Potential rule changes- a discussion paper for clubs

[estibador]

The AFL are starting to remind me of the old lady who swallowed a fly - bringing in new rules every year to counteract the effects of the last set of new rules they created. And we all know what ended up happening to that little old lady. I think there's a lesson in that for all of us.

I'm totally against any changes to the interchange system. Do we really want to see boring, mistake ridden final quarters because players are too fatigued to perform properly? There's nothing better than those frantic last few minutes in a close game when players are throwing themselves around desperately and the intensity lifts to amazing heights. I don't want to see that disappear because players are too buggered to lift to the occasion.

Leave rushed behinds as is. If teams continually want the trade off of gaining possession by gifting their opponents precious points then let them. We've already seen it cost teams games this year. And as the comp grows ever more even we'll see it costing teams more and more. It'll work itself out.

And are rushed behinds really a blight on the game? Only if you're one of those that can't appreciate tactical defensive play. The game is already way to heavily weighted in forwards' favour. We don't want to turn it into the equivalent of one day cricket where the backmen are nothing more than cannon fodder for the forwards.

Besides if we have a bounce then 99% of the time the defensive ruckman will belt it through for a behind. Or it will be scrambled over by the ensuing pack. Does that count as a rushed behind too? Sounds like another grey area, which is the last thing we need.

I could live with the kicking backwards rule as long as it didn't apply in the forward 50.

 

[clobba]

For me I wouldnt mind the backwards kick being play on...I hate it when they milk the clock, and maybe if its called a deliberate rushed behind that the FB is held up on the kick till the ump calls play on to stop the soft running the ball through that feels like a plague nowdays.
Even if the Ump makes a wrong call on rushed or not they still maintain possession but hopefully minimise a bit of kick to kick from one goal to another, whilst FAST can be fun it can also be a sort of pointless ping pong not Footy.

 

[greennick]

It's good to see that the AFL are prepared to canvas opinions rather than make changes and thrust them on the competition without consultation. This is an improvement on their previous modus operandi. But I wonder if the clubs will be self-serving or will they do what's best for the game?


Interchanges, and whether to limit their use

No.

Rested players = better quality football
Tired players = inferior football, cheap goals

They think this will stop flooding, but it won't. Not one bit.

This rule change will spell the end of the "natural" footballer
If they bring this in, eventually all players will need to be elite endurance athletes.



- (Deliberately) rushed behinds

The number of rushed behinds has DOUBLED in the last 3 seasons.
It's a plague. Bad for the game. Ruins the enjoyment of fans
Rewards mediocrity.

Take away their reward (possession of the ball) and call for a bounce.

Overnight, the number of deliberately rushed behinds will disappear tenfold.
Please, please, please, bring this rule change on!

Don't award 3 points!
That would give the umpires too much power to decide the result of close games.
It would also alter the way we've scored games for over 100 years.

Take the ball off the squibs and bounce it.



No Mark for Kicking the ball backwards

Yeah, why not? This won't affect things greatly anyway.
Teams kicking backwards are usually in hurry to switch and play on anyway.

The rule change will stop teams milking the clock in an unfair manner.

Agree entirely, those two changes would be good. The interchange bench one would make it worse. Although, that one would likely help the Eagles, so I would not be complaining too much!

 

[evs05]

And are rushed behinds really a blight on the game? Only if you're one of those that can't appreciate tactical defensive play. The game is already way to heavily weighted in forwards' favour.

i totally agree. i can't ever remember sitting at a game of footy and thinking "gee i'm sick of seeing rushed behinds".

in the last 3 years the AFL has:

• outlawed the "chopping" of arms, which formerly was used as a good defensive tactic
• been much harsher with the interpretation of "in the back"
• been much harsher with the interpretation of "deliberate out of bounds"
• been much harsher with the interpretation of "holding the ball"

and now they want to make it even harder for defenders by removing the attractiveness of a rushed behind. what on earth are they supposed to do? no wonder teams are flooding. the rules favour forwards so heavily it makes tactical sense to play 8 backmen and 4 forwards.

