What rule would you Add/Remove/Change to improve the game?

[GoldbergsGold]

Just let the players take the ball out of bounds

Totally get rid of deliberate, points as well.

Would clear up the rule.

It's funny watching old games where players just handball straight out of bounds but they just got on with it and reset.

"The boundary line is a defenders best friend"



On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

Deliberate behinds is a ridiculous rule when the team is giving up points to the opposition, that's a consequence in itself. I still find it bizarre Geelong fans are ticked off Hawthorn gave them almost 2 goals worth of behinds in 08.

 

[adammania9]

The stand rule is probably the best rule that's come in the last 10 or so years

 

[quotemokc]

Pushing a ball carrier in the back should not be a free kick.

Let players tackle below the knees to make it easier for small players to tackle big blokes without having to use their body weight since the AFL is so concerned about concussion.

 

[matthew_s]

Let players tackle below the knees to make it easier for small players to tackle big blokes without having to use their body weight since the AFL is so concerned about concussion.

And have a bunch of campaigners face planting.

 

[quotemokc]

And have a bunch of campaigners face planting.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in rugby

 

[WillHayward]

Reduce interchanges to 25 per game.

 

[Cuzz09]

Reduce 50m pen to 25m

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Reduce 50m pen to 25m

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yep, even 30m would be a good start. 50 is ridiculous, and always has been.

 

[Do the Dew]

Reduce 50m pen to 25m

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

Should be 50m for late hits. 25m for protected area, stand, not giving the ball back properly etc.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Should be 50m for late hits. 25m for protected area, stand, not giving the ball back properly etc.

That'd do

 

[Cleansweep17]

Should be 50m for late hits. 25m for protected area, stand, not giving the ball back properly etc.

I wasn’t around but didn’t the VFL era have 15m penalties. I’m not sure what they were for exactly. I wouldn’t mind going back to those rules. 50m is way to harsh for pretty much everything.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I wasn’t around but didn’t the VFL era have 15m penalties. I’m not sure what they were for exactly. I wouldn’t mind going back to those rules. 50m is way to harsh for pretty much everything.

15m was the penalty applied for what 50m is now given.

It was changed for two reasons, the second far more prominent:

1) It was deemed inadequate for big hits on players after they'd taken a mark.

2) Coaches at the time (Kevin Sheedy the chief instigator) used 15m penalties as an instruction to their own players as a means of holding up the flow of play for the opposition. The 15 metres conceded was regarded as relatively negligible in comparison to the benefit gained in those few seconds that allowed the defending team to all get back behind the ball. It got to the stage where 15's were being conceded in just about every run of play.

50 metres was always going to be excessive vast majority of such infringements. Everyone knew at the time that 25 or 30 metres would've probably had the same impact. Or that there could've been two separate 50m and 30m penalties introduced for 1) and 2) respectively.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

50 metres was always going to be excessive vast majority of such infringements. Everyone knew at the time that 25 or 30 metres would've probably had the same impact. Or that there could've been two separate 50m and 30m penalties introduced for 1) and 2) respectively.

Which is why it was chosen.

Its a massive penalty so it never becomes a tactical option to give one away.

 

[Cleansweep17]

15m was the penalty applied for what 50m is now given.

It was changed for two reasons, the second far more prominent:

1) It was deemed inadequate for big hits on players after they'd taken a mark.

2) Coaches at the time (Kevin Sheedy the chief instigator) used 15m penalties as an instruction to their own players as a means of holding up the flow of play for the opposition. The 15 metres conceded was regarded as relatively negligible in comparison to the benefit gained in those few seconds that allowed the defending team to all get back behind the ball. It got to the stage where 15's were being conceded in just about every run of play.

50 metres was always going to be excessive vast majority of such infringements. Everyone knew at the time that 25 or 30 metres would've probably had the same impact. Or that there could've been two separate 50m and 30m penalties introduced for 1) and 2) respectively.

