I don't see what's wrong with that - but then I'm old enough to remember watching guys finish games with broken jaws, broken arms etc
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Potential rule changes- a discussion paper for clubs
- Thread starter nobbyiscool
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don't see what's wrong with that - but then I'm old enough to remember watching guys finish games with broken jaws, broken arms etc
- Banned
- #78
I'm old too... I also remember those days.
It's really simple. If players are fresher, then every kick must be earned, and every mark must be contested. Goals eventuate through good attacking play instead of defensive lapses through tiredness.
I fail to see the attraction of watching tired players run around at half pace. I don't get overly enthused about someone walking into an open goal while their opponent is standing on centre wing, buggered, with hands on hips.
I don't mind seeing tired blokes raise themselves for another effort. It is part of the heroism of great sport. And I'd rather see the fitter team win, rather than the team that handled their rotations the better. Just my POV.
- Banned
- #80
There are still heroic efforts and players raising themselves for one last supreme effort, although it isn't as obvious because the players aren't dead on their feet. I'd rather see an heroic last quarter effort where the player scored a goal by evading a serious tackle, rather than stepping around a tired, one-armed non-tackle.
I guess I have a few rules I don't like - bit here's the problem - all of them relate to changes made in the last 10 or so years (quick kick-ins, interchange etc). More changes - more 'pet hates' - for me and everyone else (your pet hates may be different to mine - so who's to say which is better/worse?)
So I say, leave the game be for a few years - for better or worse stick with what we've got and let the players and coaches work it out. Let the Rules committee meet once every 10 years.
Stop trying to make an 'attractive product' - it's a sporting contest, not the bloody MTC.
So I say, leave the game be for a few years - for better or worse stick with what we've got and let the players and coaches work it out. Let the Rules committee meet once every 10 years.
Stop trying to make an 'attractive product' - it's a sporting contest, not the bloody MTC.
- Banned
- #82
The attacking player has plenty of time to play on before before time on is called and the umpire lines up the player . The reason the umpires do this is because funnily enough players invariably try and gain that exta bit of angle ,
which would be cheating . Umpires actually have been instructed not to be so quick to blow time on if the angle is moderate and the players look OK .
.
Exactly, FIFA make changes but what they make are usually subtle changes that is for the better, like when players would pass back and GKs could pick it up. Teams would do that far too often as a time wasting tactic.
They altered the rule, now its exciting when a player passes back and an opposition gives chase and pressures the GK.
The AFL need to realise that they only need to change rules when necessary. Im certain that under the old rules the issue of rushing a behind wouldnt have been a issue. They changed the rule, its time they realised their mistake and reverted back. NRL did it with the obstruction rule. FIFA did it at WC2002 with a tackle rule, AFL must now too.
Memo to AFL: STOP CHANGING THE BLOODY RULES! 
It seems as though they have some sort of compulsion about changing rules every season as if to justify their positions in the game. The only thing they usually achieve is making the game more complicated to understand for players, umpires and, yes, fans who watch it.
It seems as though they have some sort of compulsion about changing rules every season as if to justify their positions in the game. The only thing they usually achieve is making the game more complicated to understand for players, umpires and, yes, fans who watch it.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,168
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
I understand that it's cheating when players try to improve the angle for a shot on goal. I'm talking about around the ground.
Does it really matter if someone on the half back flank takes his kick a metre or two off the perfect line? Should just be play on imo. It's just an annoying disruption to the play when the umpire calls the ball back over such a trivial matter.
Interchanges, and whether to limit their use
Hopefully it is left alone, if anything cap it at the level used in the past couple of years. I can't see a drastic reduction being good for the game. More tired players equal scrappy skills and less enjoyable football.
Rushed Behinds
3 points should be a NO go, as scoring options should only remain 6 or 1. I don't like the idea of having a ball up at the edge of the goalsquare. The only change I don't mind is the one that prevents teams who deliberately rush a behind from immediately playing on. Make them wait a few seconds, just to prevent it being used as a platform of launching quick attacks.
