Simple Great Idea - To Reduce Stoppages

[yebiga]

Create a distinction between Primary and Secondary ball-ups

Retain current rules for primary ball-up

For secondary ball-ups with-in a 15/20-meter radius of the first ball-up – the no-prior opportunity rule is temporarily suspended.

Then any player caught with the ball in his possession is automatically penalized. A player off his feet with the ball under him unable to clear it will be deemed in possession and penalized. There would be no tertiary ball-ups – virtually.

This change adds a huge level of excitement to the secondary ball-up, as opposed to the current yawn. It undermines attempts at controlling stoppages. Gerard Healy might even except this compromise.

What do you guys think? Is there a flaw?

 

[M Malice]

s**t the umpires have enough trouble now with the interpretation of the rules, don't throw in another one IMO.

 

[Peerless Pete]

Create a distinction between Primary and Secondary ball-ups

Retain current rules for primary ball-up

For secondary ball-ups with-in a 15/20-meter radius of the first ball-up – the no-prior opportunity rule is temporarily suspended.

Then any player caught with the ball in his possession is automatically penalized. A player off his feet with the ball under him unable to clear it will be deemed in possession and penalized. There would be no tertiary ball-ups – virtually.

This change adds a huge level of excitement to the secondary ball-up, as opposed to the current yawn. It undermines attempts at controlling stoppages. Gerard Healy might even except this compromise.

What do you guys think? Is there a flaw?

What would be the point of being first to the footy? You'd have all the players standing back waiting for an opponent to take possession so they could gang tackle them and win a very very very cheap free kick.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculously bad idea.

How about instead of penalising the bloke who wins the footy we put some restrictions on the players who are second to the ball.

 

[yebiga]

s**t the umpires have enough trouble now with the interpretation of the rules, don't throw in another one IMO.

It should really make it much easier for umpires. Secondary and tertiary ball up s now already place huge pressure on umpires.

 

[yebiga]

What would be the point of being first to the footy? You'd have all the players standing back waiting for an opponent to take possession so they could gang tackle them and win a very very very cheap free kick.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculously bad idea.

How about instead of penalising the bloke who wins the footy we put some restrictions on the players who are second to the ball.

And yet for 100 years that's not what happened. Your making an ambit claim based on absolutely nothing. The trouble with no prior is that it is ruthless - my suggestion is a compromise used only in secondary ball ups

 

[M Malice]

It should really make it much easier for umpires. Secondary and tertiary ball up s now already place huge pressure on umpires.

in the secondary ball up situation players would not take possession they would just be attempting to bash it forward in their direction till it cleared the stoppage. maybe it might be worth a try in the NAB. still have my doubts though.

 

[shintemaster]

in the secondary ball up situation players would not take possession they would just be attempting to bash it forward in their direction till it cleared the stoppage. maybe it might be worth a try in the NAB. still have my doubts though.

That's been my thoughts for a while. Worth a try to see how it might go but important to understand the consequences. BTW I don't like two rules, one rule only. All ruck contests the same. Suspect it wouldn't really stop people taking possession though, plenty of strong players would still back themselves to do so and get off a valid disposal. I also think you would need to address the "attempt" rule. With this type of scenario I think the only fair and sensible way to police the rules would be to eliminate prior opportunity completely and require a valid disposal at all times, rather than an attempt being sometimes good enough.

 

[GreyCrow]

The secondary ball up should have the 2 rucks only and a 5m/10m exclusion zone . Gives umpires room to move out without impeding the players , forces the ruckmen to hit it further rather than drop the ball at their feet

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

eliminate prior opportunity completely and require a valid disposal at all times, rather than an attempt being sometimes good enough.

Or why not penalize those pissy throws and soft drops that are not honest attempts, and allow the ball player making a genuine attempt the benefit as the rules allow?

You see it all the time now, where a player gathers from the ruck, flipping the ball into the path of a team mate, or soft dropping it and flailing arms out for a htm call. These squibs are getting paid, while the umps penalise the bloke who goes in and tries to kick or handball because second to the contest made a tackle.

I'm all for rewarding the tackle by the way, but the ball player is allowed to get away unpenalised if he attempts to correctly dispose.

 

[HairyO]

Create a distinction between Primary and Secondary ball-ups

Retain current rules for primary ball-up

For secondary ball-ups with-in a 15/20-meter radius of the first ball-up – the no-prior opportunity rule is temporarily suspended.

