Jump to content

Proposed new rules for 2019

Earl Hood
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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.

  • Quote
    •  

    ".....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 by monoccular

  • Quote
    •  

    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.

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 2

    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
    • Like 2
    • Love 1

    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

  • Quote
    •  
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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:(

  • Quote
    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.

     

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • 1 month later...

    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. 

  • Quote

    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.  

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    AFL prior to dumb rule changes

    giphy.gif

     

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

    giphy.gif

    Edited by faultydet

  • Quote
    • Haha 2
    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.

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Angry 1

    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?

  • Quote
    • Love 1

    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):

     

     

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Angry 1
     

    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".  

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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?

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 127 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Haha
      • 37 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 305 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland

    • GAMEDAY: St. Kilda

      It's Game Day and the Demons have traveled to Alice Springs to take on the Saints and they have a massive opportunity to build on the momentum of two big wins in a row and keep their finals hopes well and truly alive.

        • Like
      • 907 replies
      Demonland
    View All