Will the proposed rule changes affect our list and recruiting?

[passmark]

In a nutshell, below are the proposed changes.

How will this affect our teams chances? Has our recent recruiting been compromised? Will it affect who we target.
My gut feeling that we should be ok as we haven't selected too many contested ball monsters and plodders.
Also, lukosius just got whole lot more attractive and Ollie Wines a lot less.


1: Extend the size of the goal square so the player kicking in can launch the ball over the centre of the ground and automatically clear the congestion. One panel member even suggested the size of the square be increased to 25 metres.

2: Last touch out of bounds. This has been introduced at SANFL level and has been proven to reduce the amount of stoppages and the length of games.

3: Designated starting positions at centre bounces. Three forwards inside a 25m zone, three forwards between 50 and 25m, six midfielders, and the defenders in the same formation as the forwards.


Also being strongly considered is four umpires with two staying inside the 50m arcs at each end to observe the forwards and defenders, and there is a strong push to reduce the 50m penalty to 25m.

These changes will be announced in October of this year and implemented in the 2019 season.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Simple answer. No

 

[Iamcarlton]

Panel member that suggested a 25 metre goalsquare needs a straight jacket FFS!

 

[Coops93]

Not really. Nothing game changing in that bunch in terms of list composition.

 

[Coops93]

Panel member that suggested a 25 metre goalsquare needs a straight jacket FFS!

Yeah that's a bit silly. Also the last touch out of bounds is terrible. I know the SANFL had a lot of complaints about it in it's first year, haven't looking into it since I must admit. Opinions might've changed but at the time I looked it wasn't being received well at all.

 

[james Dean]

Panel member that suggested a 25 metre goalsquare needs a straight jacket FFS!

Simmo would still find a way to nearly run over the line

 

[AceAndy]

Panel member that suggested a 25 metre goalsquare needs a straight jacket FFS!

I just dont understand the rationale being suggested. By increasing the size of the goal square the player kicking in will be able to clear the congestion. Surely all that will happen is the congestion will move back 15 metres to where the kick-in will land

 

[HARKER]

I just dont understand the rationale being suggested. By increasing the size of the goal square the player kicking in will be able to clear the congestion. Surely all that will happen is the congestion will move back 15 metres to where the kick-in will land

No, as it allows an additional 15 meters to work with and for opposition to cover. That's a lot of ground as it fattens up.
i.e. If the back-man had let's say 1000 square meters to work with, he now would have about 1300. Not an estimate but just to show up a rough ratio differential.

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. will it work? Don't know.

 

[passmark]

I just dont understand the rationale being suggested. By increasing the size of the goal square the player kicking in will be able to clear the congestion. Surely all that will happen is the congestion will move back 15 metres to where the kick-in will land

I believe it's a 25m arc being proposed.

I guess the thinking is the wings will be utilized making it harder to defend and players won't get clogged in the pocket.

 

[Iamcarlton]

I just dont understand the rationale being suggested. By increasing the size of the goal square the player kicking in will be able to clear the congestion. Surely all that will happen is the congestion will move back 15 metres to where the kick-in will land

Unfortunately Its all just a continuation of the battle between the rulemakers and coaches .

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Bigger goal square is good, the rest are rubbish and won’t happen.

I don’t see how any of these would make Wines less attractive anyway. He’s not a purely inside mid

 

[AceAndy]

I believe it's a 25m arc being proposed.

I guess the thinking is the wings will be utilized making it harder to defend and players won't get clogged in the pocket.

I was just thinking a longer goal square but i could see a 25 metre arc would work and as you say would eliminate the short chip kick to the back pocket where the player gets hemmed in.

My initial thought was is the goal square needed at all. If the 'you mark it in the square you get to go to the top of the square for your kick' rule stays that would be the only reason to keep the goal square.

 

[passmark]

Bigger goal square is good, the rest are rubbish and won’t happen.

I don’t see how any of these would make Wines less attractive anyway. He’s not a purely inside mid

I realise that but surely if the game changes then so do the players.

For example, we keep saying Cripps needs help (and he does) but will he need as much help if there are 50% less ball up's or throw ins?
If the game is faster does that help look like Kennedy or somebody faster.?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't mind the goal square being increased but not that far. I do see the logic in beating the press that is put on these days.

Last touch out of bounds is stupid. A dominant defender is going to give away the ball every time when they spoil it. The opposition won't try to keep the ball in at all and you will see even more farcical examples than you do with the deliberate rule.

50m penalty down to 25m is a good idea IMO. The 50 is no longer used for the reason it was created and this exclusion zone stuff affects the results of games. No commonsense is being applied.

 

[DangerousD]

Panel member that suggested a 25 metre goalsquare needs a straight jacket FFS!

