3. Pay free kicks for incorrect disposal (including placing the ball on the ground, releasing the ball, holding the ball, throwing)
4. Do not pay free kicks for ducking into a tackle (sorry off topic but I couldn't resist)
Back to the future.
I would go back to 4 on the bench. No subs. No rotations.....yes players will be rotating on and off the bench, and injuries do hurt, but that's bad luck. Agree with umpires paying a free kick for incorrect disposal. And IMO that is the main reason we have rolling mauls as umps to afraid to pay a free kick, and not paying free kick encourages players to release the ball without incorrect disposal as it "came out during the tackle".
The days a CHF stayed home at CHF all day are long gone.
The better teams will beat the zones/presses/etc.
The weaker teams will continue to zone/press/etc to maximise their teams advantage..ie Inside body strength/elite field kicking/ stoppage work/ keepings off uncontested marks etc.
I can live with that. Do you want to tell the AFL or should I do it? I'm in Docklands next week I can drop in a letter at the front desk of AFL House.
"We don't pay ball ups right away because we want to let the game flow"
Agreed .
Ball ups make it worse. Players are drawn into stoppages.
With a quick ball up they won't have time. The maul draws in a few at a time then it becomes 10 on 10.
Yeh Rossoneri, Ball ups are one alternative. My proposal, at the very beginning of the thread explains the effect of giving frees immediately a maul forms.
After a while the mauls will not form in the first place . If there are too many players in a maul, a free kick could be very damaging for the side that loses out on the free kick. Its basically a self regulating thing.
The umpires have been conditioned not to give frees to keep the game flowing, but when a maul forms its better to give the free if its there. That will break it up. I am convinced. It requires no rule change at all !!!
I seriously fkg hate rule changes. They always seem "for the sake of it", ignore the current failings of the rules, and don't seem to address why they were bought in.
We have caps on interchange. WHY?
We have the sub rule. WHY?
We will probably bring in some stupid rule because of this fashionable argument. WHY? And most importantly Will it fix what it is created to fix?
"We don't pay ball ups right away because we want to let the game flow"
Agreed .
Ball ups make it worse. Players are drawn into stoppages.
With a quick ball up they won't have time. The maul draws in a few at a time then it becomes 10 on 10.
Yeh Rossoneri, Ball ups are one alternative. My proposal, at the very beginning of the thread explains the effect of giving frees immediately a maul forms.
After a while the mauls will not form in the first place . If there are too many players in a maul, a free kick could be very damaging for the side that loses out on the free kick. Its basically a self regulating thing.
The umpires have been conditioned not to give frees to keep the game flowing, but when a maul forms its better to give the free if its there. That will break it up. I am convinced. It requires no rule change at all !!!
A free kick should be paid when a free kick is there, not just because there is a maul.
Honestly. I think it is bullshit created by KB. So there often a couple of ball of in a row. So what. I don’t think the number of repeat ball ups is anywhere near intolerable. I do think umps should call for it quicker though.
This is what happens when you keep piling on rules to 'fix' the game. Other problems occur.
The umpire has discretion to not award free kicks when technical breaches of the rules occur.
Then the breaches shouldn't be there. This flavour of the month umpiring is only creating more confusion with people. Umpires not paying free kicks that are there is a problem.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
If they're so worried about returning the game to what it was, why don't they look back at what rules were in place then and analyse the game and how it's changed with each subsequent rule they've introduced and then consider removing it?
For each consecutive ball up within a 5 meter radius, each team has to take a player off until a goal is scored.
That's a modified version I had, as the other involved teams getting a designated sniper, who gets 5 shots a game, to take out players, albeit with sleeping darts not actual bullets.
Honestly. I think it is bullshit created by KB. So there often a couple of ball of in a row. So what. I don't think the number of repeat ball ups is anywhere near intolerable. I do think umps should call for it quicker though.
I actually think we need to make sure ballups are still a big part of the game. Preserve the importance of ruckmen and ruck skills. KB is the ultimate troll, wants less stoppages but also less running and also less maintaining of the ball by kicking it around, and also wants to do away with zone defences - ie everyone stand still, boot the ball as far as you can and randomly run after it.
Man's a fool.
