Opinion The Rules Of Our Game - Kill Me Now...

[Stig O'Hara]

Don't sweat it numbers. I get it every week.

Man, I love him..........after 14 years typing and deleting................he's alright, part of my little Intranament Big Footy family.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

My neighbour is a New Yorker who asked me round one day for a beer and to watch a Port game with his mate. I was surprised he followed Aussie rules and his 'mate' was Gavin Wanganeen. When I asked him how long it took to understand the rules he replied...Gavin tried explaining the rules and God Damn I tried to understand the rules until I realised the umpires didn't understand the rules so we're all cool.

 

[TheCoach16]

You got shares in the Austin Hospital???

It's a 360 degree War Zone out there, played in the middle of winter with no time-outs.

Impact injury is the same as a car accident.............

FMD.

Stig, do you really think I don't understand the dangers associated with our game? First of all, as a coach when one of my players puts his head over the ball and he gets his head knocked off, my blood curdles and I go off my nut on the boundary (much to the dismay of my club).
Secondly, I have a teenage son that plays senior footy, do you think I don't worry about him every single time he steps on the ground? Given the tragedies we've seen involving serious head injuries.
I'm not, in any way, advocating head high or dangerous contact. I was commenting on the rules. And I stand by my comment that if a player contributes to their own high contact, it should be play on.
The players that deliberately put themselves at risk just to get a head high free kick are the ones you should be asking about shares in the Austin hospital.

 

[ajb72]

Stig, do you really think I don't understand the dangers associated with our game? First of all, as a coach when one of my players puts his head over the ball and he gets his head knocked off, my blood curdles and I go off my nut on the boundary (much to the dismay of my club).
Secondly, I have a teenage son that plays senior footy, do you think I don't worry about him every single time he steps on the ground? Given the tragedies we've seen involving serious head injuries.
I'm not, in any way, advocating head high or dangerous contact. I was commenting on the rules. And I stand by my comment that if a player contributes to their own high contact, it should be play on.
The players that deliberately put themselves at risk just to get a head high free kick are the ones you should be asking about shares in the Austin hospital.

I agree totally with this. We now have a breed of footballers who lead with their heads, hoping to get high contact and get the free, rather than protect themselves. Case in point is the Lynch guy from the crows, a concussion or worse, waiting to happen.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm glad this is being discussed, you'll hear a lot of people say today's footballers aren't as hard as they were "back in the day". I disagree, I think players are just as tough, if not tougher, than they ever were.
The problem as I see it, is the rules are softer, not the players. I completely agree the head must be protected, and the rules must reflect this. BUT, the head high rule, or above the shoulder has gone too far.
For me, there's one simple way to get the balance right. If a player, IN ANY WAY, contributes to his own head high tackle, then it's play on. Simple as that.
If a player ducks, bends at the knees, slides the arm, attempts the break or avoid a tackle, even if he just slips over at the wrong time. If he contributes to the high tackle, and let's face it, most times is just a hand brushing an ear or cheek, but if a player contributes to this high contact, play on, play on, play on.
If the tackler goes in high and makes contact above the shoulders, pay it, protect the head.
But players need to start protecting their own head also, and if they contribute to the high tackle, they're putting themselves at risk, you can't reward that, play on, I'm even ok with paying a free kick against the player that ducks, bends the knees etc.

You read my mind. We can call it the Selwood rule. Let's see how quickly he stops raising his arms when the frees dry up.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Stig, do you really think I don't understand the dangers associated with our game? First of all, as a coach when one of my players puts his head over the ball and he gets his head knocked off, my blood curdles and I go off my nut on the boundary (much to the dismay of my club).
Secondly, I have a teenage son that plays senior footy, do you think I don't worry about him every single time he steps on the ground? Given the tragedies we've seen involving serious head injuries.
I'm not, in any way, advocating head high or dangerous contact. I was commenting on the rules. And I stand by my comment that if a player contributes to their own high contact, it should be play on.
The players that deliberately put themselves at risk just to get a head high free kick are the ones you should be asking about shares in the Austin hospital.

Yep, the stricter interpretation has actually encouraged some players to literally put their neck on the line.
Another one in a similar vein that they tend to miss a lot is the high fend off. Love seeing a good 'don't argue'. Dusty is normally pretty good at doing it properly. Cloke gets the defender high more often than not.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Eg Simon White's broken neck

 

[mediumsizered]

Eg Simon White's broken neck

That one could have ended up very badly.

Clubs need to make a strong point to players that leading with you head is not an option. It should be part of a player's post game review video with the relevant coach reiterating the dangers involved.

 

[Jabba73]

Should be done as part of their duty of care for the player. Unfortunately it seems that when it helps you to win games through momentum changing free kicks, clubs will be happy to encourage the dangerous behavior.