Yeah we could just have the kick out from the centre square so players can attack more, seriously one of the stupidest suggestions I’ve read.

 

[DangerousD]

No, as it allows an additional 15 meters to work with and for opposition to cover. That's a lot of ground as it fattens up.
i.e. If the back-man had let's say 1000 square meters to work with, he now would have about 1300. Not an estimate but just to show up a rough ratio differential.

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. will it work? Don't know.

I would of thought, just moving the guy on the mark back 5-10 meters would be easier and less ridiculous

 

[DangerousD]

I don't mind the goal square being increased but not that far. I do see the logic in beating the press that is put on these days.

Last touch out of bounds is stupid. A dominant defender is going to give away the ball every time when they spoil it. The opposition won't try to keep the ball in at all and you will see even more farcical examples than you do with the deliberate rule.

50m penalty down to 25m is a good idea IMO. The 50 is no longer used for the reason it was created and this exclusion zone stuff affects the results of games. No commonsense is being applied.

Is the last touch rule, last touch, or last kick/handball?

One I think is stupid but the latter is really good.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Is the last touch rule, last touch, or last kick/handball?

One I think is stupid but the latter is really good.

Would it make much difference though? A kick or handball that goes out of bounds is already under scrutiny for deliberate. If you are near the boundary and give a short handball that doesn't get touched on the way over, that's worth penalising just for the skill error. By and large though, a teammate will get a hand on it and fumble it over the line to force the stoppage.

You'd have to separate skill errors from genuine spoils.

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

The 25m penalty one is just common sense. They should implement it now.

 

[thylacine60]

No, as it allows an additional 15 meters to work with and for opposition to cover. That's a lot of ground as it fattens up.
i.e. If the back-man had let's say 1000 square meters to work with, he now would have about 1300. Not an estimate but just to show up a rough ratio differential.

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. will it work? Don't know.

geez, harks - did you had to take the dimensions into broad-acre farming territory?

 

[gandaal]

Geez they just love making things harder for the umps don't they?

We should be making the game easier to adjudicate instead of harder.

 

[Arr0w]

In a nutshell, below are the proposed changes.

How will this affect our teams chances? Has our recent recruiting been compromised? Will it affect who we target.
My gut feeling that we should be ok as we haven't selected too many contested ball monsters and plodders.
Also, lukosius just got whole lot more attractive and Ollie Wines a lot less.


1: Extend the size of the goal square so the player kicking in can launch the ball over the centre of the ground and automatically clear the congestion. One panel member even suggested the size of the square be increased to 25 metres.

2: Last touch out of bounds. This has been introduced at SANFL level and has been proven to reduce the amount of stoppages and the length of games.

3: Designated starting positions at centre bounces. Three forwards inside a 25m zone, three forwards between 50 and 25m, six midfielders, and the defenders in the same formation as the forwards.


Also being strongly considered is four umpires with two staying inside the 50m arcs at each end to observe the forwards and defenders, and there is a strong push to reduce the 50m penalty to 25m.

These changes will be announced in October of this year and implemented in the 2019 season.

1. Can understand the thought process here, but if they are wanting to implement point 3, incorporate a variation for kick ins as well (6 forwards and defenders on the other side of the centre line. That would allow for less players in the same surface area, rather than increasing said area by increasing the size of the square/arc
2. Have always liked the idea, as it keeps the game moving. The only proviso I would place on this rule is that it would not encompass a marking/spoiling contest
3. Don't over complicate it, just start the 6 forwards and defenders 25 metres from goal for a centre bounce.
4. Leave the 50M penalty in place, it is a good deterrent, for players encroaching the protected area, trying to slow the attacking team

Edited : The one area I would change is stopping interchange moves during a stoppage of play.

 

[Mr_Plow]

10 interchanges a quarter and a certain number of players (perhaps 4 from each team) in each 50 metre zone for every stoppage (centre bounce or throw in or throw up).

That means 16/36 players sequestered in each end of the field, which can still leave 20 players around the middle of the ground.

Game is a mess, difficult to watch and needs addressing.

 

[Jabba73]

Not a fan of the first two, the third is a bit meh. Coaches and teams will find a way around the rules if they need to.

Nothing revolutionary enough to inspire any motivation to cheer or protest.

 

[HARKER]

Just thinking about the 25mt. square/arc/whatever.
That could take some time to get things rolling. A little hop and skip....on the runway...and 25 mts. to make your mind where you launch from.
That could take relative ages from the point being scored to getting the ball moving again. This is not that simple.

Last touch out: No problem, but the relative use of the rucks diminishes somewhat.
A possible issue: Whose body did that ball come from last....Touch review.....PLEASE NO.

Designated start positions: I don't like it on instinct, but happy to see it.