What rules would you change/fix to make the game more watchable?

[tiggywigs]

When was the last time you watched a game when the flow of the game (and arguably the result) wasn't spoilt by an endless succession of bad 'holding the ball' decisions, dubious/mystifying marking and rucking infringements, head scratching 'protected zone' 50 metre penalties or bizarre 'insufficient intent' rulings?
And what about the trouble that umpires appear to be having with estimating 'distance travelled'?
Almost none of this is fault of umpires.
Many AFL games (ours and neutral) are becoming unwatchable because the rules simply don't work or the umpires aren't being directed to apply them properly.
There are too many grey areas where there should be almost none (e.g. holding the ball).
And no grey areas where there should be some (e.g. 50 metre penalties and jumper tugs).

Okay, the game has always had it's controversial decisions, and it is as hard a game to umpire as any I can think of.
But the rules need fixing or otherwise a large chunk of the fan base might start to tune out.
And the first thing to do, I'd argue, is to simplify the rules and the interpretation instructions given to umpires.
So here is my two cents worth:

#1 "If in doubt, play on"
(A direction to umpires)
This should be the golden standard for all umpiring in ALL situations.
By 'doubt' I mean that infringements are only paid if the umpire believes something 'did' happen, not that it 'might' have happened.
That means-
If the kick 'might' have travelled about 15 metres, play on.
If the player 'might' have been held, pushed in the back, blocked or had their protected zone 'infringed', play on.
If the player 'might' have marked the ball, play on.
If the player 'might' have been seeking the boundary, play on.
Ect.
Basically, the idea is to get rid of 'guessed' free kicks and stop those infuriating short kick marks which reduce genuine contests.

#2 "Holding the ball"
(A rethink about prior opportunity)
When I was a kid, if you got caught with the ball, and didn't dispose of it legally straight away, you were 'holding the ball'.
No excuses.
Being allowed to pivot 360 to 720 degrees, or being given special dispensation to dispose of it illegally (or not at all) because you were so brave for trying to grab the pill, was despised rugby nonsense.
In Aussie Rules we were taught that taking possession was risky, so you kicked long to a contest and handballed out of congestion (not into it).
Pretty sure that was how it worked at senior level for a long time too.
Now we have a stupid stand rule (which reduces real one-on-one contests) designed to overcome the rolling mauls (sorry, stoppages) that occur because players can take possession by absorbing the tackle.
We need to trial the removal of the prior opportuunity rule.
Two things are likely to happen imo.
The game will open up and true one-on-one contests will return.

What are your solutions?

 

[Lsta062]

I want them to change ‘high contact’ free kicks into something that’s paid very rarely. Why? Because this rule is abused by players. Yes, the rule is there to protect the players. However, what we are now seeing is many players initiating a high contact by ducking, lifting their arms, leading with their heads into contests etc. Yes, they brought in a rule to not pay ducking but that isn’t really enough.
Reserve this for when the player genuinely gets clotheslined or gets hit hard, and this doesn’t happen very often. That’s it.

The second change I would bring is to get rid of 50-metre penalties and down the field free kicks. We already have free kicks in front of goal. We don’t need any more gifts.

 

[Mr Magic]

I used to think the commentators where there to comment on the game and inform the viewer.

It now seems to me they are there, in no small part, to create a narrative and to support AFL HQ, with the viewer secondary

 

[rosetech]

I’m with you the htb, prior and incorrect disposal needs to be simplified. Incorrect disposal should be the focus. Certain teams are abusing this with slick throws. It’s so bloody obvious.

I agree on the too high too. You duck, drop knees or raise your arm it’s play on regardless of contact. I’d also consider a financial sanction for repeat offenders. I wouldn’t want to add more rules to complicate things.

Also piss off all the rules that SHocking introduced besides 666. That’s not too bad.

 

[two blue tiger]

The stand rule is the stupidest rule ever introduced into the game. Pseudo netball.

 

[Lsta062]

Also, I don’t care about a fingernail touching the ball or the ball scraping the post. Unless it is obvious that the ball is touched by a player or has visibly hit the post, just call it a goal/behind.

If the game requires cameras for real-time adjudication, then we’re probably making it too complicated than what it needs to be. Maybe this is a bit unpopular, but I’d prefer them to just pay obvious things

 

[Bojangles17]

If lynch jack or dusty get held blocked or front on contact then an instant bloody free , like it damned well should , simple

 

[Damo80]

Only pay obvious frees that impact the play. And apply them consistently from end to end (umpire to umpire), game to game, round to round.

