Thoughts on the new Rules

[WaynesWorld19]

Heard a lot of discussion on the "dramatic impact " of the new rules....so here's my thoughts:

The game changed dramatically when 4 interchange players were brought in....all of a sudden tactics became part of the game....midfield rotations became fashionable....and flooding the nemesis of the avid footy lover.

It was the ability to rest players thru the interchange that created all the changes.

Some thought was given to reducing the interchange or limiting the amount of interchanges per qtr - but the rules committee opted for an interesting attack on the problems......speed the game up so 4 interchanges could not handle the pace.

What does this do.....it forces teams not to flood or risk burning out players by running the ball out of a flooded backline to attack.

It may lead to more positional play????

IMO despite all the who ha....a great innovation by the AFL.

BTW forget the impact of the kick in rule....the not scragging on the mark will have a far greater impact on the speed of the game.

What's your thoughts??

 

[Stiffy_18]

They introduced these rules to apparently cut down on flooding. That hasn't done a thing to get rid off the flooding in the game. Teams still flood and will continue to flood. Coaches are smarter than those on the rules committee. Coaches will figure out the way to get an advantage for their team. Its their job. The same way they came up with midfield rotations and flooding, they will come up with some other aspect of the game that AFL will not like. So what are AFL going to do then????? Introduce more rules????? Seems a poinless exercise to me.

As for the holding on the mark, that rule is going to have an ENOURMOUS impact on the pace of the game. Now you just have to sneeze on a player that marked it and its an automatic 50 meter penalty. Very soft IMHO and doesn't add a thing to the contest. In fact it just frustrates true footy supporters.

I am not a great fan of the new rules. Some I love, some are OK if they are modified and some dead set STINK.

I think those big fat drongo's at AFL just don't realise that speeding up the game will result in more injuries and the more injuries you have the lesser the standard becomes. These rules are not introduced for the good of the game of football. These rules were introduced because deep down those fat bastards at AFL want to turn this great game of ours into a game thats as close as possible to the international rules.

Next they will be introducing round ball, and rule out the tackling

 

[WaynesWorld19]

They introduced these rules to apparently cut down on flooding. That hasn't done a thing to get rid off the flooding in the game. Teams still flood and will continue to flood. Coaches are smarter than those on the rules committee. Coaches will figure out the way to get an advantage for their team. Its their job. The same way they came up with midfield rotations and flooding, they will come up with some other aspect of the game that AFL will not like. So what are AFL going to do then????? Introduce more rules????? Seems a poinless exercise to me.

How can you say that - on the basis of reduced qtrs with enlarged interchange benches ...Of course you won't see a diference in this game format.

Don't be too rushed on your opinion...

As for the holding on the mark, that rule is going to have an ENOURMOUS impact on the pace of the game. Now you just have to sneeze on a player that marked it and its an automatic 50 meter penalty. Very soft IMHO and doesn't add a thing to the contest. In fact it just frustrates true footy supporters.

Hang on again....!!!

Craig has been training all PS having his players not touch an opponent .....other teams have given the whole thing scant regard.

Guess what...instead of come round 1 all teams being driled to play to the new rules, we are going to get players swcragging and giving 50 mtrs away. The press will be up in arms, the coaches volatile and everyone saying its bad for the game.....I'll tell you now it's the coaches fault for not preparing the players for the new rules....Craigs doing it - I bet we will have very little 50 mtrs as a result of this rule.


Wrong area of focus Stiffy

I think those big fat drongo's at AFL just don't realise that speeding up the game will result in more injuries and the more injuries you have the lesser the standard becomes. These rules are not introduced for the good of the game of football. These rules were introduced because deep down those fat bastards at AFL want to turn this great game of ours into a game thats as close as possible to the international rules.

Yes speeding the game up will cause more injuries potentially BUT it will stop players transversing the ground flooding, then running forward in lines and then going to the bench for a rest.

Your pessimistic of the reasons, no it's not like international rules, it will have the same affect as reducing the interchange bench.

Off course by mid season the coaches will be calling to enlarge the interchange bench to cater for the apparent new demands.

A great thing for footy!!!