Kicking backwards
Once again I think the rule should be left alone. The umpires do a reasonable job handling this. When it happens regularly, they call play on quicker, and generally enforce the full 15m if not more. The teams that kick backwards in their half generally can do so because the opposition leaves players free, so a rule change isn't going to affect this all that much. I don't mind the odd kick backwards to aid an attacking move so hopefully this is left alone. If not ban it in the defensive half, don't ban it in the attacking half.
It appears my common theme is LEAVE IT ALONE, not all that surprising. The only thing I'd like to see is the hands in the back interpretation changed to push in the back, and rewarding players that attack the ball and only penalising them if they blatantly dive on it.
Also if 100 members can spill the board at Essendon, why can't x amount of AFL Club members spill the rules committee, as their actions are more detrimental to the game than any non-rules controversy we've seen this year.
I think the most popular changes would be a spilling of the rules committee, and banishing Adrian Anderson from any participation or contact with any form of Australian Rules Football for the remainder of his life.
The current coverage by Channel 7 has seen me stop watching almost all neutral matches on Friday and Sunday, due to the fact that they are seldom live, can't work out audio, and interrupt the standard flow of the game. The hand in the back and holding the ball interpretations are limiting my enjoyment of the games I do watch. Adding an extra component to the scoring system, or any other change that affects the quality of football negatively will more than likely see me watching 1 match a week at most.
Hopefully it is left alone, if anything cap it at the level used in the past couple of years. I can't see a drastic reduction being good for the game. More tired players equal scrappy skills and less enjoyable football.
Rushed Behinds
3 points should be a NO go, as scoring options should only remain 6 or 1. I don't like the idea of having a ball up at the edge of the goalsquare. The only change I don't mind is the one that prevents teams who deliberately rush a behind from immediately playing on. Make them wait a few seconds, just to prevent it being used as a platform of launching quick attacks.
Kicking backwards
Once again I think the rule should be left alone. The umpires do a reasonable job handling this. When it happens regularly, they call play on quicker, and generally enforce the full 15m if not more. The teams that kick backwards in their half generally can do so because the opposition leaves players free, so a rule change isn't going to affect this all that much. I don't mind the odd kick backwards to aid an attacking move so hopefully this is left alone. If not ban it in the defensive half, don't ban it in the attacking half.
It appears my common theme is LEAVE IT ALONE, not all that surprising. The only thing I'd like to see is the hands in the back interpretation changed to push in the back, and rewarding players that attack the ball and only penalising them if they blatantly dive on it.
Also if 100 members can spill the board at Essendon, why can't x amount of AFL Club members spill the rules committee, as their actions are more detrimental to the game than any non-rules controversy we've seen this year.
I think the most popular changes would be a spilling of the rules committee, and banishing Adrian Anderson from any participation or contact with any form of Australian Rules Football for the remainder of his life.
The current coverage by Channel 7 has seen me stop watching almost all neutral matches on Friday and Sunday, due to the fact that they are seldom live, can't work out audio, and interrupt the standard flow of the game. The hand in the back and holding the ball interpretations are limiting my enjoyment of the games I do watch. Adding an extra component to the scoring system, or any other change that affects the quality of football negatively will more than likely see me watching 1 match a week at most.
The annoying thing is, that like every sport, AFL has evolved over time through different strategies. The damn AFL seem to want it to stay the same for 100 years. Everytime someone brings a new strategy, they want to change the rules to stop it.
- Banned
- #88
Yes it is . The interpretation is two steps off the line is play on .
That's usually because a free kick was given but the player didn't return to the point of infringement but rather from a point of advantage . This can seem trivial sometimes , but sometimes small distances can have large consequences . eg. scoring and 50m penalties .
This very relevent today as a lot of clubs instruct their players not to stand on the mark , but inwards around the 5m exclusion zone , making it very difficult for umpires .
.
Similar threads