 

[Footylover1]

i totally agree. i can't ever remember sitting at a game of footy and thinking "gee i'm sick of seeing rushed behinds".

in the last 3 years the AFL has:

• outlawed the "chopping" of arms, which formerly was used as a good defensive tactic
• been much harsher with the interpretation of "in the back"
• been much harsher with the interpretation of "deliberate out of bounds"
• been much harsher with the interpretation of "holding the ball"

and now they want to make it even harder for defenders by removing the attractiveness of a rushed behind. what on earth are they supposed to do? no wonder teams are flooding. the rules favour forwards so heavily it makes tactical sense to play 8 backmen and 4 forwards.

I tend to agree with you. The more they make the game faster and more harder for defenders to defend, the more chances that the coaches will use the flooding tactics.

Maybe the AFL needs to step back from making rules that penalise the defender for once.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

At EVERY marking contest - players are jumping up for the high mark
No more cheating - no more hands in the back (not as much anyway)
More exciting marking contests. .

They could have simply policed the push more rigouously instead of inventing a rule that makes no sense.

 

[BrissoMash]

This is really starting to annoy me...

I've been watching footy for a few years now and something that sticks out for me during the Demetriou years is that every time something happens in the game itself that the administrators don't happen to like, the rules are changed to eradicate the apparent blight. I fully understand that these people are responsible for growing the audience of the game but surely not at the cost of alienating the existing fan base.

The quick kick in rule and the hands in the back rule are two that stand out for me. The first because the restart or kick in is not taken at the same time every time (balls not getting to players quickly enough, players not in a position to take the kick in etc). Too many variables, it should be equal for all teams and players at all times. The second rule because (and it's been said previously in this thread) the rulings are inconsistent, force need not necessarily be applied (which is absurd) and umpires aren't always in position to make a correct call.

The game and the way it is played evolves naturally over time, new coaches bring fresh ideas, new players bring different physical attributes. Players adapt, coaches adapt, the game changes. Don't like flooding? Don't like backwards kicking? Somebody will come along with a scheme for beating these things and BANG all of a sudden everybody will be doing it! I watch AFL games because I like watching the greatest game on earth, not because I want to see players adapting to new rule changes every year.

It smacks of arrogance that the AFL's own website says that this discussion paper is being circulated to "key AFL stakeholders so it can gain feedback on several rules". That's pretty funny because I, as an AFL club member and someone who PAYS MONEY to go and watch games, haven't been asked my opinions on the recent flurry of rule changes. Is the AFL afraid of what the fans might have to say? The game of Australian Rules Football is NOT the personal plaything of the administrators charged with running the game.

When was the last time FIFA changed the rules of soccer?
STOP MUCKING WITH THE GAME, PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK OF IT!





(Phew...thanks guys, I needed to get that off my chest )

 

[BrissoMash]

And now they want to change the interchange rules because the game is getting too fast with the number of "fresh legs" swaps!!! I just don't get it!!!

 

[Chewy]

They could have simply policed the push more rigouously instead of inventing a rule that makes no sense.

This debate has been done over and over, but in a nutshell:

Rules concerning push in the back became too murky once they allowed players to pace hands in the back and "hold their ground". It became impossible for anyone to adjudicate between legal and illegal pushes in the back.

In the old days, umpires were more strict. These soft "hands in the back" frees would've been paid as "push in the back". All the new rule has done has returned the marking contest to how it was from 1897-1987.

In 2007, we see the occasional "soft as butter" free for hands in the back.
I would estimate one, maybe two or three per game.

But the positive effect is that we no longer see cheats like Scott Lucas and Matthew Lloyd get away with nudging their opponents under the ball in marking contests. They still do it, but now they get penalised.

And so they should. Hands in the back = cheating.

Football is an instrinsically better game when players fight for the front position, instead of lurking at the back.

This issue is dying down anyway. Players now know they can't do it. They are adapting. We are seeing less and less of it, which is EXACTLY what the rule-changers intended. The game is better as a result. It's only the Nuffies who are slow to catch on to this, no offence...

