Official-

New Rules

I love the play on rule is now the players decision not the ump!

Dont mind the substitute rule..but this is really the death of the 2nd ruckman..a KPF that can pinch is needed now!

ok that answers my other question in the other thread about the sub set up, its similar to soccer as in you can sub them on at any time. But you'd want to wait till as late as possible because if a player gets injured in the mean time your esentially down a man with on ly three rotations.

Next rule change will be the goal if it hits the post and goes through bullcrap they were going on about. Leave the rules alone for once FFS

Next rule change will be the goal if it hits the post and goes through bullcrap they were going on about. Leave the rules alone for once FFS

They hit that on the head today so I doubt it.

Advantage rule is good, 3 and a sub will be interesting.

I really wish they'd stop changing rules all the time. It's completely unnecessary. If they feel the need to change anything, they can change some of their "interpretations" on things like head-high contact, incorrect disposal and holding the ball. Perhaps if they were to call them the way they were supposed to there would be less need for pointless rule changes.

Intentional or not it worked out well for them to propose the goal post rule change then decide not to do go ahead with it, all the while getting the other rule changes done.

Intentional or not it worked out well for them to propose the goal post rule change then decide not to do go ahead with it, all the while getting the other rule changes done.

At the time I thought "clear diversion".

I also get the feeling the interchange rule may be changed back in a couple of years.

The substitute will cause issues.

Don't mind the substitute/interchange new rule

Don't mind the new head-high interpretation

I'm unsure about the player-decides play-on rule

Does that mean the player with the ball yells out "play-on" and blows a whistle (take note property stewards)?

Seriously though, surely only the ump can decide play-on. Players don't even know who the free is for. Will this result in more confusion and 50m penalties?

I would have thought a better solution would have been to allow more discretion to the umpire to allow play-on esp in those decisions close to goal (e.g. the Jurrah play-on goal).

Thoughts?

Good point Daisycutter, as it stands when the whistle blow players often have no idea what its for and who the free kicks going to. Maybe there should be a 15 metre penalty for unintentional penalties and 50m for blatant / intentional infringements?

Now we are getting to one of my pet hates - the all or nothing 50m penalty

I reckon there should be a 25m and a 50m penalty, with the 50m penalty reserved for more serious offences

but . . . . we're getting off topic

Don't mind the substitute/interchange new rule

Don't mind the new head-high interpretation

I'm unsure about the player-decides play-on rule

Does that mean the player with the ball yells out "play-on" and blows a whistle (take note property stewards)?

Seriously though, surely only the ump can decide play-on. Players don't even know who the free is for. Will this result in more confusion and 50m penalties?

I would have thought a better solution would have been to allow more discretion to the umpire to allow play-on esp in those decisions close to goal (e.g. the Jurrah play-on goal).

Thoughts?

Yes what happens if the player just gets run down from behind as he runs off the mark, Has Anderson or any of his cronies thought of this??

I can see major problems with this one....another AFL knee Jerk that they will blame someone else for and never themselves.

It means that if a player hears, or has enough time to 'hear,' an umpire call play on and they kick it, handball it, run with it, and/or give it straight up to an opposition player then the ump won't take it back.

It means that players who think that the ball should come back to the infringed have to make a split second decision to stop and not take the 'advantage.'

This would have been a good rule for Simon Godfrey.

Everytime 'Clanger' got the ball and heard advantage he could have said "No. Not taking it. Team instructions."

It means that if a player hears, or has enough time to 'hear,' an umpire call play on and they kick it, handball it, run with it, and/or give it straight up to an opposition player then the ump won't take it back.

It means that players who think that the ball should come back to the infringed have to make a split second decision to stop and not take the 'advantage.'

This would have been a good rule for Simon Godfrey.

Everytime 'Clanger' got the ball and heard advantage he could have said "No. Not taking it. Team instructions."

So, in that scenario Jurrah's goal still wouldn't stand, because the ump didn't give the initial play-on???

best advantage rule is the rugby union rule.

instead of the umps blowing the whistle for a free kick, they should just point their arm out and shout 'free kick advantage [insert team name]' and only blow the whistle when play is required to stop.

This allows the game to continue without anyone stopping (i.e. both teams can contest the ball continuously without fear of giving away a 50 m penalty). the umpires give x amount of seconds to the team to get it right i.e. if they don't actually clear the ball from the area (if they kick it 40 meters directly to the opposition bad luck, advantage is over because they gained ground.

Edited October 5, 201015 yr by deanox