Rules The Sensible Rule Changes Required

[Consolaçao]

I agree with your general sentiment. Too many changes in aid of what? For me the biggest problem is congestion. Sick of seeing the bet players given no space to work in. This problem is a direct result of that fact that players are so much fitter, and yet grounds have stayed the same size. Add to that, interchange is used in a highly professional and tactical way to limit the number of fatigued players you have on the field at any one time.
For me, it’s reduce the numbers on-field to 16 per team, and significantly reduce interchange. I’d be happy to go to soccer-style ‘once you’re off you’re off’, which is, as people have pointed out, just a reversion to the way it once was.

 

[Oldersox]

Some simple interpretation changes will fix a lot of cogestion.
Get rid of no prior opportunity. You had the opportunity to either punch it, kick it or not take possession. If you are caught with the ball then you give away the free kick.
A legal tackle that pins the ball to an opposition player should be rewarded always.
There are only 3 ways to dispose of the ball without being penalised for illegal disposal, a handball where the ball is punched from the hand, not thrown then punched and not just pushed from the hand, where the ball has been dropped or thrown and has made contact with the foot in a kicking motion or the ball has been slapped or punched out of the players hand and not just fumbled loose as a result of a legal tackle or bump. Pressuring a player to dispose of the ball illegally should be rewarded.

 

[situationz]

- Repeal the (utterly pointless) 3rd man up ban, and no more nominating for the ruck. Just have the field umpires ball it up straight away, so there's no time for packs to form.
- Get rid of 6-6-6 too, it clearly hasn't done its job of increasing scoring. 6-6-6 just restricts the game more than it frees the game up.
- Backwards kick -> play on, except in the attacking 50. Three backwards kicks in a row -> free kick to the opposing team.
- If you handball, tap, or spoil the ball out on the full (and it doesn't touch another player on the way out), treat that the same as kicking out on the full: free kick to the opposition. Yay, fewer throw-ins!

 

[big_e]

- Repeal the (utterly pointless) 3rd man up ban, and no more nominating for the ruck. Just have the field umpires ball it up straight away, so there's no time for packs to form.
- Get rid of 6-6-6 too, it clearly hasn't done its job of increasing scoring. 6-6-6 just restricts the game more than it frees the game up.
- Backwards kick -> play on, except in the attacking 50. Three backwards kicks in a row -> free kick to the opposing team.
- If you handball, tap, or spoil the ball out on the full (and it doesn't touch another player on the way out), treat that the same as kicking out on the full: free kick to the opposition. Yay, fewer throw-ins!

Backwards kick rule doesn't work on an oval shaped ground.

Take the example below. Ball is kicked from near the boundary in a direction that gets you towards the wing (if it kept going on that trajectory), which is clearly moving it forward. Yet it goes from outside 50 into the 50, which is also backwards, because it's closer to goal.

 

[situationz]

Backwards kick rule doesn't work on an oval shaped ground.

Take the example below. Ball is kicked from near the boundary in a direction that gets you towards the wing (if it kept going on that trajectory), which is clearly moving it forward. Yet it goes from outside 50 into the 50, which is also backwards, because it's closer to goal.

Well, perhaps "backwards" could simply be interpreted as "farther away from the attacking goal" (which admittedly, might be a bit harder to adjudicate). And I don't think such a rule change (plus the last one I mentioned) is all that vital anyway.

Much more important to get rid of 6-6-6- and the dumb ruck nomination rule.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

- Repeal the (utterly pointless) 3rd man up ban, and no more nominating for the ruck. Just have the field umpires ball it up straight away, so there's no time for packs to form.

So you’re keen to going back to free kicks being plucked out to any player who gets “blocked” by simulating they are going up for the ruck contest?

No thanks.

 

[RUNVS]

I have long been a fan of the team holding the ball rule.

So right now player A can be in congestion and pass it to player B who is immediately tackled. The umpire says "ball up" because player B had no time to dispose of it.

The team holding the ball rule would determine that since player A had time, and chose to pass it to a teammate who did not, then that is the prior opportunity, so if player A passes it to player B who is immediately tackled, then it is a free against that team for holding the ball.

That rule would force players to get the ball out of packs fast, and would stop all the little handballs in packs, while also decreasing the rolling maul time thing we often see. A player gets the ball in the pack their first instinct will be to get it out by whatever means necessary.

 

[Seeds]

No marks from kicks backwards And extend marks to kicks of atleast 20 metres.


this sensible rule change will solve everything wrong with the game.

 

[Seeds]

Because Mark Blicavs was making Geelong's lack of a good ruckman slightly irrelevant

(And, yes, blocking etc)

No he wasnt. Geelong was getting smashed in clearances at the time because we had one less man down.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No marks from kicks backwards And extend marks to kicks of atleast 20 metres.


this sensible rule change will solve everything wrong with the game.

But doesn't this just encourage defending teams to flood back?

If you know the opposition have to kick it forward, what's the incentive to not just stack numbers behind the ball and wait for them to kick it to you?

I don't think the 'chipping it around' is an offensive strategy by the team with the ball. It's a reaction to the defending team having 18 guys defending the defensive half of the ground.
Outlawing it, plays into the hands of the flood.

