Will the proposed rule changes affect our list and recruiting?

[ShanDog]

I don't think those rules would affect whether your list is balanced or not in a significant way. Teams that have more two-way runners will benefit, but they are already intrinsically advantaged in that way.

As far as the rules go, I'm a bit iffy about the 25m goal square, but I like the other ones. I'd prefer to see the last touch out of bounds rule be limited to allow spoils from a marking contest so we don't take that role away from defenders. Perhaps just making the rule void in defensive 50 would be enough to keep it workable, i.e. last touch out of bounds is a free kick to the opposition except in the D50 arc.

 

[HARKER]

With 25 mts to work with; Do you have to bounce the ball after 15 mts? Imagine that.

 

[LordLucifer]

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.

They are Blight's idea and there is no way known they will be introduced, way too kooky.

More umpires is an overkill too.

Always thought 50m was way too severe so making it 25m gets a tick from me.

 

[SafeAsMilk]

1. No

2. No

3. For both centre bounces and kick ins IMO. (that opinion could change after seeing it in an actual game though. Especially how long it takes for players to get into those positions)


I think one rule that is a disadvantage to young teams is the rotation cap. That's the one rule that needs to be scrapped. The argument of "having your best players on the field for longer periods" is ridiculous when your best players aren't as effective in different positions, and the argument that it'll open up the game when players are fatigued has just caused more congestion.

 

[Blubagger71]

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

Which will potentially create more space in the forward line. Great for young, athletic bigs like Charlie, Kerr, Mackay, Lukosios. Need quick smalls though.

 

[Blubagger71]

Last touch might be too hard to implement. Obvious ones are fine, what about the disputed ones? Review? Ball up? Just another stoppage anyway. It would make for more marking contests and less kill spoils in the forward line.

None of these rules mean list modification. It's still kicking a pig skin.

Like the 25.

Playing with bench rotations is worth thinking about but will see an increase in fatigue related injury. Too many injuries as it is.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

At each centre bounce, players in traditional positions and following a behind being scored, the ball cannot be kicked in until there are 4 players from each side inside the 50m arc at the opposite end of the ground.
Would ease congestion at kick ins by 8 players and hopefully bring back leading from the fwds at the other end.
Simple to police.

That's my idea and i'm going with it.

 

[JustaBattler]

People want less congestion but disagree with less congestion changes?

LOL

Last touch rule is so bloody obvious it is a no brainer.

 

[ajb72]

Be careful what you wish for is all i can say.

I can easily see silly new rules being implemented which all they do is make the game more and more a game of keepies off.

It is bad enough watching a collingwood or essendon game now, imagine all teams playing that way. Zzzzzzzzzz

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Robert Heatley]

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

At least it spreads the defensive zone.

I’d get rid of the requirement for the kick to yourself to play on. As long as the kicker sets foot in the goal square, that’s enough.

At the moment there is too much advantage to the team who kicks a point. It’s a turnover that deserves to be punished like every other turnover on the ground.

Even worse is a kick on the full. The defending team is restricted to kicking to one side of the ground, it’s ridiculous.

 

[HARKER]

People want less congestion but disagree with less congestion changes?
LOL
Last touch rule is so bloody obvious it is a no brainer.

It sounds good on face value, but fitter teams will be able to build numbers around the ball without too many issues.

Mentioned it here earlier, but how do we police who touched the ball last?
It's not always so straight forward, so in uncertainty, what does the umpire do? Just make a Hail Mary call or do we find ourselves going 'upstairs'?

Cameras are there to show up every situation. What would we do?

 

[Mr_Plow]

Like they do in basketball: umpire's call always.

If it's at a crucial point in the match (E.g. last 2 minutes), it's reviewable.

Players need to learn to get on with it.

 

[ShanDog]

Always thought 50m was way too severe so making it 25m gets a tick from me.

I've thought for a while that the infringements with Manning the mark or the protected zone should be 25m penalties or downfield if applicable. Save the 50m for late hits etc.

 

[BlueRenaissance]

I know it is blasphemy but with increased speed/endurance/rotations since 2000, i'd like to see a reduction in players. I'd like to see the number go to 20 a side (16 on field instead of 18). Players can cover much more ground much quicker than in the past congesting the game.

I didnt like the pre-season comp but that was ridiculous at the other end of the extreme - no contested ball or marks.

The idea is to bugger out the players a little more leaving more 1-on-1 contests in the fwd 50. Sick of seeing 30+ players in one half. Sick of drafting of super tall freaks (M Cox) and rugby style mids to combat what the game has become.

I also look at the bottom 4 players of each team. The talent pool is so weak at that point. Graham, Kerridges, Armfields, Buckleys comdemning the game to mediocrity. With 18 clubs there is not enough quality. The lack of quality also consigns teams to long term rebuilds.

Would like to see it trialled at a lower level first.

Having said all that, I'm sick of s**t changes too and this might be another s**t change as you can never really know.

 

[DangerousD]

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.

I think penalising all kicks that go out of bounds takes a lot of the grey area out of the deliberate rule but doesn't penalise defenders spoiling a marking contest, its rare for a handball to go untouched over the line though.

