Loopholes in the AFL rules that need looking at

[Obeanie1]

Isnt it amazing how in this modern game with millions being spent at AFL House on the rules of the game and protecting the head we still have nmassive loopholes in the rules.

Just the last two weeks.

Jump off the ground to smother but bump at the last mili second and KO someone. All good.

Now if it was a marking contest or a tackle. Different outcome. Why? Because we didnt think of this new action?


And a week later we have a dangerous tackle, player with arm pinned, drove head first into the ground and sent off for a HIA. If one player was involved in the tackle it would have been a simple suspension.

However two players were involved, not one. One tackler pinned the arm, the other tackled and added the driving motion.

No case to answer as two players involved! Ok well that Im sure makes the guy with the headache all fine then!


This isnt a crack at any one side. But it is amazing how the game (club lawyers) continues to find loopholes. And the MRP doesnt know so just refers it.

 

[HairyO]

They arent loopholes. They have rules.

Sometimes they just dont care and will manufacture the result they want.

Like forgetting to mention the charge against the guy who is leading the Brownlow count ensuring he can get off his charge on Appeal.

 

[Sentinel]

The biggest loophole for mine is running down the clock towards the end of close games with the 30 second shot clock for a kick that is never intended to be a shot. Player marks the ball around 50m out, takes their 30 seconds then passes off to a teammate for another 30 seconds.

It's disguised time wasting that should be addressed by a simple rule change.

 

[Fadge]

The biggest loophole for mine is running down the clock towards the end of close games with the 30 second shot clock for a kick that is never intended to be a shot. Player marks the ball around 50m out, takes their 30 seconds then passes off to a teammate for another 30 seconds.

It's disguised time wasting that should be addressed by a simple rule change.

What would that 'simple' rule change be?

A player could have every intention of having a shot at goal, but sees a far better option just before taking his kick.

 

[Sentinel]

What would that 'simple' rule change be?

A player could have every intention of having a shot at goal, but sees a far better option just before taking his kick.

By allowing only 1x 30 second shot clock per passage of play, which resets after a stoppage or when the opposition gain possession.

I.e. if the ball ends up being marked by a teammate after a player has already used the additional time allowance, that next teammate gets 10 seconds only (like in general play) to take their shot before being called to play on.

 

[Fadge]

By allowing only 1x 30 second shot clock per passage of play, which resets after a stoppage or when the opposition gain possession.

I.e. if the ball ends up being marked by a teammate after a player has already used the additional time allowance, that next teammate gets 10 seconds only (like in general play) to take their shot before being called to play on.

So a player has a shot from 50m, sprays it right and his teammate marks it next to the behind post.

What if there's a free kick down the ground to another forward, 25 seconds into the first player's set shot routine?

What if the first player only used 15 seconds of the allowed 30 seconds?

Need to simplify the rules, not make more of them...

 

[Sentinel]

So a player has a shot from 50m, sprays it right and his teammate marks it next to the behind post.

What if there's a free kick down the ground to another forward, 25 seconds into the first player's set shot routine?

What if the first player only used 15 seconds of the allowed 30 seconds?

Need to simplify the rules, not make more of them...

I'd say a free kick would reset that also. If a player signals they're taking a shot to gain extra time and then their shot lands in a teammate's hands (whether deliberate or not), whether the entire 30 seconds or not is used isn't really relevant.

This also isn't a case of adding a new rule, its tweaking an existing one which currently contains a subjective element (as is the case when a player is 60m out and signals they're taking an unrealistic shot to run down the clock - does the umpire allow it or not). Give a team 1 chance per passage of play to signal for an additional shot clock allowance, they can be 100m out but once you use it once you can't use it again.

 

[flyinghi64]

With the shot clock question, how about if a player uses the 30 second shot clock by telling the ump, I'm having a shot, and misses, passes, shanks it, whatever, it is play on regardless.
Once a player takes the 30 sec shot clock everyone knows if it doesn't go through it is play on and are ready for it.

Would definitely make it interesting and guys would stop using it to waste time knowing they really need to kick it or the clock is going to keep running and none of his team has a chance to mark it and slow it down more.