One example, I'd change the high contact rule to something closer to the NRL interpretation (of a couple of years ago, anyway). That is, inconsequential contact on the shoulder is fine. Tackles can have an arm over the shoulder etc. Only pay high contact if there's clear, semi-forceful contact to neck, or contact to the head. That'd be a good start.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

 

[Damo80]

I want them to change ‘high contact’ free kicks into something that’s paid very rarely. Why? Because this rule is abused by players. Yes, the rule is there to protect the players. However, what we are now seeing is many players initiating a high contact by ducking, lifting their arms, leading with their heads into contests etc. Yes, they brought in a rule to not pay ducking but that isn’t really enough.

Absolutely agree. Isn't the rule that if you duck into a tackle, it's considered your prior? I'd say 80% of the time a player ducks into a tackle they win the high contact free, and the other 20% the umpire will say ball up, you ducked. It should be holding the ball, you ducked, that's your prior opportunity!

And if you do a Selwood and shrug or drop at the knees, no free kicks. Per my post, this contact is almost never consequential contact.


Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

 

[Serenitylater]

Unfortunately the game will be unwatchable for many years to come.
Shocking and Dill have really screwed the game we once loved,yet they're still around.Getting rid of them would be a start.

 

[JR82]

I'd reverse all of SHockings changes

 

[Bird Man]

i would change the stand rule to only being enforced inside the defensive 50 once it leaves then is resorts to the old system.

Take out no prior op and ping them for not disposing of the ball.

raise the cap for interchange as it is literally bad for players health and they must the protected or increase the bench players

Pay umpires a full time wage (this is ridiculous that they are not)

cant deliberately rush the ball behind for a point

 

[HTT]

i would change the stand rule to only being enforced inside the defensive 50 once it leaves then is resorts to the old system.

Take out no prior op and ping them for not disposing of the ball.

raise the cap for interchange as it is literally bad for players health and they must the protected or increase the bench players

Pay umpires a full time wage (this is ridiculous that they are not)

cant deliberately rush the ball behind for a point

Umpires are paid a full time wage. The problem is they only work part time for it.

 

[Infamy]

I'd definitely simplify the holding the ball process
Q1 - Did the player being tackled with the ball have time to dispose of the ball after taking possession? If no, then ball up.
Q2 - If Yes, did they dispose of the ball with a handpass or kick while being tackled? If no, then it's HTB
The player needs to be given time to dispose of the ball or break the tackle, but no more time than this. None of this being turned 360 or 720 before the HTB is called.

Also I think we need to prioritise certain free kicks to avoid confusion.
I.e. if a player is running down the wing and gets tackled from behind, the HTB needs to get paid instead of any in the back decision. The HTB occurred first when they were caught, not the way the tackle was executed.

 

[Andyy]

Get rid of the 'insufficient intent to keep the ball in'. Just straight up free kick against the team that touched it last.

Get rid of prior opportunity. You either dispose of the ball or you're pinged, period. If you can't pick it up and dispose it then just tap/kick it on.

Get rid of this 'stand' rule. It's ugly and encourages this slow kick-to-kick trash. Horrendously boring.

Penalise (progressively harsher fines) players who deliberately draw high contact. Don't pay frees for high contact that starts low and ends high/soft. Only pay those if it's really bad.

 

[RichoAtzyG]

Get Rid of the dam ruck nomination rule please. Just throw the dam thing up and if two blokes from the same team go for it free against.

The other thing is I wish the umpires would stop coaching and being lenient to players, they are there to adjuticate not warn the players they might do the wrong thing. Just watch them and if they break the rules pay a free.

On LG-H930 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dunger]

The list of stupid rules

666
Stand and anything associated with it

Any rule that requires the umpire to be a mind reader

Holding the ball needs to be redefined

Any High contact, a placed hand on a shoulder in a contest is not the same as an elbow to the face yet has the same consequence.

Sliding rule

Front on contact

Downfield free kicks

The new kick in rules

Medical sub - gone. Its a tough game, you're down one player on the bench. Deal with it.

Ruck rules, does anyone know or understand them? The umpires dont.

Keep it simple and the umpiring will improve, the game will improve and the scoring will increase while free kicks decrease

 

[juss]

My biggest gripe is that a free kick paid in the centre square at half time in round 1, should be the same free kick paid in the goal square in the last minute of a tight final.

The rules shouldn't change based on the location of the free or the context of the game. Pay the free if it's there, or don't if it's not, end of story.

And to add to that, we should raise the bar of what constitutes a free kick. It should only be illegal contact that impacts the contest. Let the small stuff go, pay the blatant holds, high tackles, big dumping tackles in the back.

 

[Grrr]

The stand rule is just corrupt and completely messes with my head.

Last night might have been Andrews with the ball after a mark. He makes one step to his right, stops, makes another step to his right, stops and props, so far 2 metres cribbed, the ump is 5m away and still not even a whistle in the mouth. Hey presto he plays on.

What is wrong with the ump, it's play on if someone goes off his mark, has been for 100 years, but this new rule is not only making the man stand like a idiot on the mark, it is allowing the ball player even more latitude than before this idiotic rule was introduce. Seriously ump blow play on as soon as he steps off his mark.

