Players who caused rules to be changed.

[_Mike_]

1992 - Paul Dear (Hawthorn) intentionally tripping Peter Foster of Footscray in which Foster's leg was broken resulted in a hefty suspension and the introduction of the tripping rule.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Prolly mentioned earlier but KB was the first player I can remember whose tactics led to a rule change. He'd pick up frees like no-one else. The old rule allowed a player in possession to bounce the ball just as he was about to be tackled. The tackled player was deemed not in possession and given a free. KB was a master at this.

This was changed.

For the last 40 years KB has sought vengeance on the game through campaigning for umpteen rule changes.

 

[telsor]

1992 - Paul Dear (Hawthorn) intentionally tripping Peter Foster of Footscray in which Foster's leg was broken resulted in a hefty suspension and the introduction of the tripping rule.

Pretty sure tripping was a rule before then, but wasn't really enforced except in extreme/obvious cases. So the 'change' might have been more one of interpretation and looking for it more.

 

[_Mike_]

Pretty sure tripping was a rule before then

You're correct.
Tripping, holding and hacking outlawed in 1860.

1992 : The Dear incident changed the rule to be a reportable incident, later in 1995 tripping by hand becomes reportable. Penalty: Free & 50 metres. Tripping by foot remains reportable. Additional penalty: Free & 50 metres

 

[markr]

In 2008 when the Hawks introduced their zone, one of the best counters was to run through it with handball (Dogs ripped through it doing that in one game). To help counter, if a player ran at the zone and then handballed to a teammate, the Hawks would tackle the guy who just disposed, which took that player out as a future receiver. The freekick for it was just a downfield, which was almost always just play on, so even with the free Hawks were advantaged by reducing the overlap runners. That became a 50m penalty for the next season. (You can shepherd/block the guy, but the Hawks would just hang on to him to make sure he couldn't keep running).

 

[yodellinhank]

In 2008 when the Hawks introduced their zone, one of the best counters was to run through it with handball (Dogs ripped through it doing that in one game). To help counter, if a player ran at the zone and then handballed to a teammate, the Hawks would tackle the guy who just disposed, which took that player out as a future receiver. The freekick for it was just a downfield, which was almost always just play on, so even with the free Hawks were advantaged by reducing the overlap runners. That became a 50m penalty for the next season. (You can shepherd/block the guy, but the Hawks would just hang on to him to make sure he couldn't keep running).

Aka the gary ablett (jnr) rule

 

[El_Scorcho]

What about the Matthew primus rule change where they outlawed him putting his arm out to block the other ruckman from getting to the ball?

Primus's ruck style IMO was a huge reason the ruck rules were changed to make them more like basketball jump balls.

He'd walk up to his opponent, use his enormous superior strength to hold his opponent out of the way and then tap it where he pleased. He was dominant doing this, winning AA guernseys in 2001 and 2002 before the rule was changed to favour more athletic ruckmen.

 

[Truckosaurus]

Unfortunately the changes were not thought through resulting in stupid outcomes.

The best thing about this sentence is how many rule changes it can apply to. It's like a choose-your-own-adventure.

My choice is the Sydney 19th man debacle leading to that stupid post-it note situation for a week (later refined to more sensible requirements).

Impetus for interchange restrictions was Malthouse's heavy rotation policy at Collingwood, wasn't it?

 

[Hawthorn United]

"Goodes was a massive sniper" is honestly one of the biggest loads of revisionist garbage going around. Anyone who peddles it is a moron with an obvious agenda to push.

The guy played 372 games, so obviously there were some moments where he wasn't 100% clean. He had a weird period in 2008 where he was on some angry pills, but even then there was nothing major.

The suspension he got for sliding against Surjan is one of the worst calls I've ever seen. Two players performing the exact same action, and because the ball bounced a different way, Goodes got a suspension. Then you get brain dead people pointing at this as some example of him being a sniper. Thankfully the thumbnail for the Youtube video shows both players doing the exact same thing:

The thumbnail also shows Goodes was going to be clearly 2nd to the ball. Usually if you're 2nd to it, you need to show some duty of care.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[beert]

Swans lost COLA due to Buddy

Hadn't we already lost COLA due to Tippett? I think Buddy caused us to get a trade ban.

I might have the order of events confused.

 

[Mundusa]

Primus's ruck style IMO was a huge reason the ruck rules were changed to make them more like basketball jump balls.

He'd walk up to his opponent, use his enormous superior strength to hold his opponent out of the way and then tap it where he pleased. He was dominant doing this, winning AA guernseys in 2001 and 2002 before the rule was changed to favour more athletic ruckmen.

He also used his strength to pick up and move his marking opponent in a contest.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

In 2008 when the Hawks introduced their zone, one of the best counters was to run through it with handball (Dogs ripped through it doing that in one game). To help counter, if a player ran at the zone and then handballed to a teammate, the Hawks would tackle the guy who just disposed, which took that player out as a future receiver. The freekick for it was just a downfield, which was almost always just play on, so even with the free Hawks were advantaged by reducing the overlap runners. That became a 50m penalty for the next season. (You can shepherd/block the guy, but the Hawks would just hang on to him to make sure he couldn't keep running).

The umps seemed to have forgotten this rule lately

 

[markr]

Hadn't we already lost COLA due to Tippett? I think Buddy caused us to get a trade ban.

I think trade ban was the trade period after the Buddy one where there was strong rumour that the Swans were going to get another big name in. I can't remember who it was though, looking at player movements that year maybe Ryder?

As I remember it you had lost COLA, but when the AFL said it was ending the Swans said "you can't take it away straight away, we've got current contracts", so you were given two or so years to wind it down, then word got our that you were going to bring a player on big dollars and the AFL put their foot down. If you needed two years to wind down COLA how could you afford to bring in a big name? So you were given the option of ditch COLA straight away and do what you want, or keep it for two more years but you can't trade in players on more than average salary.