What rule will the AFL change next year?

[Rabman]

1. Eradicate the nomination rule, just 2 blokes going for the ball.

2. Bring down interchange to 60, forces coaches to be more conservative and smarter who they bring off.

3. Eradicate bellow the knees, stupid reaction rule, unnecessary.

 

[Plugger35]

They'll ban the bump, because players can get hurt.

Then they'll follow that up by banning the tackle, because players can get hurt.

 

[PowerForGood]

Seriously, I think that the "shot clock" will be a true clock. .. if you take 30 seconds then your runup must have started (yeah Charlie) or if you pass off then your team must score within those 30 seconds or its a free kick against. This crap about shot clock then not shooting is a joke.

 

[PowerForGood]

Then they'll follow that up by banning the tackle, because players can get hurt.

Then follow that up by banning sledging, because players can get hurt.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

If Dusty played for Collingwood the 'Don't Argue' would be banned post haste!

 

[shaqsuns]

1. Eradicate the nomination rule, just 2 blokes going for the ball.

2. Bring down interchange to 60, forces coaches to be more conservative and smarter who they bring off.

3. Eradicate bellow the knees, stupid reaction rule, unnecessary.

Personally I hope they reduce the interchange to under 20 per game, But the rules committee and AFL commission are cowards and would never do it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DelRe]

Usually it works well when they can name it after a player so I nominate the Toby Greene Rule: deliberately raising the studs as a free kick.

 

[BlazeOfGlory]

Personally I hope they reduce the interchange to under 20 per game, But the rules committee and AFL commission are cowards and would never do it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why though? It's not entertaining watching players run around moving slow because they are stuffed.

 

[shaqsuns]

Why though? It's not entertaining watching players run around moving slow because they are stuffed.

It's not entertaining watching every player follow the ball around like under 8s.
Plus we played Aussie Rules for close to 150 years without really over using the interchange and we had a great one on one end to end game, now we have a congestion tackle and handball fest which is starting to become unwatchable. Thank God for the story's like the tigers this year and Bulldogs last year to give us something to cling onto.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kickazz]

Why though? It's not entertaining watching players run around moving slow because they are stuffed.

Beg to differ.

Port v West Coast extra time they were rooted and it was fantastic. Play opened up, more contests, fewer ball ups.

 

[BlazeOfGlory]

Beg to differ.

Port v West Coast extra time they were rooted and it was fantastic. Play opened up, more contests, fewer ball ups.

Yeah, but what would extra time look like with 20 interchanges through out the match? Would it if been to the same level as having 90?
like watching Mcgregors fight. Once he was stuffed after Rd 3 it's was cringeworthy to watch the rest.

 

[shaqsuns]

Yeah, but what would extra time look like with 20 interchanges through out the match? Would it if been to the same level as having 90?
like watching Mcgregors fight. Once he was stuffed after Rd 3 it's was cringeworthy to watch the rest.

I would argue that the 90's was the best era we have ever had of Aussie Rules. One on ones everywhere a contest within a contest. Key forwards dominated the game like no other era and of coarse Gary Ablett


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlazeOfGlory]

I would argue that the 90's was the best era we have ever had of Aussie Rules. One on ones everywhere a contest within a contest. Key forwards dominated the game like no other era and of coarse Gary Ablett


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not going to disagree. Just curious as to whether dropping the I/C to 20 would bring back that game style. The game has changed so much since then and so many rule changes have happened along the way. With the speed and intensity of todays game players need more rest time to consantly be at their best on field. though one could argue today's player is stronger and fitter.

 

[shaqsuns]

Not going to disagree. Just curious as to whether dropping the I/C to 20 would bring back that game style. The game has changed so much since then and so many rule changes have happened along the way. With the speed and intensity of todays game players need more rest time to consantly be at their best on field. though one could argue today's player is stronger and fitter.

Yes of coarse they are fitter and stronger now however 15 years ago if you were a midfielder you would rest in the forward/back pocket, now they have quick rest on the Bench meaning they can go back and give repeat efforts in the midfield and set up a defensive structure quicker. By reducing the interchange the game would naturally spread out and key forwards would stay closer to goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scatter]

I don't think the ruck rule will work without nominations.
Coaches will start having designated players hanging near the ruck contest, normal ruck will look like he is going to contest, then pull out and let the designated player fly in and effectively do a '3rd man up' impression.
Will effectively mean it is back to allowing 3rd man up rule.
Also, without nominating there will be issues with blocking the 'ruckman' as the opposition won't know who it is.

 

[kickazz]

I don't think the ruck rule will work without nominations.



Also, without nominating there will be issues with blocking the 'ruckman' as the opposition won't know who it is.

I think this is the main reason they have the rule.

Could a system where the active ruckman wears a coloured arm band of sorts work? That player then does not have to nominate, it's them by default. If you want to have an exception then there would be a specific signal a player needs to make to the umpire.

A little clunky, but better than what we have now.

 

[ess7]

I think this is the main reason they have the rule.

Could a system where the active ruckman wears a coloured arm band of sorts work? That player then does not have to nominate, it's them by default. If you want to have an exception then there would be a specific signal a player needs to make to the umpire.

A little clunky, but better than what we have now.

A coloured arm band?

Cant they just wear singlets like in netball identifying which position they play?

 

[kickazz]

A coloured arm band?

Cant they just wear singlets like in netball identifying which position they play?

No, because there is no need for distinguishing between the other players' positions because there are no relevant rules making them matter.

You do understand the difference, yeah?

 

[ess7]

No, because there is no need for distinguishing between the other players' positions because there are no relevant rules making them matter.

You do understand the difference, yeah?

No.

 

[ggDropbear]

An actual genuine list of team jumpers that clash with each other and must be differentiated, used for both H&A and Finals (including Grand Finals).

It's not that hard.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Players with a basketball background must play wearing Reebok Pumps.

 

[TedDougChris]

I am voting for the introduction of multi-ball.....

 

[Percel]

Get rid of presenting the norm smith by previous award winners debacle

Adam Goodes to present each year.

#boo

 

[Wallaby]

Personally I hope they reduce the interchange to under 20 per game, But the rules committee and AFL commission are cowards and would never do it

How about a long way under 20?

 

[baldandbroke]

1. Stop the clock when the ball is marked, restart when the ball is kicked / handballed / player plays on. Get rid of shot clock.

2. Last disposal rule for oob (as in the SANFL)

3. 3rd man up ruck rule - if the player not listed on the team sheet as the ruckman goes up, they have to nominate or it's a free

4. Same rotations, one more man on the bench.