um, what really heavily favours us is the amount of fans that come to our games! no fans, should mean no teams. you said it yourself, non footy states!!!
-
LIVE: Port Adelaide v Carlton - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Port at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 12
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 11 Winner: denisp
What rule would you Add/Remove/Change to improve the game?
- Thread starter kingbob182
- Start date
- Tagged users None
tell me your joking! its a farce and a waste of time! not to mention open to conjecture! they pay it in milliseconds or minutes depending on their mood! over the mark was enough, it's just another blight on the game.
A kick must travel at least 20 metres. Not these 7 metre kicks that get the ok now.
Any kick that goes through the goals is a goal.
It doesn’t matter if it’s touched or not. That takes a lot of controversy out of it and the waste of time with the useless arc.
Get rid of 2 umpires off the field. Doubling the amount of idiots making decisions doesn’t improve the game
Get rid of the MRO. It’s a farce and open to an opinion. Nothing transparent about it. Too many discrepancies and inconsistencies
Overhaul the draft. Too compromised, too many bits and pieces to favour some clubs over others. If it’s supposed to be a tool that is used to level the competition make it simple, consistent and non compromised. Too many afl fingers in the pie.
Abolish the afl ambassador payment program.
Make it more transparent on who gets what. Whether it is coaches or players. From what teams and how much they get.
That compromises the TPP and soft cap. Make it equal for all clubs.
Any kick that goes through the goals is a goal.
It doesn’t matter if it’s touched or not. That takes a lot of controversy out of it and the waste of time with the useless arc.
Get rid of 2 umpires off the field. Doubling the amount of idiots making decisions doesn’t improve the game
Get rid of the MRO. It’s a farce and open to an opinion. Nothing transparent about it. Too many discrepancies and inconsistencies
Overhaul the draft. Too compromised, too many bits and pieces to favour some clubs over others. If it’s supposed to be a tool that is used to level the competition make it simple, consistent and non compromised. Too many afl fingers in the pie.
Abolish the afl ambassador payment program.
Make it more transparent on who gets what. Whether it is coaches or players. From what teams and how much they get.
That compromises the TPP and soft cap. Make it equal for all clubs.
Imagine if they adjudicated the "15 metres" maximum you can run without bouncing the footy by the same "15 metres" minimum you need to kick it for a mark to be paid.
Like it. It's not a round ball it might bounce anywhere. Although the umps don't seem to know that!!
- Sep 21, 2004
- 37,678
- 26,846
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Norwood & Liverpool.
The clock doesnt start until a ruckman touches it at centre bounces. Too many bounces recalled and each time lose 3 seconds
Don't mind that one.
- May 17, 2014
- 4,189
- 5,514
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I agree....except it isn't being umpired like it did when it was first implemented.
Remove the interchange bench. Have 4 on the bench that can be subbed off but not return. Would reduce burst game style and open the game up a lot more. Less crowded packs, smaller player frames etc would reduce occurence of a lot of injury types and also likely the amount of concussions.
- Apr 9, 2019
- 592
- 668
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Melbourne, Golden State Warriors
Get rid of touched and hit the post. If it goes through the big sticks, it's worth six, end of story. Stop the ridiculous hair-splitting over whether it grazed the goal post or a defender's fingernail.
Also, "not 15" should not apply to marks off an opponent's kick. (And while we're at it, may as well change the minimum distance from 15 metres back to 10 - it was just fine that way for 100+ years before they changed it in 2002 for no reason at all)
Get rid of nominating for the ruck and allow third man up again. Another pointless rule brought in to "solve" a non-problem.
Finally, get rid of 6-6-6. It was brought in to increase scoring, but did nothing of the sort (83.4 points per game in 2018 -> 80.4 ppg in 2019) so all it's really doing is adding unnecessary complexity to the game. Just admit it didn't work and pull the plug on it.
Also, "not 15" should not apply to marks off an opponent's kick. (And while we're at it, may as well change the minimum distance from 15 metres back to 10 - it was just fine that way for 100+ years before they changed it in 2002 for no reason at all)
Get rid of nominating for the ruck and allow third man up again. Another pointless rule brought in to "solve" a non-problem.