 

[Blues_1864]

I don't think these rule changes really affect the attractiveness of player-types (although I might have contradicted myself beklow, re ruckmen). It's pretty rare for that to happen; Blicavs as the third man up is probably the most extreme recent example, and he has reinvented himself successfully enough after the rule change. In a way, it's an indicator of quality anyway.

Wouldn't want to see the goal square upscaled - we don't need any more 'straight in front' set shots than we have now. It is plenty big enough. I'd much rather a marked arc, like a 3-point line on a basketball court (or whatever is big enough to serve the purpose), which the attacking team can't enter while a defender is kicking out. Big enough to serve the purpose. Similarly, a lot of out on the full free-kicks inside the D50 could be made 'better' just by getting the man on the mark back 5 metres. Call it a concession to the shape of the ground; it shouldn't apply to midfield or F50 free kicks.

Last touch rule: do you compromise the ruckmen, again? I don't think I like it, certainly not in the D50 or F50. We shouldn't be discouraging the defensive spoil; and good teams might prefer the traditional F50 stoppage anyway, as well-organised sides find ways to kick goals from them. If last-touch is used for the ball going out of bounds on the wing/flank, it has to be umpire's call - no reviews. Ask the boundary ump if he's there, but keep it moving.

Centre-bounce starting positions: I'm not sure I see the point, to be honest. No mater how funky sides get, centre clearances are still a good way to kick goals: I think that's one part of the game we should not be messing with.

The thing that annoys me the most is that we'll be served up a complete hodge-podge of these changes, and there will be some magical ingredient added at the last minute, like a significant cut to the number of interchanges. Then the game we watch next year will still be poor, but in a different way, and we'll be wondering which one, two or five (of the 17 rule-changes in total) was responsible for the latest depredations on the game?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Just reduce interchange, everything changed when they allowed more players on the interchange and heaps of rotations

Go back to one (absolute max 2) interchange players and allow a sub for injuries.

Last touch rule and players in set positions start of quarter and after goals.

And my biggest pet hate, pay frees for incorrect disposal every single ******* time. pretty black and white rule that has more shades of grey than a dodgy Asian suit

 

[Space Cadet]

Players to be subbed out once clocking up 10km.

Pretty obvious fix I'd have thought...

 

[bucksandcripps]

[QUOTE="passmark, post: 56129746,
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.
[/QUOTE]
Interested to see the proof that it reduces stoppages. Average stoppages per game in AFL is 60 this season, and 59 in SANFL. Reduces throw ins, not stoppages altogether though. These are the only facts any argument for last touch can be based on, and they prove nothing. Can't see the rule ever being implemented in AFL, regardless.

 

[bucksandcripps]

Players to be subbed out once clocking up 10km.

Pretty obvious fix I'd have thought...

Would be all over for Ed amd 1/4 time...

 

[Navara79]

-3 on the interchange.

-30 interchanges per match.

-Incorrect disposal paid like they did in the 80s and 90s.

-Umpires should throw the ball up/in immediately after a stoppage and not wait for ruckmen to get into position.

-Either pay chopping of the arms all over the ground or don't pay it at all.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

[QUOTE="passmark, post: 56129746,
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.

Interested to see the proof that it reduces stoppages. Average stoppages per game in AFL is 60 this season, and 59 in SANFL. Reduces throw ins, not stoppages altogether though. These are the only facts any argument for last touch can be based on, and they prove nothing. Can't see the rule ever being implemented in AFL, regardless.[/QUOTE]

Creates a black and white rule, no interpretation differences between umpires for deliberate....that’s a massive tick in my book

3 points for a rushed behind is one I’d look at...again a black and white rule, removes any shade of grey.

Did I mention pay every free kick for incorrect disposal, one of the easiest rules in the book to umpire yet they want to bring in every shade of grey known to man....knocked out in the tackle bullshit, FMD no, he had the ball and didn’t dispose of it correctly....free *en kick

 

[bucksandcripps]

Interested to see the proof that it reduces stoppages. Average stoppages per game in AFL is 60 this season, and 59 in SANFL. Reduces throw ins, not stoppages altogether though. These are the only facts any argument for last touch can be based on, and they prove nothing. Can't see the rule ever being implemented in AFL, regardless.

Creates a black and white rule, no interpretation differences between umpires for deliberate....that’s a massive tick in my book

3 points for a rushed behind is one I’d look at...again a black and white rule, removes any shade of grey.

Did I mention pay every free kick for incorrect disposal, one of the easiest rules in the book to umpire yet they want to bring in every shade of grey known to man....knocked out in the tackle bullshit, FMD no, he had the ball and didn’t dispose of it correctly....free ****en kick[/QUOTE]
But none of these changes will affect out receuiting, because none of them will happen

 

[teagueyubeauty]

The thread police are out, since when was it a prerequisite to stick on topic with the name of the thread?

I’m adding my own slightly less dill brained and illogically thought out ideas.

They love a rule change at AFL house more than Bootsma loves a selfie, you’d be a brave man to back against some coming in

 

[ajb72]

Did I mention pay every free kick for incorrect disposal, one of the easiest rules in the book to umpire yet they want to bring in every shade of grey known to man....knocked out in the tackle bullshit, FMD no, he had the ball and didn’t dispose of it correctly....free ****en kick

I get twitchy reading things like this.

So you want to penalise the guy going for the ball even more and give it to the guy who sits off and waits to tackle?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk