AFL Rules Committee produces yet another stupid rule change


#81

That would be a recipe for huge numbers of arbitrary free kicks that would puzzle and annoy everyone. In the past it was a ball up to resolve the deadlock and it worked well. The difference between then and now is that then the whistle was blown as soon as the pack began to form; now it’s delayed until half the players on the ground are involved. It should go back to the way it was.


#82

Good idea.
I would like to see goal umpires make the call and not ask for a review.

But instead give the full back 1 challenge a quarter.


#83

Agree as soon as the pack forms call a ball up. Don’t wait for the ruckman either.

The waiting for someone to clear the ball is just counterintuitive. It’s even worse when a player gets penalised for holding the ball despite the tackler holding the ball in.


#84

I like the old Leigh Matthews idea of having 5 umpires. One who just runs the central corridor, and four who run quarter of the boundary line each. These guys function as both boundary and field umpires. In theory that should give you one inside, and one outside, of each contest.


#85

I would agree if it were anyone other than Leigh Matthews who suggested it. He’s been involved in almost all of the shitty rule changes aimed at “speeding up the game”, which a) were completely unnecessary and b) have had exactly the opposite effect, plus the added bonus of creating utter confusion about the reason why most free kicks were awarded. His latest enthusiasm is for a free kick against whoever last touches the ball when it goes out of bounds, regardless of the circumstances. He is absolutely the last person I would listen to about rule changes.


#86

I don’t care about anything else he has said when considering this, and I think it’s a good idea.
Nothing bar this concept is relevant as regards it’s worth.


#87

Or just call for the ball up quicker?

-edit- older local footy umps are all over this. They’ll call a ball-up within about half a second of the ball hitting the deck


#88

Pretty happy that Woosha has identified holding dropping the ball a a key concern, to me they could consider dropping this rule almost entirely, only pay a chase down, maybe, and other complete howlers. Prior opportunity interpretation most of the time is ridiculously inconsistent, and the single most frustrating as a fan of any game, not just Esssendon games.
Its a complete lottery


#89

Probably to stop miserable sods like me from throwing cheapies at the bottom of the pack lol


#90

There was a totally ridiculous play on call against Hepp early in the Pies game, on the HBF. The chumpire called play on the moment the ball was given to him, before he had taken a single step. If he was off the line, he should have been called back. An utterly, stupid decision.


#91

Clearly he marked it off the line he should have been on, so that must be why they called play on. Needs to learn to take his marks in the right place


#92

Probably wouldn’t have made that mistake with a decent haircut.


#93

I just hope the Club are looking at the possible rule changes (particularly the designated starting zones) and looking forward to how this will change how the game is played and thus the type of players we will need in the future and start planning for that now i.e. this trade and draft period.


#94

You can’t plan your drafting and trading strategies around what might happen.


#95

Although our drafting and trading strategies were behind the curve as we failed to appreciate that it was becoming a midfielders’ game. We almost always had a tall in our first couple of picks.

That goes all the way back to the later Sheedy years. Too many speculative picks.


#96

We are just playing a long game, waiting for talks to become key again


#97

Being a staunch traditionalist, you know God Save the Queens, Sanctity of Marriage, Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child etc etc etc.

I suggest we return to the original rules, with the start having no Umpires and the Captains decide all infringements.


#98

Can someone explain to me what happened when Holman (I think) for GC was called to play on when taking a shot from outside the boundary in the 3rd qtr last night, and the umpire took it off him and called for a throw in.
I have recently queried the play on call when a player is taking a set kick from outside the boundary, and the answer given here was that the umpires will allow one change of direction eg inboard, but as soon as a second change in direction occurs, it is OOB.
That may be the interpretation they are using, but it makes no sense to me. IMO, you can’t “play on”, and the ball isn’t in play, until it crosses the line.
What happened in the Holman case? Did he take more than the 30 sec? Should it be an automatic throw in if he did?
I’m still confused.


#99

You don’t really expect anyone to be able to explain the rule in a way that makes sense, do you? That’s not the idea at all!

Imagine! Rules that make sense? What a bizarre idea!