AFL wanting fan feedback on rule changes

[Quivorir]

did it before, just spammed the chat box with dont change the freaking rules and ticked no / yes where appropriate. Didnt answer the ones where the only options were to change the rules.

Dvote yes on the advantage rule though

 

[albundysmate]

shortening quartes is just ridiculas. i want to know what their thinking is with this one, are they just throwing darts at a board with rules on it. because that's what it seems too be. i don't why the umpires have to wait for a light after every goal, when every game isn't shown live on fta and foxsports don't have ads

 

[robertg22]

A goal has had to go clean thru since the 1859 rules.

Some drop kick in the media looking for a talking point brings it up and now they're surveying people on it FFS.

Peeece orrf.

Agreed, I said that was against the very fabric of the game and unnecessary.

 

[Be Aggressive]

That survey made me angry. Stop messing with the game. *shakes fist*

 

[Barkly St End]

Yeh, agree.

For the record, what I voted:

1. Interchange
a) & b) yeh, too much interchange having a negative impact
c) cap of 80 interchanges

2. Length of game
a) yes to keep quarters to below 30 min
b) 18 mins + time on
c) 18 mins half time
d) leave quarter breaks as is

3. Boundary umps
a) no

4. goals off posts
a) no
b) no

5. advantage rule
a) yes (but I don't care that much, can't see it makes a lot of difference

6. free kcik for dragging ball under an opponent
yes - I hate seeing that happen

 

[AP Erebus]

as if they would take any notice of what we say. they will just do the opposite to what we all want. no rule changes

Sure, generalise some more.

Personally I don't want NO rule changes. I don't agree with some of these proposals, but I think that this idea of NO rule changes is stupid.

The deliberate rushed behind rule fixed a glaring problem in our game and is considered a great success.

 

[Rellik666]

Just so you know....you don't have to choose an option provided...on the interchange question I just left comments and didn't choose an option...

Stay strong people...we might get the message across.

 

[memberforever]

Yeh, agree.

For the record, what I voted:

1. Interchange
a) & b) yeh, too much interchange having a negative impact
c) cap of 80 interchanges

And wht is this so called negative impact?
What is wrong with having a large number of interchanges????

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE,

 

[doodl]

This poster = goal rule is bizarre. I mean if the goal umpires have trouble telling if the ball hit the post how will they go seeing which side of the post the ball actually went through on? Dumbest rule ever. Surely noone thinks there would be any less errors with this rule then there are already with hitting the post?

 

[Ron The Bear]

A goal has had to go clean thru since the 1859 rules.

Some drop kick in the media looking for a talking point brings it up and now they're surveying people on it FFS.

Peeece orrf.

Seconded.

I suspect it actually has as much to do with upping the number of goals => ad breaks as anything else.

What would happen if the ball rebounded back into play? Is the NAB Cup gimmick rule being foisted upon us?

Don't know how much more of this shit I can take.

 

[dumb]

are any of these rule changes brought up to address a problem or just for the sake of it? hitting the posts rules is too fundamental a change.

i don't want substitutes. an injured player is still one less your team has whether or not he's a substitute. it's just tough luck.

 

[tranquilli lace]

shortening quartes is just ridiculas. i want to know what their thinking is with this one, are they just throwing darts at a board with rules on it. because that's what it seems too be.

They're all trying to justify their spot on a "committee". For as long as we have a committee regulary meeting we'll always have people trying to change the rules to justify the committee being there in the first place! It'll never be left the hell alone like it should be.

 

[AG]

Dumbest rule ever. Surely noone thinks there would be any less errors with this rule then there are already with hitting the post?

There probably would be less errors. Tom Hawkins goal wouldn't be disputed from the 09 GF. I had those sorts on incidents in mind when I thought it would be a good idea but if someone full on kicks it into the post and has a massive deflection through the goals, rather than a slight tough, then it would seem stupid.

So no rule changes this year. Laughable how they want to slow the game down after they wanted to speed it up a few years ago.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE,

I heard one of the Collingwood coaching panel (Scott Waters) say exactly that .. leave the game alone.

Has it ever occurred to coaches that the reason we have so many changes to the rules is because coaches themselves don't "leave the game alone". A lot of these rule changes are introduced to prevent coaches stuffing the game up completely.

