I think it's pretty simple, no need for zones. Just get rid of all coaches and Gil sets the predetermined tactics that players of all teams need to adhere to.

SSSSSSSS. Free kick Hawthorn, Gil said.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-trial-two-rule-changes-in-this-weekend-s-vfl-game-20180731-p4zun9.html

If only they were joking....

".....Under the trial, the team that has a player outside of their starting position will be penalised with a free kick. In the event that a player from each team is outside the required position then the player deemed to be furthest away will be penalised....."

More things for the umpires to get wrong.

And they say that trialing one rule at a time would be a waste of time !!

Is the "expanded goal square"  (which even now isn't square, and will be faster from that under the new rule, but that is me being pedantic) designed to encourage longer kick outs?  Is there anything to stop the FB kicking from the side of the 'square'?  

IMVHO not awarding the defensive side a mark until after the ball has cleared defensive 50 would encourage long kick ins more.

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by monoccular

Just laughable this rule.

You can just imagine the scrambling that will go on the moment the ball is bounced. Think of the players now days on the edge of the centre square and multiply it by a factor of three. Twenty seconds after the bounce we will be business as usual.

It'll be like the huddle times three. I think I'll call it the "unravelling" ...might catch on.

Why they did not start with a significant reduction in the interchange and work from there.

Einstein was not quite right.  He said something like insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a better result.  The AFL are showing that you can be insane and do different stupid things over and over again.

I’m over this crap. Gil and his circus got the game into this mess, rather than fix it by removing what they’ve created, they just make up more ridiculous rules. When does the buck stop with Gil? And how does the public get rid of him? Absolute arse clown 

Oh my god. They are serious

These rules will do nothing after 10 seconds. 

There must be alterior motives for not lessening interchange numbers

Idiots

Can someone tell Channel 7 that with no interchange, there will be no need for "boundary riders" and they can save $$$.

Is one of the proposed rule changes that Carlton is not allowed to pkay on Friday nights? 

2 hours ago, MSFebey said:

I’m over this crap. Gil and his circus got the game into this mess, rather than fix it by removing what they’ve created, they just make up more ridiculous rules. When does the buck stop with Gil? And how does the public get rid of him? Absolute arse clown 

infuriating.

idiots. 

The afl do not deserve to be running Our game.

 

They're literally running it into the dirt.

7 minutes ago, DV8 said:

infuriating.

idiots. 

The afl do not deserve to be running Our game.

 

They're literally running it into the dirt.

That they are DV8, that they are

2 hours ago, MSFebey said:

I’m over this crap. Gil and his circus got the game into this mess, rather than fix it by removing what they’ve created, they just make up more ridiculous rules. When does the buck stop with Gil? And how does the public get rid of him? Absolute arse clown 

Quote

But he reduced the price of chips at the footy.

 

Its becoming a web of crap all these rules, every one of them just a stupid reminder of some fad back in whatever year and the corresponding media hype that surrounded it. 

If you want  to know why the AFL gets rules changes wrong in so many ways, read this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-15/afl-rules-changes-may-reduce-scoring-not-increase-it/10247576

I've said it before but I'm conservative when it comes to AFL. Do not touch the [censored] rules. 6-6-6 is ridiculous. Unlike the economy, the game will right itself. My only hope is that the devil's number somehow means my Demons win more flags. 

The essence of our game is that any on-field player can go and get the ball at any time, from any direction and use any part of the body to contact the ball. At its heart is a chaotic form of liberty. Anything that compromises this principle should never be considered. My response to proposed rule changes:

No zones, no stupid extended goal square. 

Remove the no-3rd-man-up rule. Just let the umpire throw it up immediately. Any player can go for it.

Return to original holding the ball rule. If you are holding it and get caught, a free kick is awarded against you for holding the ball. If you drop it, bounce it or fumble it, then it is play-on. Removes 70% of ball ups (please stop calling them stoppages!). Only grey area it leaves is if the person throws it upwards. 

Stop players pushing the marking forwards in the back after they take a mark. Unnecessary and related to a lot of hamstring injuries.

50m penalty only relates to time wasting.  

AFL prior to dumb rule changes

 

AFL after Gil was given the keys to the design studio.

