".
It also depends when you grew up, but when I was a kid "prior opportunity" didn't exist.
Last edited:
- Apr 29, 2016
- 11,037
- 9,648
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I'd like to see a challenge system implemented. 5 incorrect challenges a game. If it takes an extra 5-10 minutes for the game then so be it. The umpires are screwing up the game too much with howlers that I think a challenge system has to be put in place. The people upstairs (who have a better view) can then make a decision.
How about remove rules?
Remove a free kick when a players hand touches the top of the shoulder. Head contact ONLY.
Remove "push in the back" when a player falls on anothers back in a tackle. This is not dangerous.
Remove "unrealistic attempt", this only discourages players from going for hangers.
Remove a free kick when a players hand touches the top of the shoulder. Head contact ONLY.
Remove "push in the back" when a player falls on anothers back in a tackle. This is not dangerous.
Remove "unrealistic attempt", this only discourages players from going for hangers.
misnomer
Rookie
I have two that I haven't seen so far:
1. Removal of the center bounce except to start the match and just throw the ball up. Keep the one as a nod to tradition, but do what's actually fair and have it go straight up and down.
2. A 25 meter penalty for less severe distance infractions. You shouldn't be moved 1/3 of the way down the field for delay of game.
Just my opinions though, I'd love to hear what you think.
1. Removal of the center bounce except to start the match and just throw the ball up. Keep the one as a nod to tradition, but do what's actually fair and have it go straight up and down.
2. A 25 meter penalty for less severe distance infractions. You shouldn't be moved 1/3 of the way down the field for delay of game.
Just my opinions though, I'd love to hear what you think.
- Aug 6, 2021
- 5,789
- 10,451
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It just wouldn’t work in footy, game moves too quickly. How would the coaches get the message to umpires in time?
- Aug 6, 2021
- 5,789
- 10,451
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I guess I disagree that footy would be a better spectacle if players only tapped, punched and soccered the ball in congestion.
That's not the point of the rule change. The idea is that the congestion wouldn't be there at all.
Haven't you noticed how players can take clean possession and kick inside 50 from a centre-bounce? In other stoppages situations it just never happens, because each team sends extra numbers to the contest. Currently, numbers around the stoppage is an advantage. But if taking possession becomes impossible without being tackled and giving away the free kick, there's no longer an advantage in the extra numbers. Because numbers would not equal possession.
The centre square, 6-6-6 rule and many other things have been done to try to keep players away from stoppages, they just need to remove the incentive, which is the advantage. It would be a game with less pauses, less tackles, more one-on-one contests and marks at a premium.
complete with live spinner.
Punishment wheel | Spin the Wheel - Random Picker
Spin the wheel to randomly choose from these options: Charge Thrown out, Charge downgraded, Precedent ignored, One match suspension, Two match suspension, Toby Greene tax, Appeal, Good Guy discount, Three match suspension, Non Victorian bias, Victorian bias, Potential to cause injury, Opt not to...
spinthewheel.app
I think there are some infringements where a 25m penalty should be applied. The most obvious one to me is if you are over the mark (25m is still a good short kick advancement up the field).
There are probably others where 50 should drop to 25 but i need my morning coffee first before i think too much.
There are probably others where 50 should drop to 25 but i need my morning coffee first before i think too much.
icestationzebra
Draftee
- Jun 8, 2023
- 10
- 10
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
What rules have been brought in because of the way a particular team or player plays?
TheOptimum18
Club Legend
- Apr 18, 2022
- 1,135
- 2,289
- AFL Club
- Richmond
There's a theory (conspiracy?) that Steve Hocking introduced the Stand rule because he didn't like how Richmond players were being overly aggressive on the mark. Apprently, someone found audio or text that kinda supports this (haven't seen the evidence, but heard it exists).
There was also a theory that another reason why 6-6-6 was introduced was because of the way Richmond used a 7th defender to run through the back of centre bounces that would create an out number in the middle, before rolling one of our wingers into the backline to form the extra intercepting defender. There was also occasions where we would start with 8 defenders, with 2 running into the midfield. With this theory, I doubt 6-6-6 was introduced specifically for this, but it's something I saw float around when the rule was introduced.
icestationzebra
Draftee
- Jun 8, 2023
- 10
- 10
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Was the behind rule changed after Hawthorn kept walking the ball over the line in a grand final?
With you on the first one
Partially with you on the second - needs to remain for the full on in the back tackles when running full speed, not the ones without any speed to it.
Disagree with the third one. Prevents players from competing
25m is worth making a tactical infringement for.
Maybe something like a minor stand infringement or things like that, but gets too complicated
Ruck rules were changed due to Matthew Primus
- Dec 9, 2015
- 5,715
- 10,134
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
icestationzebra
Draftee
- Jun 8, 2023
- 10
- 10
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
How about the 3rd man up rule?
Blicavs mainly but Geelong in general.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Any boundary throw in where a ruckman punches the ball out of bounds - automatic free against. How is it different to insufficient intent for kicks that go out?
icestationzebra
Draftee
- Jun 8, 2023
- 10
- 10
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Or sliding in below the knees. Heath Shaw or Adam Goodes?