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

Stop ****ing changing the rules!!!!

 

[Chewy]

This is really starting to annoy me...

I've been watching footy for a few years now and something that sticks out for me during the Demetriou years is that every time something happens in the game itself that the administrators don't happen to like, the rules are changed to eradicate the apparent blight. I fully understand that these people are responsible for growing the audience of the game but surely not at the cost of alienating the existing fan base.

The quick kick in rule and the hands in the back rule are two that stand out for me. The first because the restart or kick in is not taken at the same time every time (balls not getting to players quickly enough, players not in a position to take the kick in etc). Too many variables, it should be equal for all teams and players at all times. The second rule because (and it's been said previously in this thread) the rulings are inconsistent, force need not necessarily be applied (which is absurd) and umpires aren't always in position to make a correct call.

The game and the way it is played evolves naturally over time, new coaches bring fresh ideas, new players bring different physical attributes. Players adapt, coaches adapt, the game changes. Don't like flooding? Don't like backwards kicking? Somebody will come along with a scheme for beating these things and BANG all of a sudden everybody will be doing it! I watch AFL games because I like watching the greatest game on earth, not because I want to see players adapting to new rule changes every year.

It smacks of arrogance that the AFL's own website says that this discussion paper is being circulated to "key AFL stakeholders so it can gain feedback on several rules". That's pretty funny because I, as an AFL club member and someone who PAYS MONEY to go and watch games, haven't been asked my opinions on the recent flurry of rule changes. Is the AFL afraid of what the fans might have to say? The game of Australian Rules Football is NOT the personal plaything of the administrators charged with running the game.

When was the last time FIFA changed the rules of soccer?
STOP MUCKING WITH THE GAME, PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK OF IT!





(Phew...thanks guys, I needed to get that off my chest )

Good rant

But you are full of crap

The rules have ALWAYS been altered from year to year

Imagine if they never introduced the rule for kicking the ball out of bounds on the full.
Defenders used to boot the ball into the crowd as soon as they were under pressure.

We changed the rules.

But coaches and defenders got smarter.
They perfected the art of "finding touch" (translation: booting the ball out of play, but NOT out on the full)

We changed the rules and introduced the "deliberate" rule

Players got even more artful and skilfull and brilliantly disguised their attempts to find touch, by kicking 35m wobbly grubbers up the line and out.

So we got more strict - the umpires had a crackdown and paid some very harsh frees.


Result?

Players hardly ever kick the ball out of play.

The game is better.

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

- (Deliberately) rushed behinds

The number of rushed behinds has DOUBLED in the last 3 seasons.
It's a plague. Bad for the game. Ruins the enjoyment of fans
Rewards mediocrity.

Take away their reward (possession of the ball) and call for a bounce.

Overnight, the number of deliberately rushed behinds will disappear tenfold.
Please, please, please, bring this rule change on!

Don't award 3 points!
That would give the umpires too much power to decide the result of close games.
It would also alter the way we've scored games for over 100 years.

Take the ball off the squibs and bounce it.

No one I've spoken to actually cares about how many rushed behinds there are in a game. Just another case of wanting to change something for the sake of it. It's a joke, and no other sport in the world ****s around with their game like we do.

Deciding whether a behind is rushed or not will just put more pressure on umpires, and it is destined to cause disquiet just like the strict interpretation of deliberate out of bounds did last year.

Besides, footy is already hard for newcomers to get into because of all the different interpretations and rules, it's ridiculous to bring in more complications.

 

[Chewy]

There are more full time coaches finding all sorts of ways to bend the rules and gain the slightest edge for their team. Players are smarter than they ever were, more "professional"...

Wherever there is a loophole in the Laws, or a way to gain a physical edge in the contest, the players will test the boundaries every time.

Deliberate rushed behinds were never a problem because footballers were naive and believed it was better not to concede, but to play their way out of trouble. The only exception to this was in a tight game and there was only a few minutes to go. Only then would you see defenders concede behinds on the last line of defence.