Then any player caught with the ball in his possession is automatically penalized. A player off his feet with the ball under him unable to clear it will be deemed in possession and penalized. There would be no tertiary ball-ups – virtually.

This change adds a huge level of excitement to the secondary ball-up, as opposed to the current yawn. It undermines attempts at controlling stoppages. Gerard Healy might even except this compromise.

What do you guys think? Is there a flaw?

Rather than more rules and more distinctions, lets just get better at the current rules.

 

[yebiga]

Rather than more rules and more distinctions, lets just get better at the current rules.

Yes let's train our umpires to become better at reading minds.

 

[Peerless Pete]

And yet for 100 years that's not what happened. Your making an ambit claim based on absolutely nothing. The trouble with no prior is that it is ruthless - my suggestion is a compromise used only in secondary ball ups

I'm not sure of your logic here. Yes, for 100 years players haven't done it, because there IS a prior opportunity rule that gives the player who wins the footy a reasonable chance to get rid of it. I'll ask again, why would a player want to be first to the footy under your suggestion?

 

[yebiga]

I'm not sure of your logic here. Yes, for 100 years players haven't done it, because there IS a prior opportunity rule that gives the player who wins the footy a reasonable chance to get rid of it. I'll ask again, why would a player want to be first to the footy under your suggestion?

Your not very familiar with the history of the prior opportunity rule. It's a relatively new way we currently interpret it.

For 100 years it only applied when a player was quickly stripped of the ball in a tackle when a player had only just taken possession. For a 100 years if you got caught in possession it was a clear cut free.

Sometime during the 1980/90s the intrepretation slowly softened and extended to include not only being quickly stripped of the ball but if the ball was quickly trapped to a player.

The success of the swans 2005 team was built on successive stoppages which could never occur prior to this rule softening extending.

Watch some old games from the 1970s there are hardly any ball ups around the ground.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

If the ball spills out it should always play on or holding the ball (where applicable) - only ball it up if the ball is dead i.e. not coming out from under a pack. Sick of ball ups being called just as a team has pried the ball out or it has spilled out and someone has run on to it

The aim then would be to either get the turnover or get holding the ball, teams would then have to make sure they kill the ball completely otherwise.

 

[kickazz]

What would likely happen is that the ruckman would try to hit it clearer, further away; or at least the rovers would tap it away to space, freeing up the contest.

The grey area that would arise is when does the second ball up end, for the purposes of this rule? (And so when does prior opportunity come back into play) Is it based on time, first clean possession, x number of players to tap the ball, distance ball gets away from stoppage?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Why are so many of you obsessed with how the game looks or is played, don't you just want your side to win?

 

[dave123]

May I suggest something radical also,

Let's leave the game alone for a while hey

We have the best season ever with north in 8th and only two wins from top

Scoring is up and we have only one really bad team in lions and the rest are OK given circumstances

For once leave the game as it is ......it's radical and mad to leave things as they are but geez it might just work !

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Do what they do in juniors:
Ump: "alright everyone back to there positions"
I liked what they where doing a couple of years ago, blow the whistle quicker and throw the ball up quicker, ready or not up she goes.

 

[kickazz]

Why are so many of you obsessed with how the game looks or is played, don't you just want your side to win?

There's eight games each week where your own team doesn't play, sometimes it's good to watch them.

Even your own team is better to watch when the game looks good.

If only the result matters then why bother watching you can just go and do something else and have someone sms the result to you.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There's eight games each week where your own team doesn't play, sometimes it's good to watch them.

Even your own team is better to watch when the game looks good.

If only the result matters then why bother watching you can just go and do something else and have someone sms the result to you.

That's what I do, the game has changed to significantly fir me to watch much of it these days.

 

[edgie]

Bring back the bounce, the ump takes more time to setup, the players have more time to reset resulting in less congestion, and the flight path of the ball is less predictable, hopefully resulting in less stalemate ruck contests.

 

[pc79]

Rule Change #1 - tackling players who are lying in the back of an opponent at any time during the tackling process gets penalized for 'in the back'. This rule has just disappeared from the game.

Rule Change #2 - around stoppages. second/third tacklers who hold the ball in a pack gets penalized. One on one tackles only. The ridiculousness of the 'you dived on it' holding the ball decisions, with the tackled player not having the ball in their possession when the free is given has led to players now trying to worm/squirm/flipping fish on dry land their way away from the footy so not to get pinged. The game is about getting the footy. Why is the first player to the ball/player to win the ball at a disadvantage?

