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

[p4p1]

The players would need to make more of an effort to hold on to it or dispose of it. Players can get rid of the ball quite fast but usually hold on to it for a better option or possession play. I also liked Grant Thomas idea to penalize players who get pinned, to speed up the game rather than have endless ball outs. Maybe a 3 second count down if a player is clearly being pinned.

I just think if you swing the pendulum too far in favour of the tackler then you are disadvantaging the player who is making the play.

Ball ups in general should be decided on much quicker. The complete randomness is something I hate. The exact same thing can happen in a game with the ball being pinned in, the umpire decides to ball it up quickly one time, the next time he might give the player with the ball a decent chunk of time to get rid of it while it is being held in by the tackler/s and then pay a free kick against. The benefit of doing it quicker would also be that it gives players less time to get to the ball up, reducing congestion.

 

[p4p1]

They had something like this during the 2000's, but they seemingly removed it. I saw a match from 2007 where they brought the ball back because there was no advantage due to pressure.

I think the idea was that if a player decided to take advantage of a situation whether there was an advantage or not, the decision was on them. But in a 360 degree game, there is a very good argument for it being called back to the original spot if advantage was taken, without there being an advantage. It still penalises the team trying to take the advantage, giving the oppo time to flood back etc.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Even without the infringement rules the rucks still did a pretty good job of being at the contest most of the time.

That's cause no one thought of using anyone else other than a 200cm+ ruck at contests. Nowadays, you had 190cm Grigg become a Premiership ruckman, 184cm Pickett jumping over Max Gawn to win a tap out, alongside key fwds doing the rucking due to modern, structural needs.

This isn't an issue of "can rucks get to the contest". It's a tactics issue.

Pickett can't just randomly decide to go up in the ruck with the ruckman standing right there. If the ball is thrown up immediately that kind of information doesn't have time to be passed on. The players still need to communicate with each other who is going up, something an umpire should be able to pick up on.

Umpires can barely pickup their own ego in a footy match, so why should we expect them to pickup on some cryptic signal between players that tells a certain player to be the ruck?

Also, why do we expect this kind of thing to be decided between players on the spot at contests? Did Dimma just randomly think of using Pickett at ruck contests? No he didn't. Teams would obviously think these through during training to then be implemented on game day.

In fact, an actual ruck can be at the stoppage itself, but if a team decides that actually, we're not using our nominal ruck, but rather a 195cm midfielder instead, how would the ump know that the ruck isn't actually competing in the contest?

Or another example. If Luke Jackson and Sean Darcy are both near a throw in stoppage, how would the umpires know if it's Darcy or Jackson taking the ruck contest if there was no ruck nomination?

 

[Scritchyscroony]

I think the AFL have done a 1st class job - in making the game so much more watchable and goals being scored

I can remember 5-6 years ago approx Brad Scott was coaching North etc - and the CEO at Channel 7 said - look the Scott bros are great coaches but they are so defensive

At that time - you could turn on a Frid night game - and neither team had scored 15 minutes into the 1st qtr - nothing - no goals or pts - and didnt look like scoring - and CH 7 like everyone else want to see some goals - so they can play a few adds in between each - they are paying the bills

They might have seemed extreme rule changes at the time - but the proof in the pudding is in the eating

And i think they have done a 1st class job - because AFL was absolute shhiit - rugby scrum after rugby scrumm - unwatchable junk

Where as today the pendulum has swung back to actually looking like Aust Rules football

How much of that is due to rule changes as opposed to the obvious change in coaching and gameplay trends?
I'm pretty sure Collingwood would still be playing boreing ultra defensive footy if Buckley was still coach.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Stop staying “Stand”, just give a 25m penalty straight away.

No more warnings for 666 setup. Give the free kick straight away.

Stop nominating who’s in the ruck contest. Just toss it up if nobody’s there too bad. If two players from the same team go up it’s a free kick for the opposition. It makes team communication imperative.

Only do the ball bounce at the start of the game, throw it up from now on.

Get rid of the umpire dissent rule.

Get decent cameras for score reviews on every ground. If the score reviewers can’t make up there mind in 15 seconds it’s umpires call straight away.

“In the back” should actually be a push in the back with arms extended. Tackles in the back should be allowed.

I think these things streamline the game and would be the better for it.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Stop staying “Stand”, just give a 25m penalty straight away.

Get rid of the 'steeeeend' rule altogether. What has it accomplished exactly? It hasn't increased scoring, and it removes the psyche out element.

 

[jdstorm]

Could have it similar to juniors/suburban football where that player can be replaced but can't come on for 20 mins of game time or be subbed. Team with the yellow still has all its players on the field but is down a rotation.

Yeah not sure I think at a professional level you might want to penalise different things. How afl players adapt to 20 minutes off vs whatever else an amateur does is worth investigating

 

[Cleansweep17]

Get rid of the 'steeeeend' rule altogether. What has it accomplished exactly? It hasn't increased scoring, and it removes the psyche out element.

I’m good with that too, I think it does allow for some different plays and longer kicks though. Even if it’s minimal.

