Thoughts on an AFL equivalent to the Rugby ‘Forty/Twenty’ rule ?

[DidakDelight]

Both Rugbys have a rule which encourage and reward game breaking, attacking kicking where if you kick the ball from inside your own 40m line(league) and 50m line (union) and find touch inside your opponent’s 20m line you are rewarded with possession from where it goes out.

What effect (positive and negative) would a similar rule have in Australian Rules?

For the sake of this discussion let’s call it “90/ 50” rule.

1. If a player kicks the ball from behind a line which is 90m
from goal and finds touch inside his opponents defensive 50 arc.

2. Then his team is rewarded with a possession from where it goes out.

3. The closest forward takes possession of the ball and the mark may be brought in 10 metres from the boundary to allow an easier shot on goal.

4. If the ball does not find touch inside the defensive 50 arc a free, possession is awarded to the other team.

The advantages in the Rugbys are it encourages defenders to hang back and opens up congestion.

How would something similar effect footy?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

No. Too easy a skill to do in Aussie Rules.

It's a good attacking tactic in the NRL, but it's rarely attempted and rarely successful.

 

[DidakDelight]

No. Too easy a skill to do in Aussie Rules.

It's a good attacking tactic in the NRL, but it's rarely attempted and rarely successful.

Cheers mate,
I’m not suggesting it be a rule.
More of a discussion about how such a rule would affect the game?

What distance would make it suitable to not be so easy?

What if it was behind the halfway line. How would you see that affecting the game?

For example:

Deep in a game, would defenders hang back to prevent the tactic, leaving space open for a hit up lead?

Would certain teams exploit in on the turnover as a tactic with reward of a difficult shot on goal, or continue normal tactics towards goal on a fast break turnover?

Would it just be something which is very rarely attempted but up the sleeve and available which would occasionally burn opposition?

Could it be used to create immense pressure. E.g. A long barrel is launched and the defending player chasing a kick would be under massive pressure because if they don’t touch it, it’s a free, but if they do touch it and knock it out it would be deliberate . If they gain possession close to the line they’re under massive pressure.

I’m not suggesting it as a rule to be implemented just a discussion on how things could pan out with such a rule.

 

[ferball]

Cheers mate,
I’m not suggesting it be a rule.
More of a discussion about how such a rule would affect the game?

What distance would make it suitable to not be so easy?

What if it was behind the halfway line. How would you see that affecting the game?

For example:

Deep in a game, would defenders hang back to prevent the tactic, leaving space open for a hit up lead?

Would certain teams exploit in on the turnover as a tactic with reward of a difficult shot on goal, or continue normal tactics towards goal on a fast break turnover?

Would it just be something which is very rarely attempted but up the sleeve and available which would occasionally burn opposition?

Could it be used to create immense pressure. E.g. A long barrel is launched and the defending player chasing a kick would be under massive pressure because if they don’t touch it, it’s a free, but if they do touch it and knock it out it would be deliberate . If they gain possession close to the line they’re under massive pressure.

I’m not suggesting it as a rule to be implemented just a discussion on how things could pan out with such a rule.

I doubt it would affect it at all.

Sides will get the benefit of game breaking, attacking kicks by hitting forwards in space inside 50.

If the forward line is open enough to kick the ball oob its open enough to hit a target on a better angle within scoring range.

 

[DidakDelight]

I doubt it would affect it at all.

Sides will get the benefit of game breaking, attacking kicks by hitting forwards in space inside 50.

If the forward line is open enough to kick the ball oob it’s open enough to hit a target on a better angle within scoring range.

I agree.
I think as a rule it would have a minor effect on the game as a whole.

I think comparing the current “insufficient intent rule” with this imaginary rule, this one would improve the game.

 

[ferball]

I agree.
I think as a rule it would have a minor effect on the game as a whole.

I think comparing the current “insufficient intent rule” with this imaginary rule, this one would improve the game.

I don't mind the insufficient intent rule as a thing most of the time but some of the calls that get made are moronic.

I hated it at first but its definitely sped the game up and made it harder for teams to waste time and kill the clock.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

I don't mind the insufficient intent rule as a thing most of the time but some of the calls that get made are moronic.

I hated it at first but its definitely sped the game up and made it harder for teams to waste time and kill the clock.

Rule is trash, get rid of it. Umpires have no clue which makes it even worse.

 

[ferball]

Rule is trash, get rid of it. Umpires have no clue which makes it even worse.

If the umps had a clue it would be workable.

Plenty of other rules I'd get rid of first.

Stand the mark, 666, free kicks for rushing a behind (tho I''m coming round to the way players try harder to keep the ball alive in the last line), the no third man up rule is a bit sketchy (but I'm getting used to it) and the modern interpretation of prior opportunity is rubbish.

 

[DidakDelight]

I think with insufficient intent, in the situation where a player barrels it long and an opposition player trails it to the boundary appealing for deliberate and ultimately getting rewarded.

This type of scenario will eventually penalise the opposition player for insufficient intent because they had the opportunity to possess the ball and instead let it run out, it could be argued that they had the play on the ball and it was them who in fact had insufficient intent to keep it in.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

If the umps had a clue it would be workable.

Plenty of other rules I'd get rid of first.

Stand the mark, 666, free kicks for rushing a behind (tho I''m coming round to the way players try harder to keep the ball alive in the last line), the no third man up rule is a bit sketchy (but I'm getting used to it) and the modern interpretation of prior opportunity is rubbish.

I was going to go through all those rules to but thought I better keep it on topic haha.

The prior opportunity and illegal disposal change makes the game borderline unwatchable for me.

If you have your arms free while being tackled and if don't handpass or kick the ball, it's incorrect disposal. Just pay a free bloody kick. The number of players dropping the ball and its called play on drives me nuts.

 

[ferball]

I think with insufficient intent, in the situation where a player barrels it long and an opposition player trails it to the boundary appealing for deliberate and ultimately getting rewarded.

This type of scenario will eventually penalise the opposition player for insufficient intent because they had the opportunity to possess the ball and instead let it run out, it could be argued that they had the play on the ball and it was them who in fact had insufficient intent to keep it in.

That's a fair point, but it should really just be a throw in in those situations. That would end any advantage the opposition player would get from letting the ball go out. They'd be far more likely to take possession and try and keep control of the ball rather than risk a ball in and stoppage where they might lose a clearance.

In some ways in the modern game a long dump kick from stoppage, especially into the forward 50 if the side can hold it in there, is the AFL equivalent of that kick to touch, without the 40/20 side of it I spose. It gives the kicking team field position and the chance to set up defensively to lock it in for multiple i50s.

 

[ferball]

I was going to go through all those rules to but thought I better keep it on topic haha.

The prior opportunity and illegal disposal change makes the game borderline unwatchable for me.

If you have your arms free while being tackled and if don't handpass or kick the ball, it's incorrect disposal. Just pay a free bloody kick. The number of players dropping the ball and its called play on drives me nuts.

Yes. I agree 1000%.

What's worse is the amount of times that happens then players drop the ball while being tackled then appeal for a free kick for being held. And get it!!! Nick Daicos does it all the time. (But he's not the only one. Far from it.)