Rules The Sensible Rule Changes Required

[Frank Grimes]

I know it's a very unpopular opinion but I have warmed to it. That is for teams to have 16 players on the field instead of 18.

This will make it much harder to defend zones and encourage more 1 on 1 contests.

I know Richmond would curently suffer from such a change with the way, but like any team they will learn to adjust to it over time.

 

[Damon_3388]

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.

Then that's just their tough shit. They lose the game.

There needs to be negative consequences and a loser in some situations in competitive sport. Not everything needs to be fair and "even".

 

[PrinceCharles]

The most ridiculous one for me has always been that we blow the whistle and then call advantage, it's just stupid. It should be like soccer where the umpire doesn't blow the whistle until he sees the play develop. Would stop them being so whistle happy as well.

 

[scottyt2]

16 a side is a joke suggestion...just get rid of 666 it hasn't worked. It's actually created more stoppages because defenders can no longer find the spare man and get the ball moving their way. Now when the ball hits the ground we have 3v3 or 2v2 and someone gets tackled and we have a ball up.

 

[Private Hudson]

No rule changes will open the game up. The coaches are the single cause of the way the game is played.

 

[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 sh*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 sh*t. Not becuase it fu**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.

Well I'm not sure that we have received the 'problem statement' from the AFL - however at least they've addressed issue number 2) above!

 

[Fadge]

Well I'm not sure that we have received the 'problem statement' from the AFL - however at least they've addressed issue number 2) above!

Awesome.

So we have another rule in place that has massive implications that cannot possibly be consistently adjudicated...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Awesome.

So we have another rule in place that has massive implications that cannot possibly be consistently adjudicated...

Don't agree.

Manning the mark should never be an advantage to the defending team. The team that has won the ball from a mark or free kick should retain the advantage. That's the whole point. It's a fundamental of the sport.

Coaches, with the assistance of lazy and nonsensical umpiring have turned this around and exploited the existing rules to heavily reduce the advantage of the attacking team.

Calling the player with the ball to hurry up after 3 seconds, allowing players to delay giving the ball back or obstructing the player trying to get the ball, and allowing players to creep a metre over the mark are the types of rules and tactics that ultimately slow the game down and facilitate impenetrable defensive structures.

The AFL should be making it harder to defend - not easier.

I personally don't think they needed add a new rule - they just needed to enforce the existing ones.

However at least it's been addressed.

It's bullshit.

 

[big_e]

Don't agree.

Manning the mark should never be an advantage to the defending team. The team that has won the ball from a mark or free kick should retain the advantage. That's the whole point. It's a fundamental of the sport.

Coaches, with the assistance of lazy and nonsensical umpiring have turned this around and exploited the existing rules to heavily reduce the advantage of the attacking team.

Calling the player with the ball to hurry up after 3 seconds, allowing players to delay giving the ball back or obstructing the player trying to get the ball, and allowing players to creep a metre over the mark are the types of rules and tactics that ultimately slow the game down and facilitate impenetrable defensive structures.

The AFL should be making it harder to defend - not easier.

I personally don't think they needed add a new rule - they just needed to enforce the existing ones.

However at least it's been addressed.

It's bullshit.

Agree.

For me, the perfect example is the free kick deep in the pocket, where the player with the free has to stay perfectly on their line, but the player on the mark can drift metres into the field of play, helping them either man the space or cut-off the play-on attempt.

Plus, surely it's pretty simple to adjudicate a spot on the ground.

 

[stmookeyj]

I know it's a very unpopular opinion but I have warmed to it. That is for teams to have 16 players on the field instead of 18.

This will make it much harder to defend zones and encourage more 1 on 1 contests.

I know Richmond would curently suffer from such a change with the way, but like any team they will learn to adjust to it over time.

It would make it easier to zonal defend, the zone just gets deeper by removing the 2 players closest to the attacking goal, and backing the fitness of others to cover an extra 10m radius. Plus for the attacking team, that's 2 less options to look for on a bail out kick should there be no option, leading to kick up the line, stoppage, repeat process (it's exacerbated in AFLW with the last touch rule allowing everyone to get back in the defensive cordon).

And as someone who has played and coached in a 16 a side competition, this will render players 21 and 22 useless. Knowing the AFLPA would not support a reduction in numbers as the knock on effect would be to reduce the lists further, going to 20 a side is also a no go zone. Plus it doesn't really solve congestion issues given the fitter teams would easily roll back and zone off against a defensive minded opposition.

 

[LOZWILDA]

Man on the Mark rule! Farcical at best.
Umpires already call play on sometimes when a player is running straight back from the mark. And sometimes call nothing when players have ran sideways for 5 metres.
And now they expect umpires to watch the player on the mark, the player with the ball and police the 10m zone.
Good luck with that!
Umpires are already overloaded with crap rules and You make it harder for them????





Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Man on the Mark rule! Farcical at best.
Umpires already call play on sometimes when a player is running straight back from the mark. And sometimes call nothing when players have ran sideways for 5 metres.
And now they expect umpires to watch the player on the mark, the player with the ball and police the 10m zone.
Good luck with that!
Umpires are already overloaded with crap rules and You make it harder for them????

You've identified three issues there - but then presented a solution to 'leave it as it is'.

?

 

[Consolaçao]

Don't agree.

