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

[thylacine60]

 

[carlton_99]

Essentially the stand rule has brought with it a number of issues. So instead of the AFL just facing the truth and getting rid of the rule they are adding more rules to make the old rule work better which just makes it even more difficult for the umpires

 

[My Hat]

Not as bad as I feared based on the newspaper report. Even so: more complexity, more exceptions, more mind-reading.

Will admit though that I actually like change #3 because for once it is simplifying the umpire's job by getting rid of something.

 

[Gethelred]

I hate it, because it will be umpired inconsistently. An umpire will not notice the feigned handpass and will award 50 at some point this year, and the furore will again be focussed not on the game but on the umpiring.

It's getting worse. Need to get the English involved to really make some of the rules arbitrary and nonsensical.

 

[Arr0w]

Understand the motion of a feigned disposal triggered a reflex movement of the man on the mark, and the penalty of a 50 being too harsh, but, this will lead to inconsistencies

What will they now consider being "feigning" a disposal?

Player leaning in a direction without stepping off the line while holding the ball with both hands?

Holding the ball in one hand, but not having a clenched fist with the other?

At what point do they call play on?

There are still some rules that need simple, obvious, tweaks that reduce the amount of interpretations, this rule tweak actually increases those interpretations

 

[BlueGum]

Thou shall not sell candy

Its sad how stupid the AFL are when it comes to rule changes.

 

[Boy with chook]

Thou shall not sell candy

Its sad how stupid the AFL are when it comes to rule changes.

Yep. If a player goes to handball, whether feigned or legit, then it should be called play on.

 

[thylacine60]

reckon this maynard thingie will be an example of one player or incident changing the rules of the game along the lines of lindrum, bradman, bartlett etc...........it certainly won't be because of his excellence, more the opportunity to crank up the duty of care aspect of the game - discuss where you think the rule will change, preferably looking forward rather than chewing over the past week's porridge........

 

[Arr0w]

Fairly easy, cause head contact/injury via a bump, tackle, smother, you cop a ban

A deterrent that keeps both players on the park for more games throughout the year

 

[Kruezing]

Fairly easy, cause head contact/injury via a bump, tackle, smother, you cop a ban

A deterrent that keeps both players on the park for more games throughout the year

What about other footballing actions like spoiling marking and rucking ?

 

[thylacine60]

I reckon the knee in the head from a massive pack mark is gonna be tough to adjudicate.......

 

[lily of laguna]

I reckon the knee in the head from a massive pack mark is gonna be tough to adjudicate.......

Indeed it will.

I cannot recollect too many that have caused problems over the journey, Tom Lonergan's kidney would care to differ!!!!!

 

[Arr0w]

What about other footballing actions like spoiling marking and rucking ?

For me, that still falls into a legitimate undisputed contest but intent should still be a consideration

 

[thylacine60]

intent is impossible to judge.........

 

[Arr0w]

intent is impossible to judge.........

The Plow JOM is the most interesting example

 

[Bletch]

Perfect example is the concussion to McKay. Wasn't even discussed, as it was a pure accident. Couldn't possibly implement a rule that would result in McCartin receiving weeks. It's then a matter of drafting a rule that would make it clear that McCartin/McKay is fine, but Maynard/Brayshaw isn't. Not so easy - though I'm sure the AFL will be looking at it.

 

[Kruezing]

I’m telling you this is a minefield … there are so many things that could come into play it’s not funny … we may even get to a stage where players with concussion history be assessed whether they are fit to keep playing on even well before they would in normal circumstances intend to retire … the possibility of waivers being signed if they choose to play on and so on … it’s impossible to remove collision or contact entirely from the game without fundamentally changing the nature of the game as we know it …

 

[thylacine60]

the pa won't have much time for waivers.........

 

[OldBlueFan]

I reckon the knee in the head from a massive pack mark is gonna be tough to adjudicate.......

Personally, I think the knee to the head (or anywhere) of a defenceless player is a pretty poor look. And before people scream "but that will remove the speccie from the game!!", go back and look at most, if not all, of the greatest marks in the history of the game - I don't think many involved a knee to the head. 1AW's mark being a case in point.

AFL rules should be based on removing as much grey area as possible. Therefore, it could be as simple as "make contact with the head and you are liable for the consequences, regardless of your 'intent'".

This bullshit where one player gets rubbed out for a badly executed tackle, but another is free to play after a badly executed smother - despite the fact that one resulted in 2 minutes of unconsciousness for the victim - is an absolute farce.

Why wait until a knee to the head of a player causes serious injury before stopping it?

I bet that Maynard would have approached that smother (cough!) completely differently if he'd thought missing a PF or GF could be the consequence of hitting Brayshaw's head with his shoulder.

The only exception I think there needs to be is the genuine accident, a la Harry McKay and other head clashes like that. These guys are professional athletes who practice their craft daily. They should be able to control a) whether and b) where their knees, elbows and shoulders make contact with another player.

 

[thylacine60]

actually the more I think of it, the less incidents of players getting concussed marking in packs I can think of...........

 

[thylacine60]

reckon this maynard thingie will be an example of one player or incident changing the rules of the game along the lines of lindrum, bradman, bartlett etc...........it certainly won't be because of his excellence, more the opportunity to crank up the duty of care aspect of the game - discuss where you think the rule will change, preferably looking forward rather than chewing over the past week's porridge........

I said........

 

[Gethelred]

actually the more I think of it, the less incidents of players getting concussed marking in packs I can think of...........

It's why whenever I hear the 'this will be the end of the speckie!' I roll my eyes a bit.

There was one earlier in the year - don't remember who on who - but before that I cannot remember the last time one happened. Considering all the high marks that occur in our game, that they happen at all should come as no surprise, but concussions from them would require statistical analysis of every marking contest in the sport - as in, a long form analysis from biomechanists and doctors - over a substantial timeframe to actually conclude the risk of concussion from specifically high marking.

And without that analysis, I'm not interested in doomsaying around it, especially when most of that doomsaying comes from He Who Must Not Be Named.

 

[thylacine60]

it's quite odd that there aren't more, perhaps only the true specky has a knee level with a head? still, all we usually see is someone like carlisle, ruefully rubbing his ears as someone like andrew walker, lines up for goal........

 

[Kruezing]

It's why whenever I hear the 'this will be the end of the speckie!' I roll my eyes a bit.

There was one earlier in the year - don't remember who on who - but before that I cannot remember the last time one happened. Considering all the high marks that occur in our game, that they happen at all should come as no surprise, but concussions from them would require statistical analysis of every marking contest in the sport - as in, a long form analysis from biomechanists and doctors - over a substantial timeframe to actually conclude the risk of concussion from specifically high marking.

And without that analysis, I'm not interested in doomsaying around it, especially when most of that doomsaying comes from He Who Must Not Be Named.

How many KO’s we had from attempted smothers prior to Brayshaw … I can’t recall any … actually high marking leading with the knee would involve way more risk than a smother imo …

 

[ajb72]

Pretty sure Charlie Curnow

35

Charlie Curnow

Age

28

Ht

194cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.3

3star

K

9.7

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

4.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.8

4star

nearly had his legs removed from an "attempted smother" on the weekend.....