What rule would you Add/Remove/Change to improve the game?

[situationz]

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.

I also really like this idea, it makes it much more likely that a marking contest will be won by one team or another, rather than "drawn" (end up in a ball up/throw in). Fewer stoppages and faster ball movement (not to mention fewer ticky-tacky frees) is almost always a good thing.

 

[Andyy]

Add: suspensions for initiating, staging or drawing high contact deliberately > if you deliberately take someone high you should be suspended, if it's an accident/football incident it should be fine. If you deliberately draw high contact or stage for a free kick you should be suspended.

Remove: Stand rule.

Change: Interchange numbers should be reduced DRASTICALLY. Each benched player should be swapped once/quarter unless for medical reasons > in which case the 'injured' player should be forced to remain on the bench for the next quarter.
Changes at intervals wouldn't count.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

50 metre penalties for minor offences are a blight on the game.

A rule I would like the AFL to consider is the one the SANFL have been using for around the past 4 years or so. That's the rule of the ball going out of bounds and the opposition gets possession of the ball (like in basketball). I didn't like it much in the beginning, but it really quickens the game up rather than stop for boundary throw ins.

Oh .. and the Stand Rule is an abomination.

 

[Black Diamond]

Change: Interchange numbers should be reduced DRASTICALLY. Each benched player should be swapped once/quarter unless for medical reasons > in which case the 'injured' player should be forced to remain on the bench for the next quarter.
Changes at intervals wouldn't count.

This would result in a lot more floggings and would not improve the spectacle at all.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Umpire sub: Crowd voted umpire sub.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Get rid of the rule that doesn't allow a player to come over the top and contest the ruck.

Nothing better than seeing a ball up near the goal square and a player (not the ruckmen) grabbing it and kicking a goal from nowhere.

If the current rule was in some years ago then Daniel Wells

Daniel Wells

Age

39

Ht

181cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.3

5star

K

11.7

4star

HB

7.5

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.6

4star

G

0.6

4star

No current season stats available

D

10.6

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.6

4star

G

0.6

3star

goal of the year in 2004 wouldn't have counted.

Actually, get rid of nominating the ruckmen as well. That rule, probably more than any other does my head in.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Get rid of the rule that doesn't allow a player to come over the top and contest the ruck.

Nothing better than seeing a ball up near the goal square and a player (not the ruckmen) grabbing it and kicking a goal from nowhere.

If the current rule was in some years ago then Daniel Wells goal of the year in 2004 wouldn't have counted.

Actually, get rid of nominating the ruckmen as well. That rule, probably more than any other does my head in.

Not nearly as much as the pre-existing rule that saw blokes penalised for apparently "blocking" the third man up.

We have such short memories at times.

 

[FakeTaxi]

Interchange to be reduced to 40. Players can rest forward if needed.

Time to start paying 50m penalties when a player holds the ball and points 2 to 3 times at the bloke who has been awarded the free kick. Prime one was Goldstein blocks De Koning out of the ruck contest. Umpire says free kick Carlron.. Goldy holds the ball and points at TDK and wastes an easy 5-6 seconds.. it was evident whos free kick it was.

 

[situationz]

I'll add another one: pretty much any rule that states "no advantage after..." should be scrapped. No advantage after a mark, no advantage after a centre square free, no advantage after a free by the out of zone umpire... and so on.

Otherwise, being paid a mark/free can actually hurt the receiving team (if the advantage would have had a better outcome), which is ridiculous and defeats the point of free kicks.

 

[Sentinel]

I'll add another one: pretty much any rule that states "no advantage after..." should be scrapped. No advantage after a mark, no advantage after a centre square free, no advantage after a free by the out of zone umpire... and so on.

Otherwise, being paid a mark/free can actually hurt the receiving team (if the advantage would have had a better outcome), which is ridiculous and defeats the point of free kicks.

A mark is not a free kick though so should be treated differently.

 

[situationz]

A mark is not a free kick though so should be treated differently.

Being paid a mark should be beneficial, no matter what. It's the same in that regard.

 

[burge13]

Remove Dwayne Russell

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I'll add another one: pretty much any rule that states "no advantage after..." should be scrapped. No advantage after a mark, no advantage after a centre square free, no advantage after a free by the out of zone umpire... and so on.

Otherwise, being paid a mark/free can actually hurt the receiving team (if the advantage would have had a better outcome), which is ridiculous and defeats the point of free kicks.

Maybe "no advantage after the whistle has blown" should be considered, as it magnifies the effect of that advantage by stopping players in their tracks - except for that one bloke on the infringee's team who cheekily weaves his way through all of those rightly abiding by the whistle.

In rugby, hockey etc the umps indicate with their arm if there's an infringement before they blow their whistle, so "advantage" then becomes a genuine advantage following the flow of play, not just because oppo players stop to avoid giving away a 50m penalty.

 

[situationz]

Maybe "no advantage after the whistle has blown" should be considered, as it magnifies the effect of that advantage by stopping players in their tracks - except for that one bloke on the infringee's team who cheekily weaves his way through all of those rightly abiding by the whistle.

In rugby, hockey etc the umps indicate with their arm if there's an infringement before they blow their whistle, so "advantage" then becomes a genuine advantage following the flow of play, not just because oppo players stop to avoid giving away a 50m penalty.

Spot on. I don't understand why they don't just do it like in rugby. Would eliminate virtually all issues we have right now with the advantage rule, and it's not hard at all to officiate.

I still think it's better to call a "magnified" advantage than to not call advantage at all, since at least then you're still punishing the team that gave away the free, not the team that received it.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Spot on. I don't understand why they don't just do it like in rugby. Would eliminate virtually all issues we have right now with the advantage rule, and it's not hard at all to officiate.

I still think it's better to call a "magnified" advantage than to not call advantage at all, since at least then you're still punishing the team that gave away the free, not the team that received it.

I initially thought this too.

I think there is one key difference. In rugby, the referee gives advantage (the player doesn’t take it), and if the team with advantage stuffs up the play they still receive the initial penalty. In AFL, the player takes it and then has to own any stuff up.

Rugby is a very stop - start game. I think the AFL wanted to avoid this, which is why they went with the player having to take advantage (and they can’t knowingly take advantage without hearing the infringement whistle to begin with). Otherwise, the game would keep getting called back, sometimes 60+ metres, which would really slow down play and confuse crowds in the stadiums.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I saw the AFL will consult with clubs about extending the bench to 5 players and removing the substitute.

I think this makes sense, but I’d go a step further. I’d extend the bench to 6 players (or even 8) and reduce the interchange cap further.

This would virtually eliminate the fatigue disadvantage teams experience when 1 or 2 players go down, and also enable more tactical adjustments in game. It would also enable blooding of more new talent, which I think fans would like to see.

The only downside I can see is potentially pulling more players away from reserved games, especially when the reserves team plays in another city that weekend - but I think this should be a secondary consideration. And any any case, we currently have a 4 man bench, substitute and I think 3 emergencies per game, so maybe it wouldn’t make much difference anyway?

 

[TENACIOUS]

1. If the AFL are serious about protecting the head, they need to change the rule about ducking…

If a player lowers the body or lifts the arm in a tackle it should become prior opportunity and if they get caught it’s holding the ball…

All it’s doing is teaching the younger generation to use their head for free kicks…

2. Go back to the HTB interpretation of years ago if you have prior opportunity to dispose or incorrectly dispose (not attempt to dispose) of the ball than it’s HTB

 

[Billy ray]

The rule where big 4 teams have different rules

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The rule where big 4 teams have different rules

You mean the rule where the other three Big 4 teams have different rules to one of the Big 4 teams?