Ah ok fair enough I agree with using 25-30.

The problem is now 50m is used for moving 1cm of the mark which doesn’t impede the game in anyway whatsoever.

 

[eggtardo]

I agree with two tiers. 50m for a late hit or something similar.
30m or so for those ones where someone wanders into the protected zone. I haven't re-watched but the one against the tigers last night when the player followed their opponent through the zone, was that just a wrong decision or was the tiges player considered more in the protected area than the opponent he was chasing? Its just to big a penalty.

 

[Cleansweep17]

I’ve been saying this before last nights game but hands in the back seriously needs to be addressed. Balta’s tackle on whoever that Carlton player was perfect and would’ve saved a goal. Instead it cost one. Not sure what the AFL expects him to do in that situation.

I’m starting to think it’s just a rule to protect the AFL should a player have a serious back injury or something. It makes no sense.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I’ve been saying this before last nights game but hands in the back seriously needs to be addressed. Balta’s tackle on whoever that Carlton player was perfect and would’ve saved a goal. Instead it cost one. Not sure what the AFL expects him to do in that situation.

I’m starting to think it’s just a rule to protect the AFL should a player have a serious back injury or something. It makes no sense.

Speaking of Balta and hands in the back that cost goals... that was after the ball being out of bounds but called in play.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Rules I would remove that would have zero impact on how the game is played.

1) Remove Ruck nomination - This is an Auskick under 10's football rule and should not be anywhere near the highest level of the sport. Anyone should be able to contest the ruck knock. Including any number of players.

2) Kicking the ball back into play after a behind. - Return it so it must be kicked from the square. Again this is an Auskick Under 10's rule. The highest level of the game should not be given help to get the ball out of their defensive zone.

3) Remove the protected zone - You either interfere with the guy with the ball or you don't. The 10m zone is just giving away goals for no reason what so ever. Not required in any way shape or form.

4) Stand Rule - Another Auskick rule that has no place at the highest level of the game.

5) 30 seconds for taking a shot. - This is time wasting and the clock should stop and only start again once the ball has been kicked from a set shot or after playing on. The clock stops everywhere else and it should also here.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Speaking of Balta and hands in the back that cost goals... that was after the ball being out of bounds but called in play.
View attachment 1928393

That’s what hands in the back should be. Arms extended not a tackle. I think they left it because it was a little to the side.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Anybody think hitting the post is “play on”like soccer would work?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Anybody think hitting the post is “play on”like soccer would work?

Not for me, thats making it a different sport. Thats part of our scoring system and that should never ever be changed.

so


One day they will probably change it lol

 

[GoldbergsGold]

The stand rule is probably the best rule that's come in the last 10 or so years

Nice bait, but in all seriousness, I miss seeing players being able to move around to psyche the opposition out on the mark. The stand rule is atrocious, umpires screaming, "steeeeeeend" all the time and scoring is still well below it was in 2017, so the rule does nothing to help increase scoring.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

2) Kicking the ball back into play after a behind. - Return it so it must be kicked from the square. Again this is an Auskick Under 10's rule. The highest level of the game should not be given help to get the ball out of their defensive zone.

I think the rule how it is is fine if a team kicks a behind and the opposition can rush the ball out of the goal square, but get rid of that protective zone, and all rushed behinds should result in ball ups 30 metres out from goal to make it more interesting as a consequence.

4) Stand Rule - Another Auskick rule that has no place at the highest level of the game.

We didn't have that rule in junior football, it's an abomination, one of the worst rules ever.

 

[aCunningPlan]

I think the rule how it is is fine if a team kicks a behind and the opposition can rush the ball out of the goal square, but get rid of that protective zone, and all rushed behinds should result in ball ups 30 metres out from goal to make it more interesting as a consequence.

We didn't have that rule in junior football, it's an abomination, one of the worst rules ever.

Genuine question, have you every umpired competition football?

 

[onthemoney]

Get rid of the centre bounce.