- May 19, 2017
- 9,403
- 10,957
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Or just ban the boards, its Kiddie play time stuff.
What rule would you Add/Remove/Change to improve the game?
- Thread starter kingbob182
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 19, 2017
- 9,403
- 10,957
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Seems from this thread, alot of people won't be happy till it's a constant up and down the ground, score, repeat bore fest like Basketball.
Why am I not surprised.
Why am I not surprised.
Mat Mann
significantly pleased himself
- May 14, 2009
- 3,452
- 7,342
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Red Bull
- Moderator
- #28
surprised no one has mentioned prior opportunity, do away with that and we won't have sling tackles, holding the ball fiasco, or rolling mauls.
players are smart enough to knock the ball on, and if it's a free kick, then play move on anyway, no worse that the stupid insufficient intent
players are smart enough to knock the ball on, and if it's a free kick, then play move on anyway, no worse that the stupid insufficient intent
kingbob182
Senior List
- Thread starter
- #29
Oh I forgot one in my original post.
If you signal that you're going for a shot and take all or most of the 30 seconds, i think a free kick should be paid for a kick that's not a reasonable attempt to score. Stop players milking the clock by pretending they're going to have a shot at goal.
If you signal that you're going for a shot and take all or most of the 30 seconds, i think a free kick should be paid for a kick that's not a reasonable attempt to score. Stop players milking the clock by pretending they're going to have a shot at goal.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
maybe increase the distance of a legal kick from 15m to 20m, instead of the 8/10/12 they currently pay a mark for?
Stop paying free kicks for when a player getting tackled just dives forward to try and draw an in the back free. What are the tacklers expected to to do? Deadlift them back up?
Stottzy
Club Legend
- Aug 5, 2020
- 1,217
- 3,092
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Would love it, but I guess they try and allign with the AFL. Not sure of the protocols. Althought, I do think it would benefit the AFL too. Less congestion, more quality on the field, more money for the star players.
- Feb 14, 2014
- 5,273
- 12,734
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Remove:
Nominating Ruckmen - Just throw the ball up and if two ruckmen from the same team go up then blow the whistle
Stand Rule
Change:
High Tackle and Prior Opportunity: If you have the ball and get tackled and you raise 1 arm (i.e. the Ginnivan/Poppy method) which leads to a high tackle; pay HTB instead of High contact. If you have the ball then there is no reason to only raise 1 arm. You can't throw the ball so if you want to handball you need to raise both arms. Raising 1 arm is clearly looking for a high tackle.
MRO: Accidental outcomes from legal actions shouldn't be cited. If you do a legal action and by some divine intervention, the opposition gets knocked out then that is just bad luck.
MRO: Intent should be weighted heavier than outcome. Attempted Murder, even at the lowest setting has a sentencing recommendation higher than the worst manslaughter. Throwing a punch that doesn't knock an opponent out shouldn't get a less sentence than a spoil that ended up knocking a player out by accident.
MRO: Legality of the action should be brought into the calculation. Lets look at the McAdam and Picket Bumps. If you took out the high contact, McAdam's bump would of been completely legal in the course of play, but to my eye the Pickett one would of been illegal and paid a downfield free kick. Regardless out outcome, McAdam's situation should be a mitigating factor.
Nominating Ruckmen - Just throw the ball up and if two ruckmen from the same team go up then blow the whistle
Stand Rule
Change:
High Tackle and Prior Opportunity: If you have the ball and get tackled and you raise 1 arm (i.e. the Ginnivan/Poppy method) which leads to a high tackle; pay HTB instead of High contact. If you have the ball then there is no reason to only raise 1 arm. You can't throw the ball so if you want to handball you need to raise both arms. Raising 1 arm is clearly looking for a high tackle.
MRO: Accidental outcomes from legal actions shouldn't be cited. If you do a legal action and by some divine intervention, the opposition gets knocked out then that is just bad luck.
MRO: Intent should be weighted heavier than outcome. Attempted Murder, even at the lowest setting has a sentencing recommendation higher than the worst manslaughter. Throwing a punch that doesn't knock an opponent out shouldn't get a less sentence than a spoil that ended up knocking a player out by accident.
MRO: Legality of the action should be brought into the calculation. Lets look at the McAdam and Picket Bumps. If you took out the high contact, McAdam's bump would of been completely legal in the course of play, but to my eye the Pickett one would of been illegal and paid a downfield free kick. Regardless out outcome, McAdam's situation should be a mitigating factor.
St Plugger
Team Captain
- Feb 28, 2012
- 300
- 498
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I agree with the concept, with Tasmania now to have a team to further dilute the talent pool!
15 aside works in practice and visually doesn’t really change the structure of the game.
5 backs, - removing 1 back pocket. 5 mids, - wings, centre, ruck and rover. 5 forwards, - removing 1 forward pocket.
Yep, just get rid of the in the back when a tackle falls into them. What's the difference if it's in the side or onto their stomach? I thought in the back was mainly for pushing from behind but the umpires just let those ones go too unless it's blatant and forceful.
I'd also penalise teams if their own team mate runs across the mark by calling play on. It annoys me that it's 50m for the opposition but their own team mate getting in the way is fine.
