Rule Changes

[RalphiusMaximus 6,103]

FIFA's 'book' would be the one that refuses to look at video referral for contentious goals etc., because they want the game 'experience' to be the same for Croydon vs Ringwood under 11's as for Spain vs Netherlands in the World Cup final! The World Cup 'blunders' throughout the tournament changed results of games. It was a blatent embarrassment. Their inability to change the rules to penalise 'staging' are bewildering.

All the AFL proposed rule changes have merit. The 'post shaving' in particular is a no-brainer. It would not change the way the game is played one iota, and would eliminate controversy, a la Hawkins in Grand Final last year.

FIFA are looking at introducing either extra referees or goal-line cameras to remedy the situation. However, they do not make wholesale changes to the game, and never change rules without giving them a lot of thought beforehand. Compare this to the AFL who seem to change the rules by the month. I know which model I prefer.

[DeeVoted 583]

1st thought,ok maybe I could live with the interchange being modified,Subs seemed like the best,kinda like when it was just

a 19th and 20th man. BUT then I wondered what do they do about the blood rule.???

A team has used all their subs,and hit a interchange limit, so suddenly those players that can come back on?

some are now exempt cause 2 players have blood gushing everywhere.

Another farce in the making.

If they go down this road, I hope the MFC stock up on those fake movie blood capsules, (fake blood steaming from mouth)

Want to get sent off for the blood rule, bite down on a capsule,off ya come.

Damn rule book will be bigger than a phone book soon.

[Lost Highway 31]

Lost Highway? Apt name here mate as it's not me making this sound more complicated. It is the proposed rule You are incorrect. If the ball bounces into the post BUT still crosses the goal line, it will be awarded a behind only.

Who is 'lost' here? Did I say anything about bouncing balls? Did the AFL? Read again.

So, here we head straight into another contentious call when a ball lands like a half volley on the goal line and scraps the post on its way through, is that a goal or behind Lost?

You tell me.

Crazy!

No, I won't tell you. Instead, read this again...

'7. Scoring system: If a ball hits the posts inside the goal-scoring area and goes through, it remains a goal. If a ball hits the posts inside the point-scoring area and goes through, it remains a point....

... Under the proposal, a score would be registered as a goal or a point provided the ball crossed the whole of the scoring line, whether it touched a post or not. If the ball hit a post and did not cross the scoring line, it would be registered as a point (for hitting the goal post) and out of bounds (for hitting the behind post).'

... and you should find the answer to your question.

The way people are bleating about this - 'Leave the game alone.... it makes our game different... and so on' - is downright silly. All kinds of idiotic rule changes are introduced, year after year, and the umpiring as a consequence becomes more and more capricious, trivial and vexatious, but finally the AFL comes up with something entirely sensible and look what you get from the 'fans', an appeal to irrational tradition. Some may be bemoaning the possible loss of that exquisitely satisfying moment when the opponent's kick - from an ill-deserved free, no doubt - grazes the inside of the post and only registers a point. If the rule were changed, the grazed kick that goes through for a goal would also come to be exquisitely satisfying or exasperating, depending on whose side you are on. The rule should have been changed decades ago.

[Dr. Mubutu 867]

Speaking of rule changes, whatever happened to the rushed behind rule? I could've sworn I saw ~3-4 last week alone that should have been frees.

Hopefully it was taken out the back and shot after the outrage from the Essendon game.

[Age 485]

- I actually think that some of the problems in the game come from the oval ball bouncing all over the place, therefore it probably should be made round so its bounce is then fairly consistent and not leading to possible neck injuries from following the bouncing ball.

- To limit shoulder injuries caused by the increased tackling, just get rid of them altogether, plus overhead marking and to stop any hand injuries, the use of the hands in general.

- Should also not be rewarded for missing, therefore remove the points and only give goals and if you come close enough and it bounces in off the post, give it a goal, at least you tried!

- Also, its not really fair that you can kick the ball over the defender's head, therefore, put a bar across the top so that it gives him more of a chance to stop it.

- The differing sized grounds contribute to endurance related injuries, therefore make them all smaller, maybe even rectangular in size which makes it easier for the cameras to follow the game.

- To stop flooding, maybe some form of offside rule should be introduced to keep players on the right side of the ball.

- An average of 120 minutes is way too long to play, therefore just 2 halves of 45 minutes should come in and once you go off the field, another player is substituted in for you and you are not allowed back on.

There are a few more things that need to be changed, but we don't want to tinker too much with the game...

[Red Sox 2]

Who is 'lost' here? Did I say anything about bouncing balls? Did the AFL? Read again.

No, I won't tell you. Instead, read this again...

Keep trying LH. I've copied the rule as it would be applied if introduced. Seems pretty clear to me that the ball cannot bounce through over the goal while making contact with the post.

http://www.afl.com.au/aflrulesyoursay/tabid/16504/default.aspx

a) Should the rules be changed so that a ball which hits the goal posts and goes through is still awarded a goal?

(Please note: ball would still need to be kicked and need to be on the full without being touched)

[titan_uranus 25,176]

Apparently a quarter of fans who've answered the survey at afl.com.au like the goal-post rule change. Either the AFL is lying, or there are a lot of stupid people out there...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100319/default.aspx

[beelzebub 23,390]

Still means 3/4 don't !!!

[Face Your Demons 175]

The hitting the post rule will not work, unless a net is set up. leave the game alone!!

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

Apparently a quarter of fans who've answered the survey at afl.com.au like the goal-post rule change. Either the AFL is lying, or there are a lot of stupid people out there...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100319/default.aspx

If a rule like that is changed, what happens to all the old Goalkicking stats and Records? It's a fundamental rule that just should never be touched. It's what makes Aussie Rules our own game, along with 3 or 4 other standard rules.

How many times did Norm Smith or Fred Fanning hit the post??

[e25 5]

Apparently a quarter of fans who've answered the survey at afl.com.au like the goal-post rule change. Either the AFL is lying, or there are a lot of stupid people out there...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100319/default.aspx

What exactly makes people "stupid" for liking the rule change?

I think it's fine how it is, but I really wouldn't care if that change was made.

Wouldn't bother me.

[titan_uranus 25,176]

I think it's fine how it is, but I really wouldn't care if that change was made.

Wouldn't bother me.

Really? You're ambivalent? First person I've met who doesn't care one way or the other.

[e25 5]

Honestly, it will change the game, but not drastically.

In the end I don't think it will make the game better or

worse, just slightly different.

If it has the benefit of making it easier for umpires to make the correct call, then I'm behind it.

Tradition is great, but fight for the things worth keeping.

[Eth 4]

So then if it hits the post and comes back into play, is that play on?

[e25 5]

No, the proposal is that this situation would be called a point.

[daisycutter 29,892]

What exactly makes people "stupid" for liking the rule change?

Dunno, probably the same reason you call people stupid because they have a different opinion to yours??

[e25 5]

Dunno, probably the same reason you call people stupid because they have a different opinion to yours??

Not really an answer, is it?

[daisycutter 29,892]

Not really an answer, is it?

I thought it was quite succinct . . . . but then I'm bored waiting for the Moto GP to start

[titan_uranus 25,176]

If it has the benefit of making it easier for umpires to make the correct call, then I'm behind it.

If that's the only reason for it then it's not worth it. There are plenty of ridiculous ways we could make the game easier for umpires.

How about we get better umpires?

Tradition is great, but fight for the things worth keeping.

Like?