Just a thought.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

At the end of the day the onus is on the defensive team not to concede a mark at such an important juncture nor in such proximity to goal.
Think the rule should be uniform (ie. full time allotment allowed for any shot where the man on the mark is within sixty of goal, otherwise standard play on timer applies). Don’t think depriving a second player their time is the answer.

 

[Sentinel]

At the end of the day the onus is on the defensive team not to concede a mark at such an important juncture nor in such proximity to goal.
Think the rule should be uniform (ie. full time allotment allowed for any shot where the man on the mark is within sixty of goal, otherwise standard play on timer applies). Don’t think depriving a second player their time is the answer.

This would at least go someway towards addressing the issue - define the max distance for where the shot clock could be used. At the moment its far too subjective and the allowance sometimes even seems to be based on which player has the ball in hand and how far the individual can realistically kick.

 

[Engimal v3]

There's no rule preventing a player from simply eating the football

 

[faible]

There's no rule preventing a player from simply eating the football

If they're within range of goal do they get the full 30 seconds to do so or is it play-on sooner?

 

[2Knights]

What would that 'simple' rule change be?

A player could have every intention of having a shot at goal, but sees a far better option just before taking his kick.

The simple rule change would be scrapping the shot clock altogether. The shot clock was a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Fadge]

The simple rule change would be scrapping the shot clock altogether. The shot clock was a solution looking for a problem.

What would your alternative rule be?

Umpire's discretion? Which just opens up another grey area...

 

[2Knights]

What would your alternative rule be?

Umpire's discretion? Which just opens up another grey area...

Umpire's discretion is good enough for everywhere else on the ground, it's good enough for kicks in range of goal. Letting players with the ball stand around while a shot clock winds down is anathema. It also contradicts the various laws against time-wasting.

 

[caveman72]

What would that 'simple' rule change be?

A player could have every intention of having a shot at goal, but sees a far better option just before taking his kick.

Simple stop the clock for all shots at goal. thus preventing running the clock down

 

[Fadge]

Simple stop the clock for all shots at goal. thus preventing running the clock down

That's actually not the worst idea.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

What would that 'simple' rule change be?

A player could have every intention of having a shot at goal, but sees a far better option just before taking his kick.

Just fine the team as it's instructed.
5k first attempt and double it each time.
Imagine a 50k fine from one game?

 

[Purple Suit]

Simple stop the clock for all shots at goal. thus preventing running the clock down

And reset the clock when the umpires stuff up the bounce. Why waste 2 secs?

 

[matthew_s]

And reset the clock when the umpires stuff up the bounce. Why waste 2 secs?

should happen but I'm not sure it's feasible without significant investment, so the afl wont do it.

watching a lot of basketball, you regularly see 2-3 minute issues when they have to adjust the clock and thats when the refs are standing in front of the scoring bench and timekeeper.

 

[Sentinel]

Simple stop the clock for all shots at goal. thus preventing running the clock down

Too subjective, who defines what is and isn't a shot at goal? Stop the clock for all marks/free kicks within the 50m arc - could definitely work.

 

[The_Todd07]

Tackling someone across the boundary line should be treated he same as completing a tackle.
If there has been prior opportunity it should be holding the ball not a get out of jail free card.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Tackling someone across the boundary line should be treated he same as completing a tackle.
If there has been prior opportunity it should be holding the ball not a get out of jail free card.

That is the rule.

Its only a throw in when players are tackled over the line without prior opporunity.

 

[The_Todd07]

That is the rule.

Its only a throw in when players are tackled over the line without prior opporunity.

It's paid that way once in a blue moon at best

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Late to the party but my suggestion from a few years ago - remove the 30 second rule from all shots, and only have it when the PLAYER calls it.

The player calls for the 30 second by raising their hand. Otherwise it's adjudicated like any other marking contest on the ground (~5 seconds and play on).
Once the player calls for the 30 seconds, play STOPS. Umpire sets the mark, clears the area and the player MUST take a set shot over the mark.
If the ball doesn't leave the field of play (Goal, behind, OOB) - it's a free kick to the opposition where the ball lands.

The player is literally calling for the "Set Shot".