Rule change may be to our huge disadvantage

[Dees2014 2,377]

I detect there is a real push to clarify the out of bounds rule. It has been suggested that it should be changed to something like Rugby, Soccer and Hockey have i.e. the side that touches it last is penalised. I actually quite like this suggestion, I think it makes sense, but we Dees supporters need to understand its implications.

Think of it, we would effectively be eliminating more than 60-70% of powerful ruckmen like Max's role. Rucks would only come into into play as ruckman when there is a ball up at the beginning of quarters, after goals and around the ground as there will no longer be any throw in. It would in other words totally change the game in a way far more than for instance when they brought in the out of bounds on the full rule. 

Let's be clear here. There will be no role for giants like Max unless he turns himself into a Paul Salmon (not a bad idea incidentally). As it stands now though,  this rule change would greatly disadvantage us as we have by far the best tap out ruckman in the league. We need to be aware of this potentiality. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by Dees2014

[whatwhat say what 22,325]

Max takes marks all around the ground - that, not just his ruck work, is his biggest weapon.

If they turn it into 'last kick untouched generates a free kick' it will be a travesty. But, yes, you definitely get the sense it's coming.

[Lord Travis 10,542]

It would be bad for the game if that rule change happened. We'd see lots of cases like last week where Goddard just followed the ball out of bounds instead of taking possession as he was hoping for a deliberate out of bounds free kick or did not want to get tackled by Viney. Lowering stoppages around the ground would make the game even more frantic and cause skill levels to drop even further as players would be even more fatigue. Let's hope the rule change does not happen. If people want to want a sport with a lack of contests they should go watch soccer.

[Hellish Inferno 992]

Last kick that goes out (if untouched) is much better than last touch out, which would be ridiculous

[Deemented Are Go! 3,676]

Good point from OP; I never considered that element of such a rule change. 

Lot of noise about, but surely it won't happen? 

[In Harmes Way 7,716]

I reckon this is typical AFL tinkering. They'll change it, the players will become even more stuffed with the reduction in stoppages.

I do think they need to do something about the deliberate oob, but I have no problem with boundary throw ins and like the uniqueness of this in our game.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,927]

They want to reduce the length of games for broadcasters. They've already flagged reducing quarters to 17.5 minutes but there was push back against that. They'll want to bring in a last touch rule to reduce "time on".

The other thing they want is higher scoring so channel 7 can cram in more ads. The rule would force teams to play the corridors more which theoretically would lead to higher scoring.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Dr. Gonzo

[mattjm 151]

afl games go too long!!! games will come down to 4x20 min quarters no time on. mark my words. its the way of the future... get with the times ppl

[homsar 429]

I disagree this will hurt Max. IMO Max is so good because he can run all day and can take marks all over the ground. Sure, he is a great tap ruckman, but I actually think it is an overrated skill to be frank.

Where I think it will hurt us is having so many big-bodied inside mids. We have guys who love the contests created with a ball-up. I think if ball ups are reduced then the balance of mids needs to change to have more who can run and spread and use the ball really well in space. 

[brendan 3,433]

9 hours ago, TheCurseisBroken said:

Last kick that goes out (if untouched) is much better than last touch out, which would be ridiculous

Agree with this I remember they tried the last touch rule in nab cup few years back, and you had players handballing into opposition players near boundary so it would bounce out and they got a free kick, but with last kick I also wouldn't like seeing the opposition not trying to get the ball if it was going towards the boundary line, it's similar to what players do now and not try hard enough to keep the ball in it's not a good look 

[—coach— 3,496]

11 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

Max takes marks all around the ground - that, not just his ruck work, is his biggest weapon.

If they turn it into 'last kick untouched generates a free kick' it will be a travesty. But, yes, you definitely get the sense it's coming.

He's a pretty handy kick at goal too I reckon

[Dees2014 2,377]

7 hours ago, mattjm said:

afl games go too long!!! games will come down to 4x20 min quarters no time on. mark my words. its the way of the future... get with the times ppl

Why would television want to reduce length of games? I would have thought higher scoring games (therefore more ad breaks) but the same actual time would be perfect for Channel Seven. More "attractive" football, therefore higher ratings, therefore more revenue, equals wealthier AFL.

The rule change to last player to touch the ball before it goes out get penalised ticks all the boxes. It is what the AFL is all about - making money, not what is good for the game.

As I said before, it is just in this instance, it also makes us less competitive given the structure of our current side and its key personell i.e. Big Max. I am sure we will adjust, but it is a major change.

[John Crow Batty 8,832]

Problem with last touch rule  is that it gives the side receiving the free a huge advantage because they can kick the ball a long  way and there will be far too many cheap frees. The chaotic bounce of the ball makes luck a huge factor. Maybe put a rule similar to soccer where a player has to handball the ball back into play? Personally I don't like to go that way.