Rule Change #3 - start paying incorrect disposal. If a ball is not kicked, or handballed and a tackled player does not dispose of the footy correctly (kick or handball) then it is incorrect disposal and the tackler gets a free kick.

Rule Change #4 - Those players that drop their centre just prior to being tackled in order to draw high contact lose their prior opportunity and if they don't kick/handball the ball should be penalized. There are a bunch of blatant duckers and we all know who they are who should be watched closely (Selwood, Grimes, Sicily, Thomas, Blair, McPherson, Pendelbury, Shuey, Puopolo etc etc). I don't buy in to this tackling technique business. Many players drop in the last 0.2 seconds and their shoulders/necks/heads are 30/50cm lower (moving target) for the tackler to adjust to.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Rule Change #1 - tackling players who are lying in the back of an opponent at any time during the tackling process gets penalized for 'in the back'. This rule has just disappeared from the game.

Rule Change #2 - around stoppages. second/third tacklers who hold the ball in a pack gets penalized. One on one tackles only. The ridiculousness of the 'you dived on it' holding the ball decisions, with the tackled player not having the ball in their possession when the free is given has led to players now trying to worm/squirm/flipping fish on dry land their way away from the footy so not to get pinged. The game is about getting the footy. Why is the first player to the ball/player to win the ball at a disadvantage?

Rule Change #3 - start paying incorrect disposal. If a ball is not kicked, or handballed and a tackled player does not dispose of the footy correctly (kick or handball) then it is incorrect disposal and the tackler gets a free kick.

Rule Change #4 - Those players that drop their centre just prior to being tackled in order to draw high contact lose their prior opportunity and if they don't kick/handball the ball should be penalized. There are a bunch of blatant duckers and we all know who they are who should be watched closely (Selwood, Grimes, Sicily, Thomas, Blair, McPherson, Pendelbury, Shuey, Puopolo etc etc). I don't buy in to this tackling technique business. Many players drop in the last 0.2 seconds and their shoulders/necks/heads are 30/50cm lower (moving target) for the tackler to adjust to.

Agree with 3 of these.

#3 not quite.... The player tackled should be penalised if they make no attempt. If the genuinely do try (not that pretend crap) and the ball is knocked out then play on. Otherwise, penalise as you say. Too many get away by letting the ball just bobble out, or by blatantly throwing it.

 

[dave123]

If you reduce stoppages to zero

You see no ruckman

The game will be too fast and players will get injured late in games ...this would lead to fourth qtr games where players are dead on their feet ...ugly

The game is ok ...for once leave it alone scoring is up from three years ago and generally on an upward trend

Yup there is some crap games but hey when you have 18 teams your going to see so,e meaningless games in the second half of the year when 12 is playing 16th .....

Let the game naturally evolve ...if you keep changing rules to counter act another rule all you get is players then exploiting the new rule to get around that

Fffs leave the game alone

 

[dave123]

Rule Change #1 - tackling players who are lying in the back of an opponent at any time during the tackling process gets penalized for 'in the back'. This rule has just disappeared from the game.

Rule Change #2 - around stoppages. second/third tacklers who hold the ball in a pack gets penalized. One on one tackles only. The ridiculousness of the 'you dived on it' holding the ball decisions, with the tackled player not having the ball in their possession when the free is given has led to players now trying to worm/squirm/flipping fish on dry land their way away from the footy so not to get pinged. The game is about getting the footy. Why is the first player to the ball/player to win the ball at a disadvantage?

Rule Change #3 - start paying incorrect disposal. If a ball is not kicked, or handballed and a tackled player does not dispose of the footy correctly (kick or handball) then it is incorrect disposal and the tackler gets a free kick.

Rule Change #4 - Those players that drop their centre just prior to being tackled in order to draw high contact lose their prior opportunity and if they don't kick/handball the ball should be penalized. There are a bunch of blatant duckers and we all know who they are who should be watched closely (Selwood, Grimes, Sicily, Thomas, Blair, McPherson, Pendelbury, Shuey, Puopolo etc etc). I don't buy in to this tackling technique business. Many players drop in the last 0.2 seconds and their shoulders/necks/heads are 30/50cm lower (moving target) for the tackler to adjust to.

So your happy with 80 free kicks a game .......that would be nice

I'm actually ok with the odd throw being missed .....why because the ball is actually being released

If penalise every single free kick to the letter of the law you'll see the whistle blown every twenty seconds ...you want that ?