If you could change one rule in the AFL?

[riccardo]

I would institute the "keep it moving" rule.
This rule would eliminate time wasting completely, if the umpire decides a team is obviously running the clock down ("kick to kicking" it, taking 2 minuites to kick, etc), posession is turned over to the opposition.
Would certainly make me less angry at some close games, I can assure you!

 

[Rocket Rudi]

When the ump calls for a ball-up (which is far too often, I know), the player in posession actually has to do the bounce.

 

[bloodsports]

Takels : Get rid of the prior opportunity rule. (too confusing for every one especially new converts to the game, just make it if you get takeld, the other team gets the ball !)
Also takels should be legal from the shoulder to the feet. But they will never bring this in cos the game is soft , especially the AFLPA.

 

[utility]

Originally posted by Porthos
MCC rule

I think you are referring to a contractual agreement, not an AFL rule.

 

[theheganboy]

round ball

 

[shiva25]

Re: Re: Re: If you could change one rule in the AFL?

Originally posted by Chiz
Good call.

Here's a interesting one. If the ball hits the post and comes back into play, it's play one. Likewise, if the ball hits the inside of the post and continues into the goals, it's a goal. It happens in the international rules.

If you cant kick the ball through the big sticks it shouldnt be a goal.Paying a goal that goes in off the post is rewarding the player for his inaccurracy.I do like the idea of playing on if the ball hits the post and comes back into play though

 

[scmods]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If you could change one rule in the AFL?

Originally posted by shiva25
If you cant kick the ball through the big sticks it shouldnt be a goal.Paying a goal that goes in off the post is rewarding the player for his inaccurracy.I do like the idea of playing on if the ball hits the post and comes back into play though

THat's like saying you shouldn't get a goal unless you kick it exactly through the middle. A ball that just squeezes in is rewarding a player for his innaccuracy.

Bottom line is, if the ball goes over the line between the posts, it's a goal.

Personally I'd take it a step further and say it's a goal if it goes between the posts no matter how it gets there - if it's touched, punched, rushed, carried, handballed, by either side, whatever.

 

[shiva25]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you could change one rule in the AFL?

Originally posted by scmods
THat's like saying you shouldn't get a goal unless you kick it exactly through the middle. A ball that just squeezes in is rewarding a player for his innaccuracy.

Bottom line is, if the ball goes over the line between the posts, it's a goal.

Personally I'd take it a step further and say it's a goal if it goes between the posts no matter how it gets there - if it's touched, punched, rushed, carried, handballed, by either side, whatever.

No its not.A ball that squeezes in is still regarded as accurate because he has kicked it through the big sticks which is the target.If it hits the post and goes in it shouldnt be allowed a goal because he is inaccurate

 

[MarkT]

I would change the rule that says everything unique in our game is under threat. That must be in there somewhere because that's what seems to be happening all the time. The bounce, the bump/body contact, true positional players (by watering down everything that doesn't come back to pace) and now "hit the post"? What for? Because they do it elsewhere? Because it makes the game faster or more interesting? How much faster/interesting will be enough? We could play on immediately from out of bounce, after a point or whatever. Why? The game is quick and action packed already.

We have an obsession with making the fastest and most action packed team sport in the world faster and more homoginised. The game is almost perfect but the administartion leaves a lot to be desired. In a constant search for improvement we acomplish what exactly? I am all for constant improvement but when we run out of improvement what is the point of changes for change sake? IMO one of the biggest rule issues we have had is the tampering with the damn things in the first place. Leave 'em alone, let the umpire learn them and let the punters watch a game with stable rules umpired consistently umpire to umpire, week to week, month to month and season to season.

 

[Ramma]

Originally posted by Port01
I'd get rid of the deliberate out of bounds rule completely.

I don't care if people go for the line. It is called tactics. It isn't time wasting like it was when the rule cam in because we have time on when it goes out.

Personally I think all the people that can't handle a few throw ins and ball ups in the actual name of football rather than prance-up-and-down-the-ground-ball can bugger off.

100% agreed!!

 

[pazza]

Actually if you go to the AFL website at the moment, they are allowing the fans to implement a rule change for the Wizard Cup next year. Should be an interesting little competition (it's done via a survey).

 

[Lensen]

I'd get rid of the rule that allows the AFL to change the rules every year.

 

[Fire]

round ball

What? do you want the Australians to keep the Irish scoreless?

