AFL - Good Ideas, Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea


#2526

I love him, but it should have been illegal when Longy was doing it


#2527

This is one of those ones that’s applied better in local footy than it is in the AFL. Umps note who the ruck is at the start of the quarter and just assume it’s always them, unless they aren’t in sight, and only then do they ask. AFL umpires seem to have this need to add a bit of theatre to everything.


#2528

Not really. “Uncertainty” would take the form of “bloke from the last stoppage isn’t at this one because they’ve gone to the bench/forward line”


#2529

They still have to try and get rid of it. Plus you’re also assuming they can just choose to basically replicate a contested mark willy nilly. Wasn’t an issue before the initial change, and won’t be now.

I fkn love this change on a personal level. Three times this year I had teams just straight up stop competing against me in the ruck, but I still had to tap it somewhere like an idiot.


#2530

Strongly disagree with keeping the hands in the back rule. It is a joke and has been from the second Richo did it in that Dreamtime game.

Lot of great marks should be paid hands in the back if the rule was applied strictly. Thankfully they got better at officiating it, glad its gone.

Agree completely at the idiocy of having to remove a rule they brought in themselves.


#2531

If they’re not competing, surely you can get a disposal away, at which point the rule is irrelevant?

Edit: says someone who’s never competed in the ruck. I’ll take your word for it.


#2532

Couldn’t you just spike it, volleyball style, into the face of one of their players.


#2533

There is so much about these changes I hate that I don’t when know where to start.

Handballing out from a behind? The addition of the 18m goalsquare by stealth? Playing on when a 50m penalty has been awarded and the other teams player is being taken back on his mark?

As usual, some of it sounds ok on paper but there will be unintended consequences galore.

Meanwhile, the one thing they actually could have done to reduce congestion (remove the nominated ruckman rule and just throw the thing up) they choose not to do.

The AFL rule book is insanely long by the way. It needs to be radically radically simplified. Don’t have a thousand rules for different types of contact - have one rule - if you perform any action on a player which unfairly takes them out of the contest - free kick.

I’d love to have a crack at simplying the rules like this - go right back to the fundamentals. Should this be a project for the two of us @ivan?


#2534

Even without the ‘hands in the back rule’…that incident was a push in the back. Clearly hands pushed his opponent out of a marking contests.

Plus that rule was in place for a good 1/3 of the season before that incident actually happened. After the first few games, when the rules was brought in…Not once have I thought, “gee, I wish they’d get rid of the hands in the back rule”.

I like it. I like the fact that I can clearly identify when the umpire is right or wrong. If any footballer is stupid enough to use their hands in the back during a marking contest, they would be pinged. It’s their own fault.

People including myself, are going to be losing our sh*t because the umpire has called ‘play on’, when it was a clear push in the back. Late in the game, which costs us 4 points or a final. I will put money on it.


#2535

It’s when the defender marks.
So if it’s marked on the goal line he isn’t forced to kick down one side of the ground because the man on the mark is so close to the fence.

Should enable the defender to choose which side to kick to without the opposition picking it well before the play has begun.


#2536

I’m of the opinion it’s generic rules that lead to a lot of the grey areas that then get filled with “interpretations”
Nothing wrong with many rules, as long as they’re clear and not contradictory.
It’s a complex game, when you think about it.


#2537

By the way, I look forward to the spectacle in the last minute of a game where the team leading by a few points takes a mark within scoring distance but refuses to take a shot because a miss will allow the opposition to basically get the ball back to the centre unopposed


#2538

The goal square will serve a greater purpose eventually.

Once they realise that all 12 players are milling around the 50 metre arc waiting for the bounce to flood the middle, they’ll enforce that one defender and one forward will need to start from the centre square.

Edit…
Just realised it’s part of these new rules…


#2539

There is no farking way this can be adjudicated accurately and fairly.


#2540

Think you’re overcomplicating there


#2541

This doesn’t get rid of any rules… you still need a rule to decide what ‘unfairly’ means


#2542

I know what you mean, but there’s a way it can be done.

At the very least, with simplified rules, you might have a half a dozen grey interpretation areas, not 20-30.


#2543

What I got from the release is that you can put your hand in someone’s back but not your forearm.

It’s an odd change: they haven’t paid it for about two years now after going full Fark Carlton initially, so I find it odd they felt the need to draw attention to it.

(I don’t have a problem with this change in isolation: as noted above, let the umps call the spirit of the game rather than 37 knee-jerked and contradictory additions.)


#2544

No you don’t really, in my view.

Certainly you’d have definitions. But essentially the interpretation should be done by the umpire given the context of the game and the specific infringing action itself, not by overly long and complex rules.

Look what’s happened with the sliding rule. They could have left that up to the umpire. The rule could have been - a dangerous slide is a free kick. But by trying to take the interpretation out of it (what is dangerous) and making the arbitrary below the knees rule, you’ve had a whole raft of ridiculous free kicks, where a player simply going for the ball, in a non dangerous way, gives away a free kick.

There’s a million examples of this sort of thing but I’ll give you another one. How many times have you seen a free given for a tiny push or a tiny hold where the player being infringed upon couldn’t have impacted on the contest anyway (maybe there were too far away, etc). They have to pay those as it stands but if the person being slightly infringed upon couldn’t have impacted the contest in any way, then who cares whether another player touched his jumper etc?


#2545

The one that really gives me the absolute sheets is the one about kick-ins after a point. It has every appearance of these clowns having put up the 18 metre goal square and having been laughed at so hard that they dropped it, then casting about for something similar that they could try and sell. It’s stupid, it’s complicated, and it’s aim is to fix a problem that doesn’t actually exist. There’s nothing wrong with the kick-in rule as it is now and has been forever. So why fix it? Leave it alone!!