Seems umpires are getting DOOB wrong too often now is because they are influenced by the crowd reaction and also guessing when their vision is obscured as a lot of these decisions originate from crowded contested play and umpires are never positioned  boundry side where these incidents usually occur.

Edited May 6, 2017 by america de cali

[daisycutter 29,451]

leave the friggen game alone

[Moonshadow 17,602]

The SA league has a 'last clear kick or handball out' rule. Not off hands or body or in a contest. I like it with the tweak that opponents can't deliberately let the ball go over when they could've kept it in, such as we've seen in the AFL

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,284]

Was the deliberate out of bounds rule ever an issue until they started paying ridiculous free kicks in the last season or so?

Why don't the AFL listen to their supporters? The majority of people hate the current ruling and also hate the idea of changing to a last touch rule.

This makes me so angry and not want to turn up anymore just to spite the AFL, which I'm torn on as I love the Dees!

I am so sick of all the rule changes, surely we are the only sport in the world that changes this much year to year?

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Was the deliberate out of bounds rule ever an issue until they started paying ridiculous free kicks in the last season or so?

I don't get the AwFuL's strange obsession with OOB and rushed behinds which were never that big a deal.

 

And they introduce other things, like the 5 metre protected zone (now 10m?) without ever really enforcing it.

 

Fiddling on the edges.

Meanwhile ... they allow rampant throwing, acting as if they can't do anything about it.  "What if we accidentally penalised a legit handball?" -- hasn't stopped them with the OOB policing. Pay a few throwing frees for marginal handballs and in one week, the players will be executing clinical handballs right out of a coaching manual.

And they seem to have torn holding the ball out of the rule book. Watched some Blues/Pies and Dogs/Tiges and for each paid HTB free, there must have 5 let go where players simply drop it or place it on the ground.

 

1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Why don't the AFL listen to their supporters?

You mean Channel 7 and Fox? But they do!!!

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

The SA league has a 'last clear kick or handball out' rule. Not off hands or body or in a contest. I like it with the tweak that opponents can't deliberately let the ball go over when they could've kept it in, such as we've seen in the AFL

Keeps the role of ruckman. Retains throw ins.

Umps don't have to be mind readers.

Umps don't have to "interpret" anything.

This is so simple and logical that only the AFL could [censored] it up by ignoring it. (And more likely, by going straight to strict "last touch".)

[daisycutter 29,451]

1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Was the deliberate out of bounds rule ever an issue until they started paying ridiculous free kicks in the last season or so?

Why don't the AFL listen to their supporters? The majority of people hate the current ruling and also hate the idea of changing to a last touch rule.

This makes me so angry and not want to turn up anymore just to spite the AFL, which I'm torn on as I love the Dees!

I am so sick of all the rule changes, surely we are the only sport in the world that changes this much year to year?

listen to the supporters? are yo stark raving mad, man?

[beelzebub 23,254]

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

The SA league has a 'last clear kick or handball out' rule. Not off hands or body or in a contest. I like it with the tweak that opponents can't deliberately let the ball go over when they could've kept it in, such as we've seen in the AFL

yes..highlighted this over on that over place..  It's a good dare I say , compromise. It seems to work well there with little to no confusion. Ah wait....that's why  it's not implemented here. AFL loves confusion. Must leave ALL power with the Umps... I mean they're they to determine  control  impose ......who knows   referee ??   NAH !!!

[Moonshadow 17,602]

13 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

yes..highlighted this over on that over place..  It's a good dare I say , compromise. It seems to work well there with little to no confusion. Ah wait....that's why  it's not implemented here. AFL loves confusion. Must leave ALL power with the Umps... I mean they're they to determine  control  impose ......who knows   referee ??   NAH !!!

???

Kids got hold of your phone bub?

[beelzebub 23,254]

12 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

???

Kids got hold of your phone bub?

Hardly. Was agreeing the SA model is practical and preferred.

Also alluded to the OVER involvement of Gils dills and his game day lackeys in trying to be the game as opposed umpire it.

Get with it Moon 

[Moonshadow 17,602]

Just now, beelzebub said:

Hardly. Was agreeing the SA model is practical and preferred.

Also alluded to the OVER involvement of Gils dills and his game day lackeys in trying to be the game as opposed umpire it.

Get with it Moon 

Ooookay then...

[Dees2014 2,377]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

listen to the supporters? are yo stark raving mad, man?

I have a lot of problem with this "listen to supporters" stuff. If you took that literally there would be zero change and progress in the game. The common man has a huge resistance to change of any sort in almost all walks of life. It is the same in politics - you just need to see the historic results of referenda to see that. I'd rather leave it up to those in authority who have the knowledge and expertise to make the right decisions eg AFL/parliament to run the sport/country, and if you don't like it, chuck them out every three years in the case of politics, and elect to stay at home in the case of sport. 

No one can stand still in sport as in life if you want to progress and renew.