 

[Windhover]

Been saying this for ages now but the problem with the modern game is the average fan no longer understands it. I reckon the AFL has a real problem on its hands because tactically the game has moved on so quickly that many media people do not even understand it. The clubs are too scared to let their tactics out yet all this does is keep us all further removed from the game. For me they need to start running programs that educate us so we all have half a chance of understanding what is going on.

The problems created by the rules and their interpretation are largely a result of the game moving on so quickly. To take but one example, reserves/interchange players. Originally reserves were played only in the event a player was injured during a game to the extent that the player could no longer participate in the game. In part because the ability to "fix" players (with painkilling injections etc) "reserves" became "interchange" players. It took many years before coaches treated interchange players as just part of the team with unlimited interchanges. But with the increased professionalism of the game, full-time players and coaches, finding little advantages to exploit are now the rule rather than the exception. With the greatly increased interchanges first the substitute was introduced and now the limited interchanges. There is now much speculation as to how clubs will react to that limit and what it will mean for players like ruckmen who usually struggle to go all game.

But every rule enables gamers to exploit it. So, for example, the sensible rule that a push in the back should be penalised is now actively exploited by any player tackled with the ball from behind by dropping their knees and allowing the momentum of the tackler to land on their back. So, also, we now have the tackling player executing the tackle by rolling over the tackled player to prevent landing in his back. Such a tackle, unheard of 20 years ago, is now described as the "perfect" tackle.

So our frustration as fans with the application/interpretation of the rules is at least, in part, a frustration with the gaming behaviour of the players as coached by NOT playing the game as it is intended but by playing the game to exploit the rules that are there to guide the game being played as intended.

Unfortunately Australian Rules will always have grey areas in the application of rules. When is a player legitimately jostling for position, and when is the player just interferring with his opponent Mickey Gaffer style.? As with tax avoidance (which also relies on gaming rules open to alternative interpretation) the ultimate antidote must be to have a generalised anti-avoidance rule.

So, a player pushed in the back in a tackle where it is hard to tell how the push was caused and if it caused no injury should get no free even though pushed in the back.

So, a player hit in the head incidentally in a tackle where it is hard to tell whether the high contact was brought on by accident of the hit player dropping down whether or not intentionally or forcing the tackle high and no real injury is caused should get no free.

The purpose of the general anti-avoidance rule would be to stop coaches and players gaming the rules and get them back to playing the game. This would greatly reduce the frustration we all feel with umpires making ridiculous calls based on rules that have been gamed.

 

[BluStreak]

Can anyone explain to me why a forward can impede / tackle an opposition player who is trying to stop a goal being scored even though they don't have the ball or are near the ball?

 

[LordLucifer]

The advantage rule, completely does my head in.

The players now decide whether they will play on to advantage, not the umpire.

And if the player without the ball tackles the player trying to play-on via advantage, he is then penalised 50m for it.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Hands in the back and chopping of the arms, both came in and they were red hot on it for a few weeks and now they let so many of these infringements go not penalised these days.

******* shits me !!

 

[Stiffler's Dad]

Bring back Glen James!

 

[Navara79]

When a player with the ball gets tackled and the ball spills out and the umpire says it was knocked out in the tackle bloody enrages me. It's illegal disposal you idiot. Did he handball? NO. Did he kick it? NO. FFS I'm getting angry now just thinking of it

 

[thylacine60]

easy fella

better?

 

[ajb72]

When a player with the ball gets tackled and the ball spills out and the umpire says it was knocked out in the tackle bloody enrages me. It's illegal disposal you idiot. Did he handball? NO. Did he kick it? NO. FFS I'm getting angry now just thinking of it

If he had prior opportunity it should be holding the ball, or illegal disposal. Without prior opportunity it is play on.

 

[Navara79]

Better

easy fella

better?

 

[Navara79]

If he had prior opportunity it should be holding the ball, or illegal disposal. Without prior opportunity it is play on.

That's the thing. They hardly ever pay it when they have had prior opportunity

 

[SBYM]

They didn't fall out over the Great Souvlaki Debacle, did they?

 

[BluesRule]

I continue to maintain it is the umpires' lack of feel for the game that creates the issues. With the likes of Bannister, Fisher & shortly Carrazzo taking up the caper, you would hope this improves. The AFL needs to encourage as many ex-AFL players as possible to pick up the whistle & put on the OPSM shirt.

A good umpire is one you do not notice at all. Hate the grandstanders who seem to want to make a game about them blowing the whistle to decide the outcome of a game. Let it flow...

 

[SBYM]

A good umpire is one you do not notice at all. Hate the grandstanders who seem to want to make a game about them blowing the whistle to decide the outcome of a game. Let it flow...

I will not hear you say a bad word about Ray. He is the best.

 

[BluesRule]

I will not hear you say a bad word about Ray. He is the best.

View attachment 219104

I wonder how big the Razor fan club is nowadays - he probably won more games than CFC in 2015

 

[SBYM]

 

[SBYM]

I'm going to get carded, aren't I?