Finally, get rid of 6-6-6. It was brought in to increase scoring, but did nothing of the sort (83.4 points per game in 2018 -> 80.4 ppg in 2019) so all it's really doing is adding unnecessary complexity to the game. Just admit it didn't work and pull the plug on it.
Last edited:
Nah, no third man up, but if more than 1 player goes up from a team then free kick against
Also pay advantage like soccer and union
- Apr 9, 2019
- 592
- 668
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Melbourne, Golden State Warriors
yeah, getting rid of nominating is definitely the most important thing to me.
I don't see any good reason to ban third man up, but whatever
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 105,128
- 143,764
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
With Leigh. Start actually paying HTB more consistently.
Remove the ruck infringements unless he has him in a headlock its a ridiculous rule as both rucks look at the umpire not knowing who infringed its a test of strength ffs let them tussle its infuriating.
50m penalties for encroaching the mark/dissent another infuriating rule which is completely random when its applied Geelong and Melbourne game they were several instances of backchat disagreeing with the decision and nothing.
50m penalties for encroaching the mark/dissent another infuriating rule which is completely random when its applied Geelong and Melbourne game they were several instances of backchat disagreeing with the decision and nothing.
Late in last year's Grand Final, with 1.33 left on the clock after a Brisbane goal, I'm quite sure the Lions deliberately broke the 6-6-6 rule to force a warning and subsequent throw up rather than bounce to avoid losing crucial seconds.
There was a very good reason the nomination rule was introduced.
Because players in the vicinity of the ball up began to deliberately run into opposition players forcing the umpires to award them a free kick due to being blocked out of the ruck contest. Even if they weren't seriously going to contest the ball up.
Patrick Dangerfield became especially adept at using this loophole to draw a free kick.
The "third man up" rule appears to be a stupid rule, unless you remember how much stupider the previous situation was.
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
I would do away with shepherding out of the marking contest. It is terribly policed and heaps are missed every match. There is no consistency.
It also doesn’t stack up when you consider what is and isn’t allowed.
Just make it a free for all I reckon.
It also doesn’t stack up when you consider what is and isn’t allowed.
Just make it a free for all I reckon.
Yep.
It has got to the stage where it is more beneficial to be 1-on-2 than 2-on-1.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,149
- 34,458
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
For the sake of simplicity and navigating the laws around HTB, I've generally lumped HTB into 2 distinct categories.
1. Player in possession has prior opportunity... but then he tries to fend off the tackle... or he he tries to run through the tackler's arm and burst clear... or he tries to use his speed & evasiveness and step past the tackle... or he tries to handball it clear but the tackler causes an incorrect disposal ----> Easy decision for the umpire - HOLDING THE BALL!
These infringements mostly get penalised by the umps. Although they've probably slackened off to a degree in 2024.
But they seem to focus mostly on these type of HTBs. (Unless it's the Bont or Libba throwing the ball away)
2. Player in possession has no prior opportunity... He must still make an attempt to dispose of the ball. Just because he had no prior opp, that doesn't give him the right to do nothing and just hatch it. The laws state that when a player is tackled, he must be given a fair and reasonable time to dispose of the ball, but dispose of it, he must.
I'm okay if the umps give SOME leeway to the player in possession. If he had no prior, but he tried to get the ball clear and make the play, but was set upon by oppo tackler(s) and he didn't have a realistic chance, then it's fair to call for a ball up.
Except the umpires in 2024 have decided to take the ball-up option almost 100% of the time. The players have quickly wised up to this unfortunate, slack new interpretation. They just hold into it and wait for the ball-up.
Blatant holding the ball decisions are going unpenalised. The classic, textbook HTB scenarios which the fans for past 100 years have screamed, "BALL!!.... YEAH!!..." seems to have disappeared from the game in 2024. I think it's this aspect of the HTB rule which is really pissing off Leigh Matthews and every other footy purist.
What has happened to HTB? Where has it gone?
What has happened to "in the back" ? Gone. Like the rule never even existed. (Weak! Man the f**k up, umps)
Blatant high tackles (the 50-50 lineball ones with no ducking or staging) ? They're in the "too hard basket"... Play on!