Edited September 16, 20186 yr by faultydet

1 hour ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The essence of our game is that any on-field player can go and get the ball at any time, from any direction and use any part of the body to contact the ball. At its heart is a chaotic form of liberty. Anything that compromises this principle should never be considered. My response to proposed rule changes:

No zones, no stupid extended goal square. 

Remove the no-3rd-man-up rule. Just let the umpire throw it up immediately. Any player can go for it.

Return to original holding the ball rule. If you are holding it and get caught, a free kick is awarded against you for holding the ball. If you drop it, bounce it or fumble it, then it is play-on. Removes 70% of ball ups (please stop calling them stoppages!). Only grey area it leaves is if the person throws it upwards. 

Stop players pushing the marking forwards in the back after they take a mark. Unnecessary and related to a lot of hamstring injuries.

50m penalty only relates to time wasting.  

But, please, the tackle must be correct first.

All too often the player who has the courage to go in and get it then gets taken high or in the back and gets pinged.

THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TACKLE MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE.

In my cynical mind, if the signal for incorrect tackle was as much a display of maggotrial flamboyance and ego as is the HTB waving of the arms, then it may be paid more often.

The extended goal square just seems so ridiculous.

If they want the ball cleared further on kick-outs, why don't they just get rid of the need to kick the ball to yourself to play on and just let them run out of the square. This will give them enough extra distance to kick it out further. If they move the man on the mark back a bit as well, it will get cleared further again. Has to be better than that stupid looking rectangle.

There are two rules that frustrat me :

The 50m rule for a bloke following his direct opponent within the protected zone. It is being milked.

Clarify the below the knnes rule , particularly the Brayshaw situation last week. Is Brayshaw supposed to wait there until the opposition player gets to the ball before he can tackle him. I thought the bloke with the ball should be protected, rather than the one that flies in knwees first and lands on the back of the bloke actually getting the ball. The rule was brought in to stopp the "sliding" into the contest area  and taking an opponent out. , but the ball carrier or competitor should be protected more.

Ar we going to legislate against the ClArrie/ Sellwood clash last week , when both players went for the ball and Clarries skills were sublime to maintin posession and feed the handball off in the time it takes to open the phone box door.

58 minutes ago, dimmy said:

There are two rules that frustrat me :

The 50m rule for a bloke following his direct opponent within the protected zone. It is being milked.

Clarify the below the knnes rule , particularly the Brayshaw situation last week. Is Brayshaw supposed to wait there until the opposition player gets to the ball before he can tackle him. I thought the bloke with the ball should be protected, rather than the one that flies in knwees first and lands on the back of the bloke actually getting the ball. The rule was brought in to stopp the "sliding" into the contest area  and taking an opponent out. , but the ball carrier or competitor should be protected more.

Ar we going to legislate against the ClArrie/ Sellwood clash last week , when both players went for the ball and Clarries skills were sublime to maintin posession and feed the handball off in the time it takes to open the phone box door.

Why hasn't the MRP looked at the Brayshaw incident. He was recklessly hit high while on the ground and it could've been a very serious outcome. Is it because if they applied a penalty it would mean the umpire had made a mistake?

I'm concerned about a small aircraft crushing Omac during one of our matches by mistaking the goalsquare for a runway. 

I'm also a bit concerned about this guy and regional Australia in general (Contains unsavoury language):

 

 

I have not heard one decent explanation for the extended goalsquare. It seems like it is focused on one thing only, kick ins.and one spect of the kick in, kicking long. How dare they infiltrate the state of the game discussion with this crap.

It seems inevitable that the AFL will bring in new rules in 2019. My concern is that it seems to be driven by a new AFL operations manager wanting to be remembered for having done something. So let me tell him what will happen. First they will be known as the "Stephen Hocking rule changes of 2019". This will inevitably be shortened to the "S. Hocking rule changes of 2019" and ultimately the "Shocking rule changes of 2019".  

6 hours ago, layzie said:

I have not heard one decent explanation for the extended goalsquare. It seems like it is focused on one thing only, kick ins.and one spect of the kick in, kicking long. How dare they infiltrate the state of the game discussion with this crap.

I assume as per status quo - you mark anywhere in the goal square and its directly in front?