But now footballers are smarter. Statistics have shown coaches that conceding 6 rushed behinds in one game of football is still better than conceding 1 goal. After all, you get to keep the ball. And with today's skill level, you're every chance to go "coast to coast".

Players know that conceding one behind, a single point, means nothing.
This is why they do it so willingly.

 

[Chewy]

No one I've spoken to actually cares about how many rushed behinds there are in a game. Just another case of wanting to change something for the sake of it. It's a joke, and no other sport in the world ****s around with their game like we do.

Deciding whether a behind is rushed or not will just put more pressure on umpires, and it is destined to cause disquiet just like the strict interpretation of deliberate out of bounds did last year.

Besides, footy is already hard for newcomers to get into because of all the different interpretations and rules, it's ridiculous to bring in more complications.

I reckon you can be a real simpleton, at times...

Everyone I know thinks it's a blight on the game.
Why does the whole crowd boo loudly when the full back chickens out?

What would you rather see?

- Rules that encourage defenders to take on the tackling, pressuring forwards
- Or rules that encourage defenders to take the easy way out and deny us excitement

And what is so complicated? It's actually really simple:
If the umpire thinks you've rushed it through deliberately, he'll say "My ball, fellas" and bounce it.
How hard is that?

The game will actually be simpler because defenders will no longer rush behinds deliberately.
We've removed their incentive to do so.

Instead we'll get to see some football the way it was supposed to be played and not this smarty-pants crap that has crept in as a result of professionalism and "win at all costs" mentality.

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

There are more full time coaches finding all sorts of ways to bend the rules and gain the slightest edge for their team. Players are smarter than they ever were, more "professional"...

Wherever there is a loophole in the Laws, or a way to gain a physical edge in the contest, the players will test the boundaries every time.

Deliberate rushed behinds were never a problem because footballers were naive and believed it was better not to concede, but to play their way out of trouble. The only exception to this was in a tight game and there was only a few minutes to go. Only then would you see defenders concede behinds on the last line of defence.

But now footballers are smarter. Statistics have shown coaches that conceding 6 rushed behinds in one game of football is still better than conceding 1 goal. After all, you get to keep the ball. And with today's skill level, you're every chance to go "coast to coast".

Players know that conceding one behind, a single point, means nothing.
This is why they do it so willingly.

Yes, we've established that there are more rushed behinds than ever.

Now can you give us concrete reasons why rushed behinds are a 'plague on the game'? I don't care how many behinds a team concedes. If they do it a ridiculous number of times, like Port on the weekend there's a good chance they'll pay for it.

The no marks for kicking backwards is one I wouldn't mind so much, as it is easy to enforce and actually adresses an aspect of the game that most footy fans have long disliked.

 

[Chewy]

Yes, we've established that there are more rushed behinds than ever.

Now can you give us concrete reasons why rushed behinds are a 'plague on the game'? I don't care how many behinds a team concedes. If they do it a ridiculous number of times, like Port on the weekend there's a good chance they'll pay for it.

The no marks for kicking backwards is one I wouldn't mind so much, as it is easy to enforce and actually adresses an aspect of the game that most footy fans have long disliked.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Watch any game of football. (Not West Coast, but a neutral game)
Watch the defender get harried near his own goal line.
Now watch as he swats the ball over for a rushed behind.

Or watch as he takes possession, looks up and sees a tackler approaching and backs back over the goal line with the ball in his hands.

Is this what you prefer to see?

Or would you prefer to see the defender play football, back himself in and get around the oncoming tackler, or handball it to a teammate.

The current rules make it a better option, a more percentage option, to concede the paltry point and receive the free kick.

Why should a footballer receive a free kick for deliberately killing the play?

 

[estibador]

Everyone I know thinks it's a blight on the game.
Why does the whole crowd boo loudly when the full back chickens out?

The crowd boo because the full back has just denied their team the chance of a goal. I've yet to hear a home crowd boo their own team for conceding a behind. In fact there's even applause when one of their backmen defuses a potentially dangerous situation by managing to desperately scramble the ball over the line.