 

[dswan]

Sack whoever is pushing these rule changes!!!
We will never have a perfect game and we like it that way!!
Create a Poll someone!!

 

[Feerits Elf]

What a bunch of disingenuous khunce.

 

[absy]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[pdave54]

I think Rugby Union has the solution to the advantage problem. At the moment, players sometimes stop when they hear the whistle. Take the whistle out of the situation. When an infringement occurs, the umpire holds up his hand and play continues for a short period. Once the umpire has determined whether advantage occurred or not, he either lowers his hand and play continues or brings the ball back and the free kick is taken.

This used to happen years ago when umpires were allowed to a did use and common sense approach.

 

[Barkly St End]

And wht is this so called negative impact?
What is wrong with having a large number of interchanges????

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE,

I see rules surrounding length of quarters and numbers of interchange as being fairly peripheral things - it's not really about the fabric of the game.

But the extreme numbers of interchanges in the modern game quite possibly are affecting the way the game is played, basically allowing for soccer-style defensive formations (with everyone behind the ball), which then morph into rugby-style rucks and mauls, where the ball never comes out.

I might be wrong, but it's this extra capacity for hard running, fuelled by endless rotations, that allow the game to be played in this manner.

I don't care if some games end up like that, I just don't want all games ending up like that, and limiting interchanges might help in that regard.

 

[Alfonz]

I think I wrote an essay in most of the comments boxes telling them to how stupid most of these changes are.

The rebound off a goal post possibly being a goal is one of the most ridiculous rule change they have come up with yet. An elementary fabric of the game. Maybe its strange considering other sports, but who cares? Thats just the way it has always been, and always should be.

The stats on the length of the game just prove how pointless that change would be. The game is a whole 5 minutes longer than 5 years ago. Wow. One minute per quarter. That 1 minute per quarter would disappear instantly with a few basic things that have nothing to do with the game, like the umpires not waiting for TV ad break light to flash. Or they could save seconds per stoppage by throwing the ball up instead of taking the time and effort to set up to bounce it (one change I am not against).

I hate it how they just say "supporters have expressed concern with XXX" ... absolute bullshit. The only concern supporters have is wanting the AFL to stop f()%$ing with the damn rules.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I hate it how they just say "supporters have expressed concern with XXX" ... absolute bullshit. The only concern supporters have is wanting the AFL to stop f()%$ing with the damn rules.

It's technically true if the rules committee class themselves as "supporters". In some respects, the justifications are as irritating as the meddling.

I would've thought the BF demographic is an accurate representation of those who follow the game a bit more closely than the 'casual' fan. Does anyone at the AFL ever actually read threads like this to find out what we think about where the game is at/going? Or do they just not give a ****?

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

There is only one problem with the advantage rule as it stands - and that's when umpires pay a 50m against a player who tackles the player with the ball when advantage hasn't yet been called. If a player takes it upon themselves that there might be advantage, they should be allowed to be tackled with no repercussions, even if advantage isn't called.

In regards to the fact that some players stop when the whistle is blown... well, there was an infringement. The team infringing should get a penalty, whether that be a free kick to the opposing team or an advantage in the play to them. That's what advantage means, isn't it?

 

[djboonie]

Interesting bit about the ball hitting the post and going through "should it be a goal?" In the small print it says

(Please note: ball would still need to be kicked and need to be on the full without being touched)

So dribbled goals would not be adjudicated in this manner? What if a ball kicked from the boundary bounces on the goal line, hits the post padding, and goes through?

Let me see, another grey area and an extra ruling to confuse the umps!

Nice one AFL, you're ace!

 

[Subprime]

Interesting bit about the ball hitting the post and going through "should it be a goal?" In the small print it says


So dribbled goals would not be adjudicated in this manner? What if a ball kicked from the boundary bounces on the goal line, hits the post padding, and goes through?

Let me see, another grey area and an extra ruling to confuse the umps!

Nice one AFL, you're ace!

Reeks of a half-baked idea. Why is on the bounce different to on the full as far as hitting the goalpost goes?

 

[4JACKS]

They will probably shorten the game and put ticket prices up to know and them fools......... LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!!!