@Bobby McKenzie can we get some clarification?

26 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Nah I think he means when the player gets tackled to the ground.

You got it right. When the tackler brings his opponent to the ground. Not when two guys or more tackle a player in an upright position.

15 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

@Bobby McKenzie can we get some clarification?

I assume you are being funny Azz. I don't think it needs more clarification. Blind Freddy would get it. 

 

1 minute ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

You got it right. When the tackler brings his opponent to the ground. Not when two guys or more tackle a player in an upright position.

Should be also count if you are tackled and your team mate jumps on too.

39 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

So taking you back to the hawthorn win. When Watts was tackled by 2 players and he stood up in the tackle and kicked it to Tyson who snapped the sealer. You would have rathered that be paid as a cheap free kick because 2 players tackled him?

No, of course not. I did say only if the tackled player is brought to the ground and jumped upon by more than one opponent.

30 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Actually, I thought he was talking about the third player in being from the team who already had possession of the ball to help hold it in.

 

3 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

I assume you are being funny Azz. I don't think it needs more clarification. Blind Freddy would get it. 

 

Think you better tell blind freddy to inform @La Dee-vina Comedia of what you meant because he translated it another way.

6 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Should be also count if you are tackled and your team mate jumps on too.

That wouldn't be very smart to do that. It would give a free to the opposition. Third man on remember?

1 minute ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

That wouldn't be very smart to do that. It would give a free to the opposition. Third man on remember?

Thats what I am saying, whether it be the opposition or your team mate, third man on is penalised.

12 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Thats what I am saying, whether it be the opposition or your team mate, third man on is penalised.

You got it mate. It really is dead simple as long as the ump can count to three. Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that possibility!!!!!

1 minute ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

You got it mate. It really is dead simple as long as the ump can count to three. Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that possibility!!!!!

what if 2 players tackle an upright player and both take him to ground?

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what if 2 players tackle an upright player and both take him to ground?

I don't think it will work anyway, way too many variables to enforce and we don't want to add even more to the incompetent twits of umpires do we?

58 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

I don't think it will work anyway, way too many variables to enforce and we don't want to add even more to the incompetent twits of umpires do we?

Even the worst umpire would be able to tell if a player throws himself onto the pack with no intention of getting the ball nor tackling the bloke who has the ball.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

Even the worst umpire would be able to tell if a player throws himself onto the pack with no intention of getting the ball nor tackling the bloke who has the ball.

That is true, but what about when a player is standing about to be tackled by 2 players so he drops his knees and both players are tackling as they are falling to the ground?

Too many grey areas that will frustrate us with no real gains.

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Even the worst umpire would be able to tell if a player throws himself onto the pack with no intention of getting the ball nor tackling the bloke who has the ball.

that may be true now in some cases, but once the rule changes they would just learn how to disguise it and we'd be back where we started

15 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

That is true, but what about when a player is standing about to be tackled by 2 players so he drops his knees and both players are tackling as they are falling to the ground?

Too many grey areas that will frustrate us with no real gains.

There are always grey areas in almost everything.  But we very frequently see players throw themselves onto a pack on the ground apparently tackling one of their  teamates or an oppo tackler when the other team has the ball and has been tackled.  Clearly they are just trying to make a stoppage.  Stacks on the mill (if kids still say that?). Easy to police. 

There is no justidication for a player doing this.  First it is illegal to tackle an opponent who does not have the ball. Second it is illegal to receive a ball directly from the hands of a teammate - the ball must be handballed.  A fear of giving away a free will keep them a pace away from the tackled player and his one or multiple tacklers.  That will increase the chance the ball will come out and play will continue.   

3 minutes ago, sue said:

There are always grey areas in almost everything.  But we very frequently see players throw themselves onto a pack on the ground apparently tackling one of their  teamates or an oppo tackler when the other team has the ball and has been tackled.  Clearly they are just trying to make a stoppage.  Stacks on the mill (if kids still say that?). Easy to police. 

There is no justidication for a player doing this.  First it is illegal to tackle an opponent who does not have the ball. Second it is illegal to receive a ball directly from the hands of a teammate - the ball must be handballed.  A fear of giving away a free will keep them a pace away from the tackled player and his one or multiple tacklers.  That will increase the chance the ball will come out and play will continue.   

anyone physically  tackling the tackler should definitely be free kicked

8 minutes ago, sue said:

There are always grey areas in almost everything.  But we very frequently see players throw themselves onto a pack on the ground apparently tackling one of their  teamates or an oppo tackler when the other team has the ball and has been tackled.  Clearly they are just trying to make a stoppage.  Stacks on the mill (if kids still say that?). Easy to police. 

There is no justidication for a player doing this.  First it is illegal to tackle an opponent who does not have the ball. Second it is illegal to receive a ball directly from the hands of a teammate - the ball must be handballed.  A fear of giving away a free will keep them a pace away from the tackled player and his one or multiple tacklers.  That will increase the chance the ball will come out and play will continue.   

I have a PE teacher friend who has been trialing this in school games for quite a while and it has worked perfectly.

18 hours ago, steve_f said:

Trial in the pre-season no no prior advantage

Dont favor this.

When tackled dispose legally -  end of story

If you break a tackle good luck to you

Iv never understood the statue of limitations on the prior opportunity rule

 

 

On 09/02/2017 at 8:24 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

I hate the idea of zones, but I hate seeing all the players crammed up to one end of the ground.

Having said that, I still firmly believe that if a team such as Sydney left Franklin in the goal square, opposition teams would be reluctant to leave him there on his own, even if the ball was in their own forward line.

I hate zones too, perhaps with an exception. 

At a center ball up as well as limiting the numbers in the square maybe require all others to be within one or other 50 m arc. 

Could help get the game going more often.

 

On 09/02/2017 at 8:44 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

The one thing that sets Australian Rules football apart from every other major football code more than anything is that there is no offside rule.

Yet for some reason coaches no longer exploit this advantage of being able to have players forward of the ball at all times.

Pagan's paddock?  Would we use Jesse for that?  Or maybe Jack W4?  Could be worth a try. 

But not a rule, just a tactic. 

15 hours ago, special robert said:

two balls

Are you suggesting that the AFL needs a new CEO?

One rule change that could help is - "no more rule changes"! 

On 9 February 2017 at 11:09 AM, Chris said:

The answer to me is quite simple. Firstly the umps need to umpire the game as per the rules. Pay frees for holding the ball and don't let players just drop it at will, and pay frees for the obvious throws we see in every game. Doing this will mean the players will need to spread faster and wider and the ball will move on and results in less congestion. Strangly the AFL seem to have loosened the 'interpretation' on these rules and now allow players to drop the ball at will and the AFL will say it is better for the game because it keeps the ball moving. It does the bloody opposite you bunch of half wits. Doing this would also tire the players faster as they would need to be running and spreading far more that they are now. 

Secondly the interchange needs to be capped at a lower point that it is. Somewhere around 40 may well be right, each player can then basically have two breaks at some point during the game.

Chris what's your going rate to sit on the rules committee? You just solved the congestion problem in 2 paragraphs.

How much coin is Gil on again? ?

I'm not one for speculative rule-changes but hearing the umpire blow the whistle and yell 'stacks on' for a penalty may be worth it. Or we could go the other way and make it mandatory stacks-on to discourage the players (besides Viney) from pulling in the ball in the first place.

18 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Chris what's your going rate to sit on the rules committee? You just solved the congestion problem in 2 paragraphs.

How much coin is Gil on again? ?

If Gil and Fitzpatrick retire then I would sit on it for free!

I am onboard with the reduction/removal of the interchange. It isn't so much a rule change, as an adjustment to ensure the game is played the way it was intended, rather than the abuse of interchange rotations that crept in. KB is on the money.

16 a side and especially zones are ridiculous ideas. Imagine trying to enforce zones, plucking out random free kicks because of players out of position. It would be a disaster.

Just watched prelim gws v dogs, I loved the contest including the congestion

the game is great shape, no need for drastic changes

On 09/02/2017 at 11:23 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

Would a "no third person in" help to clear the congestion. It might make the other players stand back and act as receivers rather than just adding to the pack.

I would be interested to see how many stoppages are caused by one on one tackles as distinct from group tackles

Instinctively I don't like this rule but thinking about it you may be on to something. A good idea that could work with some evolution.