How I'd fix the game.

[gOLLy 401]

I posted this in another thread but I thought it needed its own topic and a bit of elaborating. So here goes....

"In the Back"

It's about time we abolish this wishy washy rule. Players falling to there knees, diving forward or carrying momentum forward when he was going to ground anyways, is not in the back. Also a player that chase down a opponent and fall forward in not "in the back" ITS A TACKLE!

The one and only time it should be paid is in a marking contest. The player would need to be whiplashed to receive a kick. But for heavens sake let up see a show of strength. Allow pushing in the side. It is a strong contact game.

"Too High"

Unless a tackle clotheslines a opponent and rips off his head then this rule needs to go aswell. There are too many players shrugging their shoulders so the arm will slide up to cause a high tackle. Players also duck their heads and dive "INTO" head high tackles.

What ever happened to ducking the head? Players just go in head first for a soft free kick. Complete blight on the game and is just about cheating.

95% of free kicks in our game are soft and ruining the game. Bring back the show of strength.

"Secondary Bounce"

It makes our umpires look stupid and second rate. Its not apart of the history of the game. Either way a bounce is still 50/50.

Change the interpretation of these rules above and our game won't have anywhere near the "grey areas" of umpiring. It would also be alot easier to officiate.

Fans wont be so angry and frustrated that the game is going down the gurgler.

Something tells me this is how the game was umpired 50 years ago. Implement this and add the modern football player we have today, and we will have the best game on earth with out the stupid free kicks

EASY!

edit : spelling and grammar.

[Steamin Demon 392]

I posted this in another thread but I thought it needed its own topic and a bit of elaborating. So here goes....

"In the Back"

It's about time we abolish this wishy washy rule. Players falling to there knees, diving forward or carrying momentum forward when he was going to ground anyways, is not in the back. Also a player that chase down a opponent and fall forward in not "in the back" ITS A TACKLE!

The one and only time it should be paid is in a marking contest. The player would need to be whiplashed to receive a kick. But for heavens sake let up see a show of strength. Allow pushing in the side. It is a strong contact game.

"Too High"

Unless a tackle clotheslines a opponent and rips off his head then this rule needs to go aswell. There are too many players shrugging their shoulders so the arm will slide up to cause a high tackle. Players also duck their heads and dive "INTO" head high tackles.

What ever happened to ducking the head? Players just go in head first for a soft free kick. Complete blight on the game and is just about cheating.

95% of free kicks in our game are soft and ruining the game. Bring back the show of strength.

"Secondary Bounce"

It makes our umpires look stupid and second rate. Its not apart of the history of the game. Either way a bounce is still 50/50.

Change the interpretation of these rules above and our game won't have anywhere near the "grey areas" of umpiring. It would also be alot easier to officiate.

Fans wont be so angry and frustrated that the game is going down the gurgler.

Something tells me this is how the game was umpired 50 years ago. Implement this and add the modern football player we have today, and we will have the best game on earth with out the stupid free kicks

EASY!

edit : spelling and grammar.

Agreed, Especially about players ducking there head. This is creeping in at a alarming rate and has to outlawed.

[DangerousDemon 3]

I posted this in another thread but I thought it needed its own topic and a bit of elaborating. So here goes....

"In the Back"

It's about time we abolish this wishy washy rule. Players falling to there knees, diving forward or carrying momentum forward when he was going to ground anyways, is not in the back. Also a player that chase down a opponent and fall forward in not "in the back" ITS A TACKLE!

The one and only time it should be paid is in a marking contest. The player would need to be whiplashed to receive a kick. But for heavens sake let up see a show of strength. Allow pushing in the side. It is a strong contact game.

"Too High"

Unless a tackle clotheslines a opponent and rips off his head then this rule needs to go aswell. There are too many players shrugging their shoulders so the arm will slide up to cause a high tackle. Players also duck their heads and dive "INTO" head high tackles.

What ever happened to ducking the head? Players just go in head first for a soft free kick. Complete blight on the game and is just about cheating.

95% of free kicks in our game are soft and ruining the game. Bring back the show of strength.

rule.

"Secondary Bounce"

It makes our umpires look stupid and second rate. Its not apart of the history of the game. Either way a bounce is still 50/50.

Change the interpretation of these rules above and our game won't have anywhere near the "grey areas" of umpiring. It would also be alot easier to officiate.

Fans wont be so angry and frustrated that the game is going down the gurgler.

Something tells me this is how the game was umpired 50 years ago. Implement this and add the modern football player we have today, and we will have the best game on earth with out the stupid free kicks

EASY!

edit : spelling and grammar.

Hi Golly,

I agree with everything you just said and share your frustration with the in the back rule. I concur with your thoughts about tackling from behind and feel this is a blatant miss interpretation of the most basic rule. These are not things the umpires can miss when trying to adjudicate upon, these are blatant, easy decisions to make when the flow of play is at a meander. The issue with all the these cases lies in the fact that the umpires have little or now feel for the game, seek attention and attempt to insight the crowd with ridiculous and pedantic decisions that leave fans miffed and officials seething. In my view there is not a close game go by where the umpires do not have an impact upon the flow of the game and its status. They have an understanding of the implications of their decisions and continue to make blunders that are glaringly incorrect. I can recall a game quite a few years ago at the SCG when River threw the ball back to Schnider whilst he was standing the mark after a free kick. I have never, even seen a more pedantic and biased decision in my 25 years of watching VFL/AFL football. There are examples of the blatant disregard and contempt these men show for the game. If they are left to continue on this vein they will surely ruin it before the decade is out that is for sure.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

This is one I actually agree with Sam on. Basically all they've got to do to improve the umpire's role enormously is cultivate a culture of keeping a low profile. Don't over-umpire, let the technicalities go, if it's half a decent tackle & half in the back because he dropped forward, reward the tackle. Otherwise let it all go... the best umpired games have vey low free-kick stats. They're not the reason we go and watch, so recruit umpires who don't have enormous egos.

[deanox 9,914]

basically, free kicks should be paid if it is dangerous. if it is falling across someone in a way that could injure them, let it go. if it is acidental, incidental high contact that wouldn't be noticed, let it go. if it is a dangerous practice ie clothes lining, even if it doesnt cause a problem, penalise it.

there should be no such thing as 'winning' a free kick, ie going in head first to 'win' a kick, falling forward to cause the player to fall on you and 'winning' the kick.

that is the problem. if it doesn't affect the game, dont pay it.

[Rogue 585]

"In the Back"

It's about time we abolish this wishy washy rule. Players falling to there knees, diving forward or carrying momentum forward when he was going to ground anyways, is not in the back. Also a player that chase down a opponent and fall forward in not "in the back" ITS A TACKLE!

The one and only time it should be paid is in a marking contest. The player would need to be whiplashed to receive a kick. But for heavens sake let up see a show of strength. Allow pushing in the side. It is a strong contact game.

I don't think the rule should be abolished but I do think that the umpires are paying free kicks to guys that drop to the ground etc and haven't actually been pushed in the back.

"Too High"

Unless a tackle clotheslines a opponent and rips off his head then this rule needs to go aswell. There are too many players shrugging their shoulders so the arm will slide up to cause a high tackle. Players also duck their heads and dive "INTO" head high tackles.

What ever happened to ducking the head? Players just go in head first for a soft free kick. Complete blight on the game and is just about cheating.

95% of free kicks in our game are soft and ruining the game. Bring back the show of strength.

Again, I don't think the rule should be abolished/changed.

Umpires simply need to hold off on paying free kicks when players bend at the knees or duck their head etc.

"Secondary Bounce"

It makes our umpires look stupid and second rate. Its not apart of the history of the game. Either way a bounce is still 50/50.

I think this is fine.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,048]

I posted this in another thread but I thought it needed its own topic and a bit of elaborating. So here goes....

"In the Back"

It's about time we abolish this wishy washy rule. Players falling to there knees, diving forward or carrying momentum forward when he was going to ground anyways, is not in the back. Also a player that chase down a opponent and fall forward in not "in the back" ITS A TACKLE!

The one and only time it should be paid is in a marking contest. The player would need to be whiplashed to receive a kick. But for heavens sake let up see a show of strength. Allow pushing in the side. It is a strong contact game.

I don't entirely agree here. I absolutely back you when it comes to the players falling to their knees to milk a cheap free, but there are still instances where the tackler puts significant pressure into the back due to their own efforts. These still should be payed. All we really need is for the umpires to start reporting players who dive to milk frees from this rule, rather than being sucked in by them every time.

"Too High"

Unless a tackle clotheslines a opponent and rips off his head then this rule needs to go aswell. There are too many players shrugging their shoulders so the arm will slide up to cause a high tackle. Players also duck their heads and dive "INTO" head high tackles.

What ever happened to ducking the head? Players just go in head first for a soft free kick. Complete blight on the game and is just about cheating.

I would propose a rule amendment that says if the head is below waist height on the tackler, the tackle can not be high. This will help get rid of a huge number of these frees. It would also end the trend of players diving headfirst at the ball to win a free. It might also be worth making a point of which player is initiating contact. There have been a couple of reports this season when a player has lowered their head and charged a tackler to win the free, effectively headbutting them, and the poor tackler has been penalised.

"Secondary Bounce"

It makes our umpires look stupid and second rate. Its not apart of the history of the game. Either way a bounce is still 50/50.

edit : spelling and grammar.

I actually have no problem with the umpires recalling a bad bounce. Let's not forget that Melbourne suffered on the weekend when a bounce wasn't recalled, leading to an uncontested goal for WC. I'd prefer for the umps to learn how to bounce the thing properly, but it's better to have a second go than give one side a free run at the goal.