Manning the mark should never be an advantage to the defending team. The team that has won the ball from a mark or free kick should retain the advantage. That's the whole point. It's a fundamental of the sport.

Coaches, with the assistance of lazy and nonsensical umpiring have turned this around and exploited the existing rules to heavily reduce the advantage of the attacking team.

Calling the player with the ball to hurry up after 3 seconds, allowing players to delay giving the ball back or obstructing the player trying to get the ball, and allowing players to creep a metre over the mark are the types of rules and tactics that ultimately slow the game down and facilitate impenetrable defensive structures.

The AFL should be making it harder to defend - not easier.

I personally don't think they needed add a new rule - they just needed to enforce the existing ones.

However at least it's been addressed.

It's bullshit.

‘The AFL should be making it harder to defend - not easier.’

this.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Man on the Mark rule! Farcical at best.
Umpires already call play on sometimes when a player is running straight back from the mark. And sometimes call nothing when players have ran sideways for 5 metres.
And now they expect umpires to watch the player on the mark, the player with the ball and police the 10m zone.
Good luck with that!
Umpires are already overloaded with crap rules and You make it harder for them????

You know how this unfolds. Round 1 Thursday night Carlton vs Richmond the umps penalise using this new rule 9 times, including 7 in the first half whilst it's fresh on their minds. Post-match outrage amongst the commentary team and Friday morning radio/press, followed by an almost total dilution of the rule before whoever plays on that Friday evening.

Every year.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

Please, no more rule changes. [emoji37]

 

[Fadge]

Don't agree.

Manning the mark should never be an advantage to the defending team. The team that has won the ball from a mark or free kick should retain the advantage. That's the whole point. It's a fundamental of the sport.

Coaches, with the assistance of lazy and nonsensical umpiring have turned this around and exploited the existing rules to heavily reduce the advantage of the attacking team.

Calling the player with the ball to hurry up after 3 seconds, allowing players to delay giving the ball back or obstructing the player trying to get the ball, and allowing players to creep a metre over the mark are the types of rules and tactics that ultimately slow the game down and facilitate impenetrable defensive structures.

The AFL should be making it harder to defend - not easier.

I personally don't think they needed add a new rule - they just needed to enforce the existing ones.

However at least it's been addressed.

It's bullshit.

So you're confident the rule will be consistently applied?

If you are, then you are kidding yourself.

 

[Fadge]

You know how this unfolds. Round 1 Thursday night Carlton vs Richmond the umps penalise using this new rule 9 times, including 7 in the first half whilst it's fresh on their minds. Post-match outrage amongst the commentary team and Friday morning radio/press, followed by an almost total dilution of the rule before whoever plays on that Friday evening.

Every year.

And they miss another 7 that could/should be awarded, inadvertently providing an advantage to one team over another.

I thought this thread was entitled 'Sensible rule changes'?

 

[Fadge]

You've identified three issues there - but then presented a solution to 'leave it as it is'.

?

Where in the post was the suggestion to 'leave it as it is'?

My takeaway is the need to simplify the rules instead of further complicating them, which is spot on.

 

[Fadge]

‘The AFL should be making it harder to defend - not easier.’

this.

The AFL should be making the rules easier to consistently apply, not harder.

 

[Fadge]

Please, no more rule changes. [emoji37]

I'm all for rule changes, as long as the rules are made easier to consistently apply, not harder.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'm all for rule changes, as long as the rules are made easier to consistently apply, not harder.

Why?

Few rules have ever been black and white. Ever.

Personnally I think the AFL's pursuit of making them black and white is largely the root cause of the problems with umpiring in the game today.

 

[Fadge]

Why?

Few rules have ever been black and white. Ever.

Personnally I think the AFL's pursuit of making them black and white is largely the root cause of the problems with umpiring in the game today.

The AFL has never pursued making rules black and white. Never.

If they have, they couldn't have done a worse job of it...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The AFL has never pursued making rules black and white. Never.

If they have, they couldn't have done a worse job of it...

Hands in The Back.
Prior opportunity.
Shot clock.
Protected zone.

That's just four literally off the top of my head.
The AFL introduced these specific interpretations precisely to make the following laws black and white:
- Push in the back
- 50m for wasting time
- Wasting time
- Holding the ball

Each one has been a debacle.

 

[tombomb]

Add 2 extra premiership points for kicking over 100 (adjusted for wet weather) and you might see the game go back to what it was.

Otherwise coaches are just going to adapt to each rule change and you won't see anything different.

 

[Fadge]

Hands in The Back.
Prior opportunity.
Shot clock.
Protected zone.

That's just four literally off the top of my head.
The AFL introduced these specific interpretations precisely to make the following laws black and white:
- Push in the back
- 50m for wasting time
- Wasting time
- Holding the ball

Each one has been a debacle.

Your post makes absolutely no sense, but I think you're using the protected zone as an example of a 'black and white' rule.

I watch a game on tv and can identify about 6 to 8 times when a 50m penalty should be awarded for breach of this rule. Umpires will occasionally reward the penalty on one of these occasions, with the occasional penalty also paid in error when it's not there.

You then get the variance when they occasionally crack down on it, and you see a handful paid per game (again 1 or 2 in error).

This exactly what we will see with the new 'manning the mark' rule. Nothing surer.