Waiting for the ruckman is another. Last night the ump held the ball up and waited for the ruckman to run about 40m to get to the ball up. In the mean time everyone sets up around the ball and behind it, while the 2 rucks get to the contest. Ball is up immediately, keep the game flowing, if nobody rucks, stiff.

Can somebody reiterate why the third man up was disallowed. Was it so that the ump had more control of the game, because every rule introduced, from the standing the mark, who goes up, deliberate rule (another head shake after Daniels last night), 50m penalties and more, all requires ump over controlling our game.

Footy was once all aboiut not noticing the umps, now it is all about how much control they have.

Am I doing this right?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

After game pressers with the Maggotts fronting the press to explain their decisions...won't happen as it would take too long to finish...

 

[Kyusss]

Deliberate out of bounds is clearly broken and was never an issue in the first place, team mates desperately running to touch the ball before it goes out is laughable

Protected area is stupid never an issue in the first place

Stand rule is stupid was never an issue in the first place

Holding the ball is broken

Throwing the ball is never paid

Contributing to high contact by slinking or knocking the arm up isn’t paid play on correctly

Pressuring a player as he kicks is constantly paid incorrectly down the ground, if a player is sprinting to apply pressure and makes contact as the player kicks that should be perfectly fine aslong as it’s not high or excessive

Continuing to cut interchange because people wanna see “tired players” thinking that will lead to flowing open football is ridiculous it leads to sitting numbers back and absorbing teams offence then uncontested short kicking when you have the ball

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SplintWhisky]

Bugger the STAND rule off for a start. The other big one is the HTB rule. Easiest way to fix it is to get rid of the "knocked out in the contest" subclause. If a player who is tackled and didn't dispose of the ball legally then it is HTB every day of the week.

One thing I would also put in is a ruling that, if you have heavily contributed to an action that would lead to you getting a free kick then it is play on. Players ducking or raising their arms for high contact or throwing themselves forward in a tackle to get a push in the back free should be seen as play on/prior.

I would also want for the AFL to lift their Gestapo rules about people commenting on umps. The umps know they can get away with doing a shitty job and not be called out publicly for it and that s**t needs to stop.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

A player being tackled has only 4 possible outcomes. incorrect tackle ( to high ) , HTB, incorrect disposal or hold the man post correct disposal. Remove prior opportunity , take hold of it and obligation is to get rid of it .

Blocking at contest - all players to be given right to content the ball whilst it is neutral . Eg. In the air or no one has possession ( Shepparding only within 5 mtrs when teammate has the football.)
Speed up boundary throw ins , ball ups no waiting . Speed up blokes not giving footy back after free kick or mark etc .
Increasing minimum distance of a mark from a kick to 20 mtrs ( or ensure umpires know how far 15 metres is ) .

 

[Dr Tigris]

HTB is the worst I think. You are right to old rule was simple, fairly easy to adjudicate and forced players to move the ball on. Judd was where the whole 360+ thing started. he was so strong that he could dispose of the ball whilst in a full tackle, So they let him get extra time. It's just spread to become ridiculous now. A tackle that takes a player to the ground is a successful tackle, not the first part of on ongoing saga. Go back tot eh old interpretation.

Stand rule itself isn't a problem. The problem is that it automatically causes teams to play a slow chip chip game. So the stand rule forces terrible football to be played. So get rid of the stand rule and watch the game free up somewhat. Although if you hate high pressure finals type footy you'll want to keep it.

Defenders (or forwards for that matter) should not be allowed to tackle, push in the back, or otherwise take a plyer out of the contest illegally - t's already the rules. Simply start paying those frees and watch Tom Lynch, Tomahawk etc start scoring more heavily.

The amazing leaps forward that guys like Danger do all the time should actually be against the rules. Free against, and then fines and then finally if you keep doing it a week off.

Agree with the other changes you suggest in the OP.

But the biggest thing I would want to change is to solidify the rules and not change interpretations without a clear and strong process. Basically make it more clear and consistent. Stop the SHocking constant rule changes

 

[HTT]

I'd definitely simplify the holding the ball process
Q1 - Did the player being tackled with the ball have time to dispose of the ball after taking possession? If no, then ball up.
Q2 - If Yes, did they dispose of the ball with a handpass or kick while being tackled? If no, then it's HTB
The player needs to be given time to dispose of the ball or break the tackle, but no more time than this. None of this being turned 360 or 720 before the HTB is called.

Also I think we need to prioritise certain free kicks to avoid confusion.
I.e. if a player is running down the wing and gets tackled from behind, the HTB needs to get paid instead of any in the back decision. The HTB occurred first when they were caught, not the way the tackle was executed.

Agree & lose the 'attempted to dispose' part.
They either have to get rid of it or don't, and if they have to get rid of it then it must be either a kick or a handball.