If you're the only one attempting to make the play, the holding the ball/prior opportunity rule shouldn't apply, or at least be much more lenient.
I hate seeing those passages where one bloke is going for the footy, and the opposition all hang back like seagulls waiting to jump him and start screaming for holding the ball.
I hate seeing those passages where one bloke is going for the footy, and the opposition all hang back like seagulls waiting to jump him and start screaming for holding the ball.
Dissent rule obviously must stay, it should just only apply to players intimidating or personally abusing umpires, not minor things.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 13,449
- 17,170
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Insufficient intent.
Change it to the SANFL rule. If out of bounds from a clean possession then a free kick. If not from a clean possession then throw in.
Change it to the SANFL rule. If out of bounds from a clean possession then a free kick. If not from a clean possession then throw in.
Remove deliberate out of bounds, but be more strict on disposal.
They're so lax on disposal due to congestion. Removing deliberate would force teams to keep players in position as they won't be getting the ball back. When things are less congested, umpires gace a clear view of the play.
This also means they wont be seagulling as often before blowing the whistle.
Have a clause for deliberate where an umpire can warn teams if it's happening excessively, then pay it the next time
They're so lax on disposal due to congestion. Removing deliberate would force teams to keep players in position as they won't be getting the ball back. When things are less congested, umpires gace a clear view of the play.
This also means they wont be seagulling as often before blowing the whistle.
Have a clause for deliberate where an umpire can warn teams if it's happening excessively, then pay it the next time
- Feb 5, 2018
- 14,115
- 34,051
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Blackhawks Melb Renegades
Holding the jumper isn't a free kick unless it actually impacts the opposition player in any way. That way you don't get the farcical situation where a key forward is gifted a shot at goal because the umpire saw a jumper tug from the wrong angle when both players were actually guilty.
- Sep 30, 2015
- 3,223
- 4,984
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No more "staaaaaaaaaaaand" rule, the worst rule implemented that has not increased scoring, is obnoxious when umpires scream it all the time or don't even call play-on and removes the psyche-out aspect of opponents on the mark.
Get rid of that huge protected area on marks, go back to the way it was with only a small amount of protected space on the mark.
Reduce 50 metre penalties to 25 or less, umpires are quick to use it and therefore ruin matches with their intervention.
No more player dissent rule.
Remove deliberate behinds, or just make opposition rush behinds result in it being "out of bounds" where the umpires throw it in from the goal line.
Get rid of insufficient attempt, return to 2000's rules of leniency for out-of-bounds.
No more sliding tackle rule, player with their head over the ball should never be penalized.
No more ruck nomination.
Maybe remove backwards marking to make the game less static and would speed up the game.
Essentially get rid of rules that are just overregulation from umpires which ruin the experience.
Get rid of that huge protected area on marks, go back to the way it was with only a small amount of protected space on the mark.
Reduce 50 metre penalties to 25 or less, umpires are quick to use it and therefore ruin matches with their intervention.
No more player dissent rule.
Remove deliberate behinds, or just make opposition rush behinds result in it being "out of bounds" where the umpires throw it in from the goal line.
Get rid of insufficient attempt, return to 2000's rules of leniency for out-of-bounds.
No more sliding tackle rule, player with their head over the ball should never be penalized.
No more ruck nomination.
Maybe remove backwards marking to make the game less static and would speed up the game.
Essentially get rid of rules that are just overregulation from umpires which ruin the experience.
- Sep 30, 2015
- 3,223
- 4,984
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No, should just be reported if the umpires have their feeling that hurt, don't need to ruin the match just because their egos were hurt.
If it goes through the goal posts it counts as a goal no matter if it hits or skims the inside of the post.
- Sep 30, 2015
- 3,223
- 4,984
- AFL Club
- West Coast
They actually had that as a rule, where if there was pressure, they did not call advantage, they'd bring it back. They've for some reason taken that rule away.
- Sep 30, 2015
- 3,223
- 4,984
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I like the clean goal without it being touched aspect, it's more rewarding.
Until a team loses a final late after a kick hits the post flush and goes through
- Sep 21, 2004
- 37,136
- 25,966
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Norwood & Liverpool.
If they bring in a national reserves comp I hope the reserves play before every senior game.
In my head I'd set up game day like:
AFL Reserves: 11:45am
AFLW: 2:10pm
AFL: 5:00pm
Then...
Both AFL teams have whole squad to choose from for AFL game... so like 48 on the bench (or be ready to go... they're at the ground anyway and have had 6 hrs break)
It'd be great if your team was 10 goals up to give a kid a run who'd normally not get a game.
On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
In my head I'd set up game day like:
AFL Reserves: 11:45am
AFLW: 2:10pm
AFL: 5:00pm
Then...
Both AFL teams have whole squad to choose from for AFL game... so like 48 on the bench (or be ready to go... they're at the ground anyway and have had 6 hrs break)
It'd be great if your team was 10 goals up to give a kid a run who'd normally not get a game.
On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
So you think it's okay during the game for players to physically intimidate umpires? Or constantly abuse them? You know this is their job, right ?
