Rules The Sensible Rule Changes Required

[Lavender Bushranger]

Man AFL people are dumb.

We've just seen how simple it is to enact change without sweeping changes that compromise the game itself.

The NRL introdcued significant change, without actually changing any rules or introducing any new ones!

Well played.

But to be fair...it's really not that hard.

There are a bunch of alterations or adjustments that could be made in the AFL which would make huge changes - without needing to dream up any s**t new rules!


Gerard Whateley was talking about it last night, and I agree with him to a degree.
His jist was along the lines of 'just make the rule changes and don't try to engage everyone and make them all happy - just do it.'

That's completely wrong in the sense that you need to understand what the Problem Statement is. To do that, you generally need input from a bunch of stakeholders.

I believe this is a core problem with the AFL's plight and their approach to the game.

What is the actual problem with the game?

If you ask 10 people down the street what a perfect game of AFL footy is, you'll get a bunch of different answers. So what is it exactly that you're trying to make the game look like? I don't think the AFL know. They're like Homer Simpson designing the car for Herb - they're taking a scattergun approach to it and trying to address all these little problems with changes. The issue there is that most of the changes end up countering other ones, and you don't really know which ones were effective amd which weren't!

They need to first understand exactly what it is they're trying to achieve.

What's the Problem Statement? Then what's the solution?


The 6-6-6 rule is just dog s**t. Not becuase it *s with the integrity of the game in the sense that it's a major change that basically has introduced zones to AFL footy - but because it didn't work!
It facilitated close finishes and teams rolling the dice to score quickly out of the centre, which was cool - but to my knowledge, that was never the Problem Statement?

So here we are again. Trying to fix the game. Scoring is still low. The game still looks putrid.


But anyway, I digress...

There are three things that need to change, and they aren't new rules and they aren't going to rip out the heart of the game. My personal view is that the rolling maul is a major problem, and the lack of one on one contests is the other. Low scoring doesn't me, and I don't particularly love high scoring shootouts. It's the contest I love, and the art of football on an individual level. Great players are what makes the game entertaining - not 'well drilled teams'.

1) No runners. Let's be honest, coaches wrecked the game. Limit their interference.
Let tired players make decisions on their feet. The art of football will come back, and older players will have more value.

2) Enforce players creeping over the mark. The 'protected zone' is nonsense, it's not the issue. I see probably 10 times each game where a player seemingly doesn't get back off his mark quick enough to take his kick, so he has to reset. It stops the flow. Whereas in reality the opposition player has crept over the mark. It's a ploy, and umpires ignore it for some reason.

3) Enforce Holding the Man/Not in Possession in packs.
You're not allowed to tackle a bloke that doesn't have the ball.
In a pack, only one guy can have it - so WTF are there 5 guys in there? One guy has it, one is tackling him. If anyone tackles or stacks on then they, in 90% of cases, be either tackling a bloke that is not possession, or pushing someone in the back.
For some reason, the umpires allow it. I don't know why. But the 'stacks on' is the main factor in the rolling mail.


There. That's all I've got. Well for now, any way.

 

[Kwality]

Give Gil a call, get rid of the Rules committee who change rules every year otherwise the'd be disbanded.

 

[HTT]

Undo most of the changes from the last 10 years
/fin

 

[Old M8]

I want them to make the goal review decision system to review goal umpire decisions. Did the ball hit the post? Was it touched on the line?

We spend too much time reviewing if a ball was touched off the boot which is a FIELD umpire decision, and end up guessing half the time off the shitty vision if it was touched.

 

[The 747]

Give Gil a call, get rid of the Rules committee who change rules every year otherwise the'd be disbanded.

Sure but then how do all those good blokes get paid?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

5 things I would change back to what they were tomorrow

1) No nomination and third man up rule, its footy and any player should be able to contest a ruck knock and any number of them also.
2) Return to kicking the ball out of the goal square after a behind, exactly as it was. It has done nothing.
3) Protected zone area is just gifting goals for no reason. Remove the rule and unless you actually interfere with the player kicking the ball there is no penalty.
4) Return to paying free kicks for high tackles contact, high contact is rife in the sport and all because we decided to blame the player with the ball. Pay the free kicks for anything other than ducking Your head and force the coaches and players to change how they tackle.
5) Umpires to be instructed to ball it up once two to three players are fighting for the ball, then run in and just throw it up without delay. This applies to boundary throw ins also. With removing the Auskick nomination process this will get the game moving.

I just want to watch Australian Rules Football, I don’t care how many interchanges there are, I don’t care how many goals are scored, I only care whether my team wins or loses. The AFL have changed the sport for no reason, the supporters loved the sport as much 30-40 years ago as they do today. No rule changes were required at all. There is heaps of other rules I would change back also but as they won’t change anything the above is what I believe are just silly changes for no reason at all.

 

[Kwality]

Sure but then how do all those good blokes get paid?

The boardroom they met in is storing furniture now.

 

[Kwality]

5 things I would change back to what they were tomorrow

1) No nomination and third man up rule, its footy and any player should be able to contest a ruck knock and any number of them also.
2) Return to kicking the ball out of the goal square after a behind, exactly as it was. It has done nothing.
3) Protected zone area is just gifting goals for no reason. Remove the rule and unless you actually interfere with the player kicking the ball there is no penalty.
4) Return to paying free kicks for high tackles contact, high contact is rife in the sport and all because we decided to blame the player with the ball. Pay the free kicks for anything other than ducking Your head and force the coaches and players to change how they tackle.
5) Umpires to be instructed to ball it up once two to three players are fighting for the ball, then run in and just throw it up without delay. This applies to boundary throw ins also. With removing the Auskick nomination process this will get the game moving.

I just want to watch Australian Rules Football, I don’t care how many interchanges there are, I don’t care how many goals are scored, I only care whether my team wins or loses. The AFL have changed the sport for no reason, the supporters loved the sport as much 30-40 years ago as they do today. No rule changes were required at all. There is heaps of other rules I would change back also but as they won’t change anything the above is what I believe are just silly changes for no reason at all.

Another footy fan here, I dont go for the experience ....

 

[GhostofJimJess]

5 things I would change back to what they were tomorrow

1) No nomination and third man up rule, its footy and any player should be able to contest a ruck knock and any number of them also.

I think you’ve forgotten why that rule was introduced.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think you’ve forgotten why that rule was introduced.

Why wouldn't you just make it illegal to knee a bloke in the back as 3rd man up in a ruck contest, rather than outlawing the entire practice?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

FWIW, I think the 'hands in the back' and the 20 seconds to take your kick were/are just stupid.

Both are counter productive to forward craft and are detrimental to the fundamentals of the full forward - which is what the game desperately needs.

 

[newcs]

In 2005 Sydney won the premiership by allegedly playing ugly football.
People were screaming for rule changes.
Enter Geelong 2007, without the assistance of any rule changes they blow all the other teams away, including the Grand Final.
Proof the the game can simply evolve by itself without the need for constant rule changes.

 

[RUNVS]

Change the rule so if the ball touches the goal post but still goes through the middle goes then it is a goal, but if the ball touches the posts and goes through for a behind then it is a behind. If the ball touches the post and bounces back in play then it is play on.

Immediately fixes any controversy over whether the ball grazed the post.

 

[newcs]

Change the rule so if the ball touches the goal post but still goes through the middle goes then it is a goal, but if the ball touches the posts and goes through for a behind then it is a behind. If the ball touches the post and bounces back in play then it is play on.

Immediately fixes any controversy over whether the ball grazed the post.

The abnormality in that would be if a player was shooting for goal after the final siren with his team one point down. If he hits the post and bounces back his team losses.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think you’ve forgotten why that rule was introduced.

Why it was introduced was Auskick stuff, Ruckman for 100 years never had any issue. Part of the game, well it was once.
But ok let’s agree to not have third man up, who cares who goes fir the ruck knock, why do they need to nominate?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Change the rule so if the ball touches the goal post but still goes through the middle goes then it is a goal, but if the ball touches the posts and goes through for a behind then it is a behind. If the ball touches the post and bounces back in play then it is play on.

Immediately fixes any controversy over whether the ball grazed the post.

Another * up of their own doing.

By giving a s**t about a human error, they've blown squillions and created an even bigger problem - their attempts to remove human error has resulted on other humans making the same errors!

FWIW, they just need to accept that in a game adjudicated by humans, errors will occur.
Until they have a viable review system, just accept it and move on.

Having said that, if you moved the posts 'one football width' closer together, technically anything that hit the posts would have been a goal previously anyway. So why not?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Another footy fan here, I dont go for the experience ....

Agree, never been to a game of footy for the experience. Also never ever heard a supporter after a game ask me did you see how many interchanges there were today? It’s just media driven crap. Real footy supporters care about one thing, did we win or lose.

 

[RUNVS]

The abnormality in that would be if a player was shooting for goal after the final siren with his team one point down. If he hits the post and bounces back his team losses.

Perhaps if the ball it's the middle posts but doesn't go through either side then it is an automatic behind. Should be easy to tell given if the ball bounces off the post and back into play no one is going to miss it.

 

[Yojimbo]

1: Get rid of the bounce.

2: Get rid of the boundary throw ins, boundary umpire brings it in twenty metres and throws it up and retreats to the boundary.

3: Get rid of the goal square, kick ins from behind the line and between the point posts, no play on.

4: Three interchange gates, Wing, Back third, Front third.

5: Ground split into three zones with a dotted line extended from the front and back edges of the centre square.
Four players must remain in the forward and back thirds from both teams at all times in game time creating an
8-20-8 scenario and challenging coaches to lengthen the ground to prevent separation. End zone players can be
designated with coloured interchangeable arm bands and can be interchanged through the three zone gates or
by exchanging the arm band for a resting midfielder. No full ground press and kick in zones possible, space the
final frontier.

6: Hopefully a return to the specialty players without detracting from the endurance guys.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Agree, never been to a game of footy for the experience. Also never ever heard a supporter after a game ask me did you see how many interchanges there were today? It’s just media driven crap. Real footy supporters care about one thing, did we win or lose.

To be fair, there are still old codgers that whinge about the interchange being introduced in the first place.

If you went off the ground in the old days - that was it. You couldn't come back on.

So reducing the rotations isn't a new change as such, but instead more of a wind back of an introduced rule.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

1: Get rid of the bounce.

2: Get rid of the boundary throw ins, boundary umpire brings it in twenty metres and throws it up and retreats to the boundary.

3: Get rid of the goal square, kick ins from behind the line and between the point posts, no play on.

4: Three interchange gates, Wing, Back third, Front third.

5: Ground split into three zones with a dotted line extended from the front and back edges of the centre square.
Four players must remain in the forward and back thirds from both teams at all times in game time creating an
8-20-8 scenario and challenging coaches to lengthen the ground to prevent separation. End zone players can be
designated with coloured interchangeable arm bands and can be interchanged through the three zone gates or
by exchanging the arm band for a resting midfielder. No full ground press and kick in zones possible, space the
final frontier.

6: Hopefully a return to the specialty players without detracting from the endurance guys.

So back to a couple of my original points... What problem do these changes fix?

And how do you Know which ones have been effective if you introduce that many?

 

[Yojimbo]

So back to a couple of my original points... What problem do these changes fix?

And how do you Know which ones have been effective if you introduce that many?

I missed the sensible part, no short throw ins for one, you may want to review one of Nic Nat's knee injuries. Plus how many
times do you feel the central umpire cannot be stuffed recalling the bounce. Most teams play a defensive diamond plus some
transition anyway see Richmond (Astbury, Grimes, Vlastuin and Broad) plus a plethora of smalls from each end and the mids
you can work out the forward diamond it's not that hard. If everyone played like Richmond I think football is watchable and
in very good shape. It will not happen, but they need to stop asking permission and go Nike, just do it.

 

[big_e]

Nothing wrong with 666 - just an extension of starting positions for centre bounces for decades.

The problem is that we haven't defined the problem. Congestion as a concept is quite hazy - how many players in how many sqm and under what circumstances is it deemed to be congested?

Just pick something definite - don't care whether it's a certain average score or possessions per match or the number of free kicks or the number of sales of Smith's Crisps per quarter.- just pick something with a number and we can assess every rule change in whether it gets us closer to that number.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I missed the sensible part, no short throw ins for one, you may want to review one of Nic Nat's knee injuries. Plus how many
times do you feel the central umpire cannot be stuffed recalling the bounce. Most teams play a defensive diamond plus some
transition anyway see Richmond (Astbury, Grimes, Vlastuin and Broad) plus a plethora of smalls from each end and the mids
you can work out the forward diamond it's not that hard. If everyone played like Richmond I think football is watchable and
in very good shape. It will not happen, but they need to stop asking permission and go Nike, just do it.

See, this is the hard part for the AFL.

Personally, I find Richmond unwatchable.


This is why defining the problem statement is so difficult.

 

[Carringbush2010]

5 things I would change back to what they were tomorrow

1) No nomination and third man up rule, its footy and any player should be able to contest a ruck knock and any number of them also.
2) Return to kicking the ball out of the goal square after a behind, exactly as it was. It has done nothing.
3) Protected zone area is just gifting goals for no reason. Remove the rule and unless you actually interfere with the player kicking the ball there is no penalty.
4) Return to paying free kicks for high tackles contact, high contact is rife in the sport and all because we decided to blame the player with the ball. Pay the free kicks for anything other than ducking Your head and force the coaches and players to change how they tackle.
5) Umpires to be instructed to ball it up once two to three players are fighting for the ball, then run in and just throw it up without delay. This applies to boundary throw ins also. With removing the Auskick nomination process this will get the game moving.

I just want to watch Australian Rules Football, I don’t care how many interchanges there are, I don’t care how many goals are scored, I only care whether my team wins or loses. The AFL have changed the sport for no reason, the supporters loved the sport as much 30-40 years ago as they do today. No rule changes were required at all. There is heaps of other rules I would change back also but as they won’t change anything the above is what I believe are just silly changes for no reason at all.

1 Tick
2 Tick
3 Tick
4 Tick
5 The biggest tick, would immediately lessen congestion.

6. Pay free kicks for incorrect disposal in contests, there are a gazillion times in a game in contests where players have not made legal contact with the ball right in view of the umpire. Would immediately lessen congestion.