It's just one of those things we hate the opposition doing but think it's smart play when our team does it. Just like everyone hates the aggressive niggling little bastard from the other team but loves them when they're on your side. Or how a player gets booed when he shirtfronts one of your players but the crowd loves it when it's their team handing out the hits.

I think it differs from other examples of teams exploiting rules (ie deliberate OOB) because it has it's own inbuilt punishment. Every time you do it you give the opposition a score. So you do it at your own risk - as the Doggies discovered the other night. It might only be a point but they all count.

 

[Kram]

Rush behinds don't really bother me. Fans only boo when the opposite team does it like when the ff lines up for goal. Anyway it's the AFL's fault for the increase by introducing the the instant play on.

 

[JedMack]

After a behind all opposing players should be made to clear the 50m arc.

Once that occurs it is play on.

 

[_RT_]

sorry if there's already a thread- i couldn't find one on the first 3 pages...

Adrian Anderson has released a discussion paper for clubs for the annual review of the game. There's discussion for a couple of rule changes on there, being

- interchanges, and whether to limit their use
- rushed behinds
- kicking the ball backwards

now, for my opinion- i think there's merit in changes to rules in all these areas. but does the afl think it will kill them to leave the rules alone, just for a couple of years?

its screams amatuerism to me for them to keep saying 'this is wrong, we must change it'.

Interchanges:
Don't limit the number because then you will end up with players suffering more soft tissue injuries than they are now as they push themselves further than they currently do now. Imagine if the Dogs had of run out of allowable interchanges last week with Johnson suffering tightness in his hammy and unable to go off and get treatment he ends up tearing his hammy and thue ruling him out of their remaining 4 games, effectively ending the Dogs finals chances. Will the people who recommend this stupid idea be happy with that being the result of their limitation to interchanges.

Further to that if the rule was brought in that allowed for an injured player to be removed from the ground without costing the team an interchange you would have teams trying to get players off the ground citing possible injury as the cause and then only to find that player being uninjured and able to come back onto the field after having rested for a few minutes while the 'injury' was treated. Which leads to another problem, who would have final say over whether a player sufficiently injured or not for such an interchange to occur. There are just too many complications to even think about bringing in a rule restricting interchange.

Deliberate Rushed Behinds:
Where a player deliberately handballs the ball/walks the ball over the goal line to conceed a point, i.e. he has other options other than conceeding the point be that a clearing kick or disposal to another team mate, the umpire should bounce the ball at the top of the goalsquare. A player kicking in from a rushed behind should be prevented from rushing a secondary behind if they are unable to find a target though. Too often you see the kick in player get called to play on, just kick the ball to himself and then walk it through. Doing this would automatically invoke the bounce of the ball at the top of the square

If a player is involved in a contest, be that marking or ground ball and is under pressure the player should have the availablity to conceed a point. As players are unable to head for the boundary in that situation because of the deliberate OOB rule it would give defenders some hope when under pressure from the forwards. Miss putting it through for the behind and it is a free kick anyway. Same rule applies as above the player kicking in is not allowed to revert to rushing the ball through if he can't find a target.

The effect of not allowing players to conceed a second behind would see the ball return to play more often and offer some reward to the team that is putting on the pressure in that the ball would need to be kicked back into the field of play or at worst a ball up at the top of the square.

In the event that the ball is knocked through for a rushed behind by the defensive team at the ball up the same rule about not being able to conceed a secondary rushed behind remains in force until the ball is kicked back in to the field of play.

Kicking The Ball Backwards:
Any ball kicked backwards should be called play on regardless of where it takes place on the field. If teams are unfortunate enough to take a mark on the boundary resulting in a tough shot on goal then bad luck.

 

[Chewy]

The crowd boo because the full back has just denied their team the chance of a goal. I've yet to hear a home crowd boo their own team for conceding a behind. In fact there's even applause when one of their backmen defuses a potentially dangerous situation by managing to desperately scramble the ball over the line.

Rubbish. The crowd don't boo the full back when he denies their team a goal by side-stepping the tackle and pinpointing a pass to one of his teammates.

They boo because he has taken the soft option and gone the coward's route.