 

[rayven]

Of the major rule changes I am only in favour of 1
that is on throw ins the ball is re-enterd closer to the middle of the park rather than from the boundary.this will force teams who flood clearences and such and also if in doubt punch it to the bouandary to come up with more attacking strategies.
the kick in rule is a farce, coaches and clubs have talking about the impact our game has on players bodies and many a dollar has been spent on reducing soft tissue injuries, this rule compounds the ability of the player to keep up.
i dont understand this rule at all
its suppose to stop flooding, what a ffing joke who ever said this
teams that flood have large numbers of players in there defensive 50, so it is easier for them to get the ball out straight away as they have more options
teams that dont flood have less players making the options in returning the ball in play quickly more limited and risky and it dont get more risky in footy than in front of goal for the defense
this rule promotes flooding not hampers it
and the shot clock thing
like shouldnt if a player kicking for goal who is stalling be dealt with by the umpire?cant the umpire make decisions and interpret whats going on?
this rule stuffs up so many forwards and to me the only gain in this rule is to make the umpires job easier by taking out a decision.
if they cant determine when a player is wasting time then they shouldnt get paid, if they cant blow time on when a set shot is about to be taken and call play on when the player starts his run in, then they have serious problems

 

[cro_Magnum]

Rules in sport change, thats a fact of life. It happens in all sports not just ours. Don't forget if there were no rule changes we wouldn't have kicking out on the full, centre squares, interchange benches etc. And coaches and players adapt to the new rules, that's their job. There have been a few clangers over the years (not being able to play on or handball after a free) that have been corrected but most changes have worked pretty well.

The main problem is interpretation of the rules, like some of the bewildering holding the ball decisions made today. Even the new anti-scragging the player on the mark could be good if interpreted sensibly as it gives less time for players to get back and flood, and if playing on after a mark or free isn't more attractive football then what is? As for the doom sayers who think the world will end because the ball is kicked in a few seconds earlier after a behind, give me a break.

 

[relapse]

I honestly believe that no matter what rules they change coaches will find some way of using them to their advantage. The AFL have found that every time they bring in a new rule it opens the door for new tactics to be introduced to exploit that rule being brought in. Its just a natural reaction for coaches to do this and each rule change opens a possible pandoras box for coaches to find new tactics to introduce.

 

[Crowked]

I dont have a definate opinion on this years rule changes, we havent seen enough to have a real feel for them yet IMO. I just wish they would leave it alone for a few seasons to allow the impact of new rules to be truely measurable. To see what counter tactics coaches come up with to combat the less desirable aspects that arise from the initial rule change. They seem to introduce new rules or change interpretations every season these days, with only one season to judge the effects of the new rules from the last season. Its evolution gone mad.

I'm starting to think they have an agenda to turn our game into something else. Maybe theyre trying to increase the similarity to the Galic game for the International rules concept to flourish, I dont know.

Why they have to change the greatest game in the world is beyond me. If they dont like it, bugger off and go run the game they do like. I love Aussie Rules footy, Galic footy does nothing for me and neither does the international rules game. The way we are heading, Aussie Rules as i knew it, played it and loved it will be a thing of the past. Sorry Mr Demitriou but I just can watch the Galic/International stuff, so where will I be in 10 years? Maybe watching Adelaide United instead. At least I know it will be the same game next season, not some mongrel hybrid.

Rant concluded.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Whilst I like the rule whereby if the ball hits one of the posts and bounces back into play then it's play on. However it's an inconsistant rule because if the ball touches the side of the post on the way through, it's either a point or out on the full.

Thats where the rules committee has to get things right and consistant
before it even be though of as a permanent rule change.

 

[Wash]

I just wish they'd leave things alone, whatever the state of play is. Every year they are tinkering with something. It's not broke, don't bloody fix it!!!

 

[cro_Magnum]

I just wish they'd leave things alone, whatever the state of play is. Every year they are tinkering with something. It's not broke, don't bloody fix it!!!

It may not be broken but it's bent a little with too much flooding and too many ball ups, both of which are unattractive and put people off watching the game. I'm not sure if the new rules will help but if they're umpired sensibly they can't hurt. Bringing someone down after a mark is done to let your teammates run back into defence ie. flood, which is what everyone says is wrong with the game. The challenge is for the umpires to interpret the rule properly.

Dragging the ball in leads to ugly packs and time wasting. Who wants to see more ball ups? The problem is not the rule but the interpretation, such as being penalised when your opponent holds the ball in against your body.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The boundary throw in rule confuses me a little. They say it was brought in to stop the hitting it over the line again by some ruckmen / teams. But the problem I have with it is that it is bringing the play more into the corridor and the players that used to be on the opposite wing or in the forwardline / backline are now closer to that stoppage and are being drawn towards it. So that a larger pack is being created and congesting up the middle of the ground. If the problem is the 'deliberate' hit back over the boundary line then ffs get the rules committee to talk to the umpires themselves, tell them they don't like this and can they please explain why they are not paying deliberate out of bounds? Why not give them a year of trying to police this area better?

If they don't like the scragging after a mark - get the umpires to police it more. Again actually talking to the umpires may help instead of creating new rules and adding more umpires. I would prefer the sanfl system where by the 15m penalty comes in.

The kick in rule - clubs are deliberately getting around the rule where the player kicking in has to be the one to take it out of the box. Johncock got told off once for rutten getting it and handballing it to him and was made to put the ball back in the box himself and then get it out again, but the very next quarter the same thing happened with a port player and that was ok! In the Hawthorn v crows game it happened a couple of times and the umpires did not seem to care.

4 umpires and still they are told to position themselves in the way!. I have seen teams use the umpires as a shepherd quite frequently in the couple of games so far. Plus they are still missing obvious frees!

The Kicking backwards rule has problems unless they change the shape of the ground (stiffy is right above) You can not accurately judge if it has gone 'backwards' when there is the 50m arc involved.

Instead of tinking with the rules how about some better communication with the umpiring fraternity! As craig said, they can't stop the coaches from flooding unless it becomes netball.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Rules in sport change, thats a fact of life. It happens in all sports not just ours. Don't forget if there were no rule changes we wouldn't have kicking out on the full, centre squares, interchange benches etc. And coaches and players adapt to the new rules, that's their job. There have been a few clangers over the years (not being able to play on or handball after a free) that have been corrected but most changes have worked pretty well.

The main problem is interpretation of the rules, like some of the bewildering holding the ball decisions made today. Even the new anti-scragging the player on the mark could be good if interpreted sensibly as it gives less time for players to get back and flood, and if playing on after a mark or free isn't more attractive football then what is? As for the doom sayers who think the world will end because the ball is kicked in a few seconds earlier after a behind, give me a break.

Good Post.

I like the the hitting the post rule because the officialdom cant stuff it up; and its the unexpected.

I like the time restriction on kicking for goal because Llyod is a squeezer (but I dont think the shot clock is necessary its too intrusive on the screen. Surely the ump can wear a watch

The thowin to the corrider is a joke because it steals from the game the tight Daicos-like kick at goal.

The holding on the mark is a joke too! Hell the umpires cant even pay Edwards a 9-pointer for getting the ball slapped out of his hands therefore I dont have a lot of faith in 'em getting the former correct.


Someone should start up a web site protesting the rule frenzy and calling for a 5 year moritorium. Either that; or put hoops and nets 2 metres up the goal posts.

 

[Ozzie]

They ALL SUCK.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Bench stays at four despite fatigue fear

By Lyall Johnson
March 13, 2006

The AFL has no plans to increase the number of interchange players to six for the premiership season, despite comments by Richmond coach Terry Wallace that the game is becoming too fast for players.

After Wallace and Sydney coach Paul Roos made 112 interchanges between them during their sides' practice match at Carrara on Saturday night, the Tigers' mentor said he feared the game would become less of a spectacle as players struggled to keep up.

"You need to have fresh players on the field to have dynamic football," Wallace said.

"The game is getting quicker all the time and you don't want it to fall away as a spectacle and have guys out there who are absolutely stuffed because the game doesn't stop."

But a spokesman for the AFL's general manager of football operations, Adrian Anderson, said the changes made last November to the kick-in rule were designed to speed up the game and tire players out in order to limit high-speed collisions and create more contests.


"There hasn't been any discussion about increasing the size of the bench for the premiership season, but we have consistently played with an extra two for the pre-season for eight to 10 years now," the spokesman said.

"The whole point of the rule changes is that you want blokes out on the field who are actually tired so you have more one-on-one or two-on-two contests because blokes can't run up the ground all day long.

"You don't want six fresh players off the bench so then they can run into each other at high speed. We've gone this way because we don't want high-impact collision injuries because you have guys at full pace running into each other."

Wallace said tired players would become "stressed", and there was a risk of overuse injuries as a result of the increased workload. "The game is at a stage where we're absolutely overdue for six interchange players," he said. "Honestly, I've always been a person of the opposite view, but the players now can't play at a standard which keeps the game where we want to watch it.

"They can't physically do it with the running. I think that's where we need to go."

The AFL spokesman said the AFL's laws-of-the-game committee would meet during the season and again at the end of the year to assess how well the new kick-in rule was operating.

Well as I started this thread off - the posturing has started.....and the season hasn't even started yet

For gods sake some of these coaches think about things for less than 5 minutes before wanting to change the game.

It was they who wanted 4 interchange solely to cover injured players then turned it to their advantage.

So.....they haven't got players (or enough of) to run up and down the ground....poor recruiting?...so lets cover ourself by adding replacements to the bench......self interest at it's best