 

[Seeds]

But doesn't this just encourage defending teams to flood back?

If you know the opposition have to kick it forward, what's the incentive to not just stack numbers behind the ball and wait for them to kick it to you?

I don't think the 'chipping it around' is an offensive strategy by the team with the ball. It's a reaction to the defending team having 18 guys defending the defensive half of the ground.
Outlawing it, plays into the hands of the flood.

The problem with the game is not flooding or contests. Never has been. Big pack marks only happen at contests. Tackles happen at contests. Exciting runs are only exciting when there is someone to run around Or away from. Roving goals from packs only happen at contests. All the best stuff about football happens at a contest. Aflx proved that.

the problem with the game is the way teams try to respond to flooding. I.e. chipping the ball around. Holding the play up with 15 metre kicks or going backwards to swap the play from one wing to the other. That is what is boring about the game. Its the chipping. Which effectively is like dead time.

by making these rule changes you will encourage more fast handball and more long balls forward And quick play to try to beat the flooding back. Sure there may be more contests. but thats the fun bit. Its the lack of contested play that is boring.

 

[footyfan1978]

Well, perhaps "backwards" could simply be interpreted as "farther away from the attacking goal" (which admittedly, might be a bit harder to adjudicate). And I don't think such a rule change (plus the last one I mentioned) is all that vital anyway.

Much more important to get rid of 6-6-6- and the dumb ruck nomination rule.

It is very simple. The small line that goes through centre circle, you simply extend to the boundaries on the wing. If you kick backwards in your back half, play on.....

That line could also be used for other things like Adam Cooney suggested about 18 months ago....

 

[big_e]

It is very simple. The small line that goes through centre circle, you simply extend to the boundaries on the wing. If you kick backwards in your back half, play on.....

That line could also be used for other things like Adam Cooney suggested about 18 months ago....

No, it's actually to make the game simpler. Fewer rules, fewer interpretations, fewer changes.

You never make a complex system better by making it more complex.

 

[footyfan1978]

No, it's actually to make the game simpler. Fewer rules, fewer interpretations, fewer changes.

You never make a complex system better by making it more complex.

and a centre line would make it so much simpler....
Would not have to think to realise backwards in back half is play on.

I would simplify interchange bench also.
Every player can be interchanged once a game.
If you goto the bench a second time, you are off for good. (exception for any blood rule, concussion tests and change of quarters)
Removes the rotation bullshit and simplify bench to something much closer to what it was designed for.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The problem with the game is not flooding or contests. Never has been. Big pack marks only happen at contests. Tackles happen at contests. Exciting runs are only exciting when there is someone to run around Or away from. Roving goals from packs only happen at contests. All the best stuff about football happens at a contest. Aflx proved that.

the problem with the game is the way teams try to respond to flooding. I.e. chipping the ball around. Holding the play up with 15 metre kicks or going backwards to swap the play from one wing to the other. That is what is boring about the game. Its the chipping. Which effectively is like dead time.

by making these rule changes you will encourage more fast handball and more long balls forward And quick play to try to beat the flooding back. Sure there may be more contests. but thats the fun bit. Its the lack of contested play that is boring.

Disagree.

The congestion is, in my opinion, the problem.

Having 18 players in one half of the ground is where the congestion comes from.

 

[Seeds]

Disagree.

The congestion is, in my opinion, the problem.

Having 18 players in one half of the ground is where the congestion comes from.

what is the problem With it? do you not like pack marks or big tackles or roving scrimages or fastpast handballs in packs?

did you like aflx?

and are you not deeply bored by circle work of chip kicks around the back half?

no crowds boo contested ball. they yell in excitement. crowds have often booed a player who turns and kicks the ball 25 metres backwards.

ps. If you allow circle work and chip kicking then you give more time for all players to flood into one half of the ground.

 

[footyfan1978]

Disagree.

The congestion is, in my opinion, the problem.

Having 18 players in one half of the ground is where the congestion comes from.

If we made it every ball up stoppage you have to have one player in each 50 metre arc at minimum (full forwards and full backs) and 2 more players (pocket players) on the other side of centre line, would that help spread a little congestion?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

what is the problem With it? do you not like pack marks or big tackles or roving scrimages or fastpast handballs in packs?

The issue is that blokes don't take pack marks when it's a 5 on 5 contest. That's the whole issue - the one on one contest is dead. It's because of team defence (aka thr flood). We no longer get to see key forwards going head to head with their opponents because coaches don't allow it.

I love tackling - but not 'pack tackling'. Itst boring. And it's rife because of congestion.

no crowds boo contested ball. they yell in excitement. crowds have often booed a player who turns and kicks the ball 25 metres backwards.

That's because the average footy fan is dumb. They think they're chipping it around for a laugh - without realising that the reason they aren't moving the ball forward is because there are 18 opposition players in front of them, and if they do go forward they're literally just handing them the ball back.

 

[big_e]

If we made it every ball up stoppage you have to have one player in each 50 metre arc at minimum (full forwards and full backs) and 2 more players (pocket players) on the other side of centre line, would that help spread a little congestion?