It's just one of those things we hate the opposition doing but think it's smart play when our team does it. Just like everyone hates the aggressive niggling little bastard from the other team but loves them when they're on your side. Or how a player gets booed when he shirtfronts one of your players but the crowd loves it when it's their team handing out the hits.

It's smart play under the current rules because you've denied them achance to score 6 and conceded only 1. Of course you clap when it's your team. Of course you clap when one of your team's players dishes out a massive hit on the opposition.

But this doesn't make it right.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people would prefer to see defenders play cowardly rather than keep the ball in play and take their opponents on.

Remove your bias for a second, forget that it's your team involved.
Why is it better to see defenders kill off an exciting passage of play?
How on earth can that be more enjoyable to watch?

I reckon people just automatically oppose any rule change without even getting their brain into 1st gear.

I think it differs from other examples of teams exploiting rules (ie deliberate OOB) because it has it's own inbuilt punishment. Every time you do it you give the opposition a score. So you do it at your own risk - as the Doggies discovered the other night. It might only be a point but they all count.

Conceding 1 point is not really a penalty.
This is why teams continue to rush through behinds.

1,2,3,4 points per game is NOTHING when teams score 85-100 total points on average.

If it the conceded behind was a true penalty then the players wouldn't do it.

You haven't answered my main point -
If we changed the rules and penalised deliberate rushed behinds with a ball -up, then defenders would instantly stop rushing through behinds. Only under EXTREME duress would they do so.

Why would this be such a bad thing?

 

[Hap Hapablap]

reverse the hands in the back rule please.

No. No more rule changes.

thats the only thing i want adjusted. otherwise leave it alone.

 

[crimson]

sorry if there's already a thread- i couldn't find one on the first 3 pages...

Adrian Anderson has released a discussion paper for clubs for the annual review of the game. There's discussion for a couple of rule changes on there, being

- interchanges, and whether to limit their use
- rushed behinds
- kicking the ball backwards

now, for my opinion- i think there's merit in changes to rules in all these areas. but does the afl think it will kill them to leave the rules alone, just for a couple of years?

its screams amatuerism to me for them to keep saying 'this is wrong, we must change it'.

easy

no
no
and...... wait for it
no

leave well enough alone!!!!!

 

[Ants]

I don't mind rule changes as long as they're good ones. I was all for the change in the interpretation to hands in the back, as far as I'm concerned it makes it very simple for marking contests - you must contact the ball, not take out the player.

With these rule changes:

Rushed behind
I don't see these as a huge problem. If the change was small - say making the defender have to wait until the goal umpire waved their flags - I would be fine with it. But I'm leery with changes that rely on umpire interpretation. And the moment its simple, did a forward kick it? If not, its a behind. This would put a lot more grey into it, and umpires are human and make mistakes.

So I'd probably say no, or at least a small change.

Interchanges
Not particularly fussed, but the comment on the injuries does have resonance. I'd probably prefer a smaller interchange rather than restricting the number of interchanges. But any move like this should be recognised for the fact it will probably hurt 'traditional' footballers, youngsters (as its less easy to carry a player) and older players (for the same reason).

kicking backwards = play on
A big NO

This isn't some rule interpretation here. We're talking about a fundamental change to the game. The thing that makes it football and not soccer or gaelic footbal - the mark. This will have unintended consequences, you can bet your ass.

I'd heard that the rule's introdudution to the VFL encouraging flooding as well. It will force the play wide, which slows entry to the forward line and helps flooding.
One of the reasons for this is if you're on the wing now, any kick into the middle is doubly dangerous since if its backwards at all, the umpire will call play on. I know there was another reason they'd seen flooding in the VFL, but can't remember what it was now.

Again, its also adding interpretation to the umpires role.

For people whining over teams keeping possesion, well its pretty easy to stop that. Its called manning up. And if teams don't do that, there's no reason why teams won't still wind the clock down, as the guys will be as free as they currently are and don't need to mark it, just take possession.

So a big fat NO to that idea.

 

[memberforever]

To be honest The only one I would half consider is the interchange one.

Why, what difference does it really make?