 

[Wallaby]

No more warnings for 666 setup. Give the free kick straight away.

Just a silly question - can anyone remember the last time we saw a centre square infringement? There used to be 2 or 3 a game.

Now, I don't watch a huge amount of non-Richmond games, but I really can't remember the last time I saw it happen.

 

[Jesslc]

Because it's a clean goal, and thus more rewarding. Shouldn't be rewarded for inaccurately hitting the post ever. Soccer is a different sport altogether where goals are very limited and it's much harder to score off the ground.

Oh “a clean goal”. Yeah, I love clean footy.

We should do turnovers if a player gets touched when they try and get around a tackle. That way you get rewarded for being completely clean with your posession.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Stop nominating who’s in the ruck contest. Just toss it up if nobody’s there too bad. If two players from the same team go up it’s a free kick for the opposition. It makes team communication imperative.

What about if a player is standing in front of an oppo and prevents him from taking the ruck? How is it a block if he's not nominated?

 

[LordLucifer]

-Dissent rule- gone
-50m penalty to 25m.
-30 seconds to 20 seconds shot clock.
-Kick backwards no mark, play on.

Been saying those for years, glad someone else wants them too.

 

[Scorpus]

If the umpire calls advantage but then after a few seconds it's evident there's no advantage, the umpire should stop play and revert to the free kick

 

[Do the Dew]

Don't blow the whistle and then call advantage, make it like soccer where the umpire let's it play for a bit to see if there's advantage.

Works better in soccer because there's only 1 ref. I think it's a great idea but it'd be ruined by an umpire blowing his whistle from 150m away because he thinks the controlling ump has missed a free kick.

 

[Do the Dew]

Basically just revert all of Hocking's rule changes. **** the stand rule off, **** the 666 rule, **** the protected area rule when it clearly doesn't impact the player with the ball, **** the kick-in running an extra 20m rule, and **** the ruck nomination rule (just make it that if a third man goes up it's a free against that team).

All these rules were brought in with basically 0 trial runs, and all but the ruck nom rule were supposed to increase scoring which they've failed at. All that has happened is teams give away more ridiculous free kicks and 50m penalties due to rules that nobody asked for.

 

[spudmaster]

To minimise long streaks, each consecutive win results in being able to field one less player the following week, while each consecutive loss allows the fielding of an extra player the following week.
#4:30amthoughts

 

[terrybull]

Been saying those for years, glad someone else wants them too.

Agree, but leave time wasting to 50 meters

 

[terrybull]

To minimise long streaks, each consecutive win results in being able to field one less player the following week, while each consecutive loss allows the fielding of an extra player the following week.
#4:30amthoughts

Imagine if they had this from 1897 to 1900.

St.Kilda after 48 consecutive losses would have had 66 players on the ground!!!!

 

[terrybull]

Enforce the rules even if it can seem harsh in some situations.

No more “common sense’ rule, as some senses are not common…

 

[GoldbergsGold]

I’m good with that too, I think it does allow for some different plays and longer kicks though. Even if it’s minimal.

It hasn't changed anything. Compare scoring and inside 50 counts before and after the stand rule was brought in, it's the same if not decreased. The game is still played the same, very congested.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Oh “a clean goal”. Yeah, I love clean footy.

We should do turnovers if a player gets touched when they try and get around a tackle. That way you get rewarded for being completely clean with your posession.

It rewards accuracy. May have well pay marks that have been touched beforehand or a half volley as a mark if they started allowing that type of leeway.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Basically just revert all of Hocking's rule changes. * the stand rule off, * the 666 rule, * the protected area rule when it clearly doesn't impact the player with the ball, * the kick-in running an extra 20m rule, and * the ruck nomination rule (just make it that if a third man goes up it's a free against that team).

All these rules were brought in with basically 0 trial runs, and all but the ruck nom rule were supposed to increase scoring which they've failed at. All that has happened is teams give away more ridiculous free kicks and 50m penalties due to rules that nobody asked for.

The only good rule changes was removing kicking to yourself, and getting rid of runners on the field, other than that, the rule changes have been the worst ever.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Just a silly question - can anyone remember the last time we saw a centre square infringement? There used to be 2 or 3 a game.

Now, I don't watch a huge amount of non-Richmond games, but I really can't remember the last time I saw it happen.

I see them every now and then maybe 2 or 3 a round. Still it’s annoying to hear and stalls play.

 

[Cleansweep17]

What about if a player is standing in front of an oppo and prevents him from taking the ruck? How is it a block if he's not nominated?

Tough, it should be up to the players to sort this out and out play their opposition. They aren’t babies and it’s fair for both sides if it’s a free for all.

I think it would be pretty cool to see a ball up with no rucks and everybody scrambling on the ground to pick it up every now and then. Makes the rucks a more important and valuable role.

 

[LordLucifer]

Unless someone can come up with a genuine/valid reason as to why it should be there, get rid of the 50m arc I say !!

If it's only purpose is so you can create an inside 50 stat then its superfluous.