Mark T,
I agree with you 95%. WHat I really think we should do is tweak the rules (i.e. Make the Umpire throw the gaddamn ball up immediatly like they did in the 60's, remove inconsistaint pure umpire oppinion related rules such as 'deliberate' out of bounds, ENFORCE the 15 second rule no matter where the player takes the mark (A forward has NEVER been called to play on after he has passed his allowed time, which is a complete joke as there is no exception in the rule)) and the leave them alone, prehaps altering them slightly whenever the need to do so arises. But no more than once or twice every ten years.

I never thought I would find myself suggesting something as impure as this, but how about a 'kick clock' that counts 15 seconds from the time the umpire pays the mark. I know it might seem like an artificial modern (insert insult here), but todays Umpires are far too incompetaint to do anything remotly showing why they get payed the ammount they do, and they need all the help they can get.

But dont change rules that dont need to be chagd - As I have always said, if a kick is not good enough to go through the goals without being touched or hitting the post, then it is not good enough to be a goal. So what if the kick was innacurate? for an innacurate kick to score a goal then it had to be kicked from a short distaince. If a team took the chance and was good enough to having a scoring shot from close in, then they deserve a little leway in their kicks.
Its basic tactics, thats why you dont see every shot at goal from 80 meters out.

 

[anonymous Joe]

I wouldn't change a rule I'd make one:

Anyone with a interest/support in a team can't commentate on that teams games

 

[Fire]

Anyone with a interest/support in a team can't commentate on that teams games

That would lead no one.

We would have to listen to a bunh of Rugby commentators, or far worse, Steve Bracks

 

[anonymous Joe]

Originally posted by Fire
That would lead no one.

We would have to listen to a bunh of Rugby commentators, or far worse, Steve Bracks

Ok then just ban Eddie from doing Collingwood games

 

[Fire]

Oh, is that what you were getting at?

 

[dogsbody]

Remove the "soft" prohibition on free kicks. Pay free kicks when the offence occurs, "soft" or not.

 

[aussierules0k]

Originally posted by L-Nizzy
I'd get rid of the rule that allows the AFL to change the rules every year.

This is the most sensible and I feel important post ever on Big Footy. I wish this rule was adopted. We love our game don't we.... "YES ..AOK" Right, everyone of us has said "Our game is the best in the world by miles haven't we..."YES ... AOK" Well why are we hell bent on changing the bloody thing.
Leave the rules alone before we end up playing something that could be called Iressie BasketIronUnionHockeyBall Rules

 

[The invisible mullet]

If an umpire gives a 50 metre penalty he has to measure out the 50 metres.

 

[carn_the_nmfc]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
If an umpire gives a 50 metre penalty he has to measure out the 50 metres.

That is a measurement thing.

Most of the guys do give the full 50 metres.

Many clubs in the Ballarat League want the umpires to get rid of the third man up in the ruck rule.

I will volunteer to send this whole thread to the AFLUA.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Leave the rules alone! The umpires stuff up enough of the current ones as is.

I'd change the interpretation of the deliberate rule back to what it was under Schwab rather than that imbecile Combover.

And if you were absolutely desparate to introduce a new rule (god knows why, the sport of football looks pretty good to me) allow umpires to report people for diving.

But there is no problem with the rules - there is a problem with the INTERPRETATION of the rules.

But why fix that when you can have magnificent innovations like 'supergoals'.

 

[amazingjosh]

Originally posted by Fire
If the ball goes out of bounds off a clear posession (on the full or bounce) then it is a free to the opposition.

Mainly to take out the inconsistaincy of the deliberate rule. The only way you can deliberatly take the ball out under this rule would be to knock it over, which is impossible to do without dropping the ball once you have posession of it.
Plus he gam ewould be more free-flowing but still have the traditional throw-in.

Agree with this, take the interpretation out and have a fixed rule. The more set in concrete the rules the better. The way it is now, deliberate is the most ridiculous rule in any sport (in my opinion).

As others have said, getting rid of it altogether is another option.


Juts frustrates me so much you can have so many differenrt rulings based on what angle the ball is hit out on, or how much ground is gained (isnt it still deliberate if its 50m up the ground?), or how good a player is at pretending to fall over.

And has anyone, ever, seen it paid it against a forward?

Scrap it.

 

[dharma bum]

Umps are banned from inventing/guessing free kicks from a ruck contest.

 

[pav_is_god]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you could change one rule in the AFL?

Originally posted by scmods
Personally I'd take it a step further and say it's a goal if it goes between the posts no matter how it gets there - if it's touched, punched, rushed, carried, handballed, by either side, whatever.

That's ridiculous...the game is called 'football' for a reason - you have to kick it to get a goal. Otherwise they would have called it 'get-it-across-the-line-ball', or worse 'rugby'.