People can't handle the 1.5 seconds it takes for ruckmen to be nominated. Can you imagine this bullshit every times there's a ball-up or throw-in?

 

[footyfan1978]

People can't handle the 1.5 seconds it takes for ruckmen to be nominated. Can you imagine this bullshit every times there's a ball-up or throw-in?

Just remove the nomination. Never needed it... sensible. This is not complicated. We take a second to check there are only 4 players in centre square each after each goal. Not hard to check a guy each in forward 50 metre arc and 2 more in other half of ground at the ballups.

 

[big_e]

Just remove the nomination. Never needed it... sensible. This is not complicated. We take a second to check there are only 4 players in centre square each after each goal. Not hard to check a guy each in forward 50 metre arc and 2 more in other half of ground at the ballups.

1. Checking 36 players are in their appropriate zones would take a lot longer than looking at the two big blokes jogging towards the ballup. It would require umpires to be counting rather than looking around the contest to see if anyone is being grabbed, held, blocked, etc - ie they're looking at everything except the play.

2. What happens if they're aren't the required numbers in each zone? Do we wait? Easiest trick in the book if you wanted to slow the game down. Or is it a free kick? And if it is a free kick, are you suggesting giving a free kick away because someone is 2 metres outside the 50 metre arc when the ball-up is in the goal square at the other end, 150 metres away?

 

[footyfan1978]

. Or is it a free kick? And if it is a free kick, are you suggesting giving a free kick away because someone is 2 metres outside the 50 metre arc when the ball-up is in the goal square at the other end, 150 metres away?

Free kicks would be taken on centre line or 50 metre arcs. Whatever appropriate to where ball up happens. The principle is not different to centre square in infringement.

 

[deanc]

The problem with the game is not flooding or contests. Never has been. Big pack marks only happen at contests. Tackles happen at contests. Exciting runs are only exciting when there is someone to run around Or away from. Roving goals from packs only happen at contests. All the best stuff about football happens at a contest. Aflx proved that.

the problem with the game is the way teams try to respond to flooding. I.e. chipping the ball around. Holding the play up with 15 metre kicks or going backwards to swap the play from one wing to the other. That is what is boring about the game. Its the chipping. Which effectively is like dead time.

by making these rule changes you will encourage more fast handball and more long balls forward And quick play to try to beat the flooding back. Sure there may be more contests. but thats the fun bit. Its the lack of contested play that is boring.

Seeds and others; some good suggestions and most, if not all, agree that congestion, despite new rules being introduced to reduce this, remains a blight on the game.

However, shouldn't the focus be which rule/s to remove rather than introduce more, which usually just adds to the complexity, understanding and interpretation for all...?
Accordingly:

1. Get rid of 'prior opportunity'. For all it's best intentions (providing players time to correctly dispose of the ball) it is now being indirectly used as a method to create stoppages.

2. Get rid of the 'nominated ruck-man'. We tried it and if anything it's increased the amount of congestion specifically now rucks can take possession of the ball.

3. Instruct the umps to allow the game to play-on when off-the-ball 'incidents' occur, unless it's a reportable offence! The amount of free kicks awarded to both teams in the Cats v Hawks match and later in a few other games last week were, with few exceptions, completely unnecessary.

 

[SterlingArcher]

1) Be accurate in what causes congestion. In my opinion the more players get fatigued, the more they want to congest the game. I think I'm proven right most games. Instead, the AFL thinks making the game more tiring will lessen congestion... I have seen ZERO evidence for this

2) Please fix up 'messy' rules. The game looks messy when there's a 50m penalty right now, it's chaos. You've got the ball carrier trying to run into the man who gave away the 50m to draw another, you've got other players interfering with that player, you've got no one on the mark, it's utter confusion and it looks messy.

3) Players have had over a year to get used to the 9m rule in the goalsquare ('back to the 9'). We saw today I think in the Richmond v St Kilda game a Saints player went over for about 1 second and it was 50, meanwhile the players on the 9 get 5 or 6 chances to go back. Start allowing the defender space or a 50 just like any other spot on the ground and it'll clear up the ground

4) Refer to point 1. Stop trying to ******* fatigue players. A tired player lays on top of his teammates and the opponents to try force a 10 second stoppage, where the umps spend time trying to figure out who the nominated rucks are, who need to make it over, by which time the defenders and forwards have pushed up to attempt to force another.

The AFL "wE nEeD tO fAtIgUe PlaYeRs"

No you ******* don't. The more they can run the more they'll SPREAD from contests. More interchanges would Help. Also how ******* common were injuries from 3rd men up at rucks? I don't remember many straight up. How good was that to clear a stoppage!! And paying incorrect disposal

 

[nylexbandit]

Just pay the ******* rules that are there.

If they accurately pay holding the man, players will get free more at stoppages.

If they accurately pay holding the ball players will be more willing to take possession and try and clear it properly rather than tapping it on constantly; in addition the players clearly not attempting to dispose will be pinged (my personal fave is when a defender is tackled and another player tries to wrench the ball out, but the defender holds onto it).

If they accurately pay frees for marking contest shepherds, the big forwards will typically get a better run at the